WHAT are the "Advantages / Dis Advantages of electronic and NON electronic trans ( 4 speed Automatics)? Besides not needing a computer to run it, is 1 Stronger than the other ? Weighing my options for the Next Project Car. I haven't decided on engine/ trans yet, just that it Will be Automatic. I do like the 4t65e-HD, but if I use a 3.4 (Camaro with Fiero top end), I can't use the 4t65e, can I ? Might use 3800, 4.9, or 3.4 . Thanks
Just by what I have seen in the past. The 440T4 that does not have the removable output housing seemed to be a weak point compared to a 4T60e or 4T65e. Of course the 4T65eHD is going to be the strongest. But in the past did see a good amount of the 440T4s break that housing when the final drive exploded. You would have to hunt. But in one of the Bonneville forums, there is someone who shows how and what is involved, in putting the beefier final drives in a 440T4. It did look like a lot of work. I had/have a 4T60e in an 85 with a 3800SC. But I wasn't that hard on it. Also I was using a pre ODBII PCM. I had an adjustable modulator. Which I like over the shift pressure solenoid in the 4T65s. I also like that I was able to change my shift points in software/prom programming. A lot of time and work would have to be done to a 440T4 in the valve body only to find you didn't like it anyway. But you can adjust the modulator on a 440T4.
You can use a 4t65e with the 3.4. You will either need an ECM that can control it, as the Fiero ECM cannot, or you will need an external controller for it.
There are many advantages to having an electronically controlled transmission. Shift points can be altered much more easily. In the latest transmissions, there is no shift cable at all, which saves weight by not having the long steel cable, and the actual shifter mechanism in the interior can be smaller. You can have paddle shifters, and have a better manual shifting experience with an automatic.
E vs non E means nothing to trans "gears" etc... That just GM changing valve body for PCM control or not. yTxx... Y is forward gears, XX is relative strength for use on different applications/engines.
4T65 is a little stronger than 4T60, AKA 440T4, both are stronger then 3T40, AKA TH125c.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
The main Disadvantage of a non-electronic automatic transmission is getting it to shift where and how you want; which can be a very difficult (if not an impossible) task.
The main Disadvantage of an electronically shifted automatic transmission is the fact it needs some sort of control module (computer) to control it; which is the main advantage of a non-electronic auto (which does not need such a computer).
As far as strength is concerned, there was a period of time (which was passed some time ago) where the automatic transmissions GM produced kept getting better and better; as well as stronger as years progressed. But I think that peaked right before they went bankrupt in the last decade. Quality, strength, and reliability of their transmissions just don't seem to be as good as it was about a decade ago.
If we are talking about FWD 4-speed automatic overdrive transmissions that are electronically controlled that GM produced, the strongest one would be the 4T80-E commonly used with the Northstar. The weakest would be the 4T40-E/4T45-E. The 440T4/4T60 was weaker than the 4T60-E/4T65-E. The 4T60-E uses a lot of the same hard parts as the 4T65-E, so I don't think you can say the 4T65-E is really any stronger. My trans guru has found a fatal casting flaw in the case of the 4T65-E which compromises it's power handing capability but this flaw doesn't seem to apply to the 4T60-E's case. I've run a 4T60-E for about 15 years in my own Fiero now and I have run into an issue it has with shifting under extreme G-loads that the 4T65-E doesn't seem to suffer from. It might be pump related but I don't care to invest any more money into solving the problem since I really just want to upgrade to a 4T80-E so I can leave behind all the shortcomings of the 60/65-E class of transmissions (which is a concern of mine because of what I want to do in the future concerning power levels).
