My trans finally blew

GM transmissions are by far the cheapest units to rebuild in the industry,
Why is that? Cheap parts, or is it easy to do? Both?

Is cheap parts due to high demand? I realize that's a jab at GM but it has to be asked.

I know GM did tend to use the same design for years and years, so that helps drive costs down. When it's the same widget used for a long time, its easier to support on the parts side of things. As much as I dislike the 4L60 it sure did have a long run, as did SBC's.
 
Why is that? Cheap parts, or is it easy to do? Both?

Is cheap parts due to high demand? I realize that's a jab at GM but it has to be asked.

I know GM did tend to use the same design for years and years, so that helps drive costs down. When it's the same widget used for a long time, its easier to support on the parts side of things. As much as I dislike the 4L60 it sure did have a long run, as did SBC's.
I think it's probably the long run of parts. My Caprice had chassis and suspension parts that were 1971-1996 (mine was 83). 37 year old car and no problems getting parts.

As far as the 4L60E goes there was constant changes and upgrades over the years, which is why they definitely got better. (torque management probably helped a lot too). I think the biggest reason for the bad rap is how many people tow or otherwise beat the crop out of them and do zero maintenance. You will have a hard time convincing me they they're a bad transmission. In my experience they've held up better than Ford and Dodge of the same eras.

My father in law is the only one I know who had a low mileage failure. (100k in his 2004 express van that hauls a lot of weight and tows regularly). Once I rode with him and saw his driving habits it made more sense. He thinks all maintenance is a scam as far as I can tell. But doesn't believe it's his fault when everything breaks down. Luckily his other van has a 4L80E, so hopefully it can last through the mistreatment.
 
Why is that? Cheap parts, or is it easy to do? Both?

Is cheap parts due to high demand? I realize that's a jab at GM but it has to be asked.

I know GM did tend to use the same design for years and years, so that helps drive costs down. When it's the same widget used for a long time, its easier to support on the parts side of things. As much as I dislike the 4L60 it sure did have a long run, as did SBC's.
Mostly due to the long run, The TH400 was in production from 1965 to 1993 with no major design changes, The 700R4/4L60/4L60E ran a little longer (1982-2013) but there were several major updates along the way.

Yes....Demand is there partly because 4L60E's need a little more attention than other units, But there's also all the LSx engine swaps going on, GM trucks being VERY popular, And Corvette, Camaro, & GTO guys tearing them up.

Why do you dislike the 4L60E? They sure are a versatile & efficient unit....Once you change the ratio's to 2.84, 1.55, 1.00, 0.70 from 3.06, 1.63, 1.00, 0.70, They really shine! It also takes some loading off the Dynamic frictions in the unit (2-4 band & 3-4 clutch).
However was able to design a 4 speed unit that only uses 2 Dynamic friction members & 2 Planetary Carriers was a very talented engineer.....Though it might have been a whole team of engineers??

Most other 4 speed auto's need 3 Dynamic Friction member & 3 Planetary Carrier......4L80E, 200-4R, & 46RE are some examples.

The Ford 4R70W/AOD uses a single Ravigneaux planetary carrier which is basically 2 carriers built into one...But needs 4 Dynamic Friction members.
 
Why do you dislike the 4L60E? They sure are a versatile & efficient unit....Once you change the ratio's to 2.84, 1.55, 1.00, 0.70 from 3.06, 1.63, 1.00, 0.70, They really shine!
That’s basically it—in the lo-po years the deep gearing made sense, at least in truck applications, but in any high performance application that deep drop from first to second is pretty big.
 
Back
Top