------------------ OVERKILL IS UNDERRATED Custom GM OBD1 & OBD2 Tuning | Engine Conversions & more | www.gmtuners.com
the 125s are cheap, BUT, they are ALL about $50 in a u-pull yard bought as a CORE. then they all cost just about $150 for a rebuild kit. so for the same price you get your choice. unless you want to do a crapshoot on if a junkyard trans is any good. I never install ANYTHING without rebuilding it first. (don't like having to do things twice)
I'm currently running my Caddy 4.9L V8 with the Isuzu 5 speed transmission. I used the stock Deville ECM, and Stickpony did the tuning for me to use with Isuzu. I want to switch to paddle shifters in my Aventador build. Since I plan on using the 4.9L for a while longer, what would be required to use the 4T80E? Does the 4T80E use the same bolt pattern as the Isuzu? Can the stock Deville ECM run the 4T80E (assuming the programming is changed as required)? I expect I'd need different axles...but I'm going to need new ones anyway with the widetrack rear. If I'm going to switch transmissions, now would definitely be the right time.
I'm currently running my Caddy 4.9L V8 with the Isuzu 5 speed transmission. I used the stock Deville ECM, and Stickpony did the tuning for me to use with Isuzu. I want to switch to paddle shifters in my Aventador build. Since I plan on using the 4.9L for a while longer, what would be required to use the 4T80E? Does the 4T80E use the same bolt pattern as the Isuzu? Can the stock Deville ECM run the 4T80E (assuming the programming is changed as required)? I expect I'd need different axles...but I'm going to need new ones anyway with the widetrack rear. If I'm going to switch transmissions, now would definitely be the right time.
You would probably want to use the 4t65E. The 4t80E has the Northstar bell pattern, which is slightly different from the Metric pattern of the 4.9L, TH125/440t4/4t60/4t65E, with provision for the starter being in the top center of the block on the Northstar.
You would probably want to use the 4t65E. The 4t80E has the Northstar bell pattern, which is slightly different from the Metric pattern of the 4.9L, TH125/440t4/4t60/4t65E, with provision for the starter being in the top center of the block on the Northstar.
How is the 4T65E for use with paddle shifters? I want to have positive control of the transmission through all gear shifts.
Originally posted by Neils88: How is the 4T65E for use with paddle shifters? I want to have positive control of the transmission through all gear shifts.
I haven't actually driven one with it, but I know paddle shifters have been done with that trans before. Some of the later 4t65E equipped cars also came with TapShift standard (like the GP GXP). I don't know which stock PCMs or TCMs allow a mostly manual mode though (where you shift into the highest gear you want the trans to be). You're not going to get anywhere near close to the same experience that the Ferrari or Lamborghini true F1 transmissions have with the paddle shift, on a GM trans.
I know you've also mentioned before that you want to go longitudinal at some point, so you might want to see what you can do with various Audi transmissions in that respect too. Would be a shame to spend all that time working on getting paddle shifting working with a transverse setup, only to have to throw it all out when you switch to a longitudinal layout.
How is the 4T65E for use with paddle shifters? I want to have positive control of the transmission through all gear shifts.
I believe it will have everything to do with how it's tuned. One of the guys on the G6 forum added paddle shifters to a trans that had tapshift, but I've heard it said that the tapshift/paddle shift is not that quick. All of that is controlled by tables in the PCM or TCM. Shift duration, line pressure, torque management, etc. I haven't messed with mine, but I have looked at the file and read the tables. (I only have a 4T45E in my G6, bolted to a 220 HP 3.5, so I have to believe that GM has it "governed down" to prevent it from shattering the trans. which has the side effect of making it not do anything "quickly".)
Along the same lines... does anyone (Darth?) know if the 4T65E uses the same electrical connections as the 4T45E? The 4T65E was used in the 3.9 version of the G6, so I know that brackets and stuff are available to bolt it in. I figure that if I start messing with the tune on the 4T45E, it's days are numbered. It's probably marginal as it is.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 04-04-2015).]
I believe it will have everything to do with how it's tuned. One of the guys on the G6 forum added paddle shifters to a trans that had tapshift, but I've heard it said that the tapshift/paddle shift is not that quick. All of that is controlled by tables in the PCM or TCM. Shift duration, line pressure, torque management, etc. I haven't messed with mine, but I have looked at the file and read the tables. (I only have a 4T45E in my G6, bolted to a 220 HP 3.5, so I have to believe that GM has it "governed down" to prevent it from shattering the trans. which has the side effect of making it not do anything "quickly".)
Along the same lines... does anyone (Darth?) know if the 4T65E uses the same electrical connections as the 4T45E? The 4T65E was used in the 3.9 version of the G6, so I know that brackets and stuff are available to bolt it in. I figure that if I start messing with the tune on the 4T45E, it's days are numbered. It's probably marginal as it is.
It seems the 4t45E is a slightly stronger version of the 4t40E, and is rated for around 205 lbs-ft of max torque. The FWD cars with TapShift will generally feel pretty meh when trying to use TapShift or paddle shifters, as all the FWD transmissions are generally weaker. Even the G6 GXP with the 6t70E feels a bit slow when shifting. The Cobalt SS might be a little more aggressive, as it was actually marketed more like a real sports car. The Camaro and Corvette are more aggressive with the TapShift, and the C7 Vette is probably the most aggressively tuned TapShift car.
I don't know if the connector/wiring is the same on both transmissions, as I don't have the diagrams. Do the 3.5/3.9 use a separate TCM, or does it just use a single PCM like the 3800 cars? The 4t65E that comes with the LS4 cars uses a separate TCM. I guess it should be easy enough to check if you know someone else with a 3.9 auto G6 to compare your 3.5 to, and the connectors are easily visible.
Thanks for the info & opinions guys. Based on what you've said and the fact that I will eventually be working on the longitudinal swap, I will stick with my original plan for now. I am still expecting to be running with the 4.9 / Isuzu for at least 3 years before I have the longitudinal ready for installation. My original plan was to use the paddles to control the Isuzu shifting through two high speed actuators. The downside is that I will still have to drive using the clutch, but I think it will be fun to drive it like that. May take a little bit of time to re-teach the muscle memory and the desire to have the shifter in my hand. But I will be creating a center console very similar to the stock Aventador...which doesn't allow any gear shifter there.
I have been considering the Audi transaxle for when I do the longitudinal swap. It is the right configuration, but I will only consider it if I can have it built up to handle the power level I am aiming for. More likely, I'll end up using the Porsche transaxle, which is quite a bit tougher. But I'm not thinking too far ahead yet. The Aventador build is the main focus right now.
Thanks for the info & opinions guys. Based on what you've said and the fact that I will eventually be working on the longitudinal swap, I will stick with my original plan for now. I am still expecting to be running with the 4.9 / Isuzu for at least 3 years before I have the longitudinal ready for installation. My original plan was to use the paddles to control the Isuzu shifting through two high speed actuators. The downside is that I will still have to drive using the clutch, but I think it will be fun to drive it like that. May take a little bit of time to re-teach the muscle memory and the desire to have the shifter in my hand. But I will be creating a center console very similar to the stock Aventador...which doesn't allow any gear shifter there.
I have been considering the Audi transaxle for when I do the longitudinal swap. It is the right configuration, but I will only consider it if I can have it built up to handle the power level I am aiming for. More likely, I'll end up using the Porsche transaxle, which is quite a bit tougher. But I'm not thinking too far ahead yet. The Aventador build is the main focus right now.
If you want to go manual, the Porsche trans might be better. If you want a paddle shifted automatic, then the Audi is probably better. I don't think a Porsche automatic would work, as it would need to be upside down (which isn't a big deal for the manual, but would be an issue for an automatic). Otherwise, if you want paddle shifting with a manual transmission, try to find a sequential manual gearbox that would work in a mid engine configuration.
If you want to go manual, the Porsche trans might be better. If you want a paddle shifted automatic, then the Audi is probably better. I don't think a Porsche automatic would work, as it would need to be upside down (which isn't a big deal for the manual, but would be an issue for an automatic). Otherwise, if you want paddle shifting with a manual transmission, try to find a sequential manual gearbox that would work in a mid engine configuration.
I agree it's going to be difficult to come up with a good solution...but that is why I'm going to get the current setup working so I have something to drive while I'm solving the problem of the next setup. You are right that the Audi transaxle is probably the best option...just as long as I can have it built up.
Lou6t4gto...sorry for hijacking this thread, we went off on a bit of a tangent...
You would probably want to use the 4t65E. The 4t80E has the Northstar bell pattern, which is slightly different from the Metric pattern of the 4.9L, TH125/440t4/4t60/4t65E, with provision for the starter being in the top center of the block on the Northstar.
The 4T80-E will still bolt up to a 3800 despite the bell housing bolt pattern being slightly different. There is one bolt on the 4T80-E that doesn't match up with a hole on the 3800 but this isn't an issue considering where it is located. Now the LS4, even though it uses the same bell housing bolt pattern as the 3800, will NOT allow a 4T80-E to be bolted to it because the differential housing on the 4T80-E is too large and physically interferes with the LS4's block. I have no idea if this would be a problem on the 4.9.
quote
Originally posted by Neils88:
How is the 4T65E for use with paddle shifters? I want to have positive control of the transmission through all gear shifts.
I did a Fiero swap using an LS4 and a 4T65-E HD with the TAPShift and an aftermarket paddle-shifter setup that mounted on the steering wheel. I did not personally care for the paddle-shifted 4T65-E. It seemed laggy and harsh at times, like the transmission was tying up during some of the shifts. But I think that can be said of any of the 4-speed FWD automatics GM made. They originally were designed as fully automatic transmissions and the TAPShift feature was added in later as an afterthought. The newer 6-speed automatics with paddle shift controls are much more smooth and respond faster while being manually shifted, but these are completely redesigned transmissions with that function in mind from the beginning.
Personally, I wouldn't use a paddle-shifter with a 4T60-E, 4T65-E, or 4T80-E.
quote
Originally posted by Raydar:
I believe it will have everything to do with how it's tuned. One of the guys on the G6 forum added paddle shifters to a trans that had tapshift, but I've heard it said that the tapshift/paddle shift is not that quick. All of that is controlled by tables in the PCM or TCM. Shift duration, line pressure, torque management, etc. I haven't messed with mine, but I have looked at the file and read the tables. (I only have a 4T45E in my G6, bolted to a 220 HP 3.5, so I have to believe that GM has it "governed down" to prevent it from shattering the trans. which has the side effect of making it not do anything "quickly".)
Along the same lines... does anyone (Darth?) know if the 4T65E uses the same electrical connections as the 4T45E? The 4T65E was used in the 3.9 version of the G6, so I know that brackets and stuff are available to bolt it in. I figure that if I start messing with the tune on the 4T45E, it's days are numbered. It's probably marginal as it is.
I believe that the wiring and electronics of the 4T65-E and the 4T45-E are similar in many respects, but I would need to know what year transmissions we are comparing so I could examine wiring diagrams for both to see what's different (if anything).
I can tell you that the pressure control tables in the PCM programming are much different between these two transmissions.
quote
Originally posted by dobey:
Do the 3.5/3.9 use a separate TCM, or does it just use a single PCM like the 3800 cars? The 4t65E that comes with the LS4 cars uses a separate TCM. I guess it should be easy enough to check if you know someone else with a 3.9 auto G6 to compare your 3.5 to, and the connectors are easily visible.
2006-newer 3.5/3.9 computer systems use separate ECMs and TCMs. 2004-05 3.5 computer systems still used a single PCM to control both the engine and trans. All 2004-up 3800 Series 3 applications also used a single PCM to control both the engine and trans. Things were different for the RWD cars and trucks; but for the most part, everything went to separate ECMs and TCMs after the 2005-06 model year.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 04-06-2015).]
