4l60e lasted only 12k miles.....
03-10-2009, 03:39 PM
#21
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dickinson,Tx
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea that might be a lil bit of a pita. I've been deffered to a guy here in my area that's builds alot of the 11-12 sec truck trannys around here. It's way better deal than...... All I'm gonna say. Let's just say lots of good words and good strong trannys come from that way. But we will see. Just dropped the truck off and it was slipping worse with the stock tune loaded back in.
03-10-2009, 11:33 PM
#23
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you rather have, some power robbed, or being broken down on the side of the road. The 4l80e is what should come STOCK. The 4l60e is built to go behind 4 and 6 cylinder engines in cars making 150hp, not a 4500lb truck with 330hp. Also consider cost....fully built 4l60e = $2500. Low mile 4l80e takeout = $800.
03-11-2009, 01:14 AM
#24
Read this - enjoy!
More from James, this time on the 4l60e vs 4l80e
If you get a chance to compare design schematics of 4L6X and the 4L8X you will notice something interesting...
The 4L60/65 is really a two-speed transmission with overdrive.
-two planetaries
-overdrives low for "second"
-overdrives direct for "fourth"
-band engages overdrive
-clutch pack engages direct
The 4L80/85 is actually a 3-speed trans with overdrive.
-three planetaries
-clutch pack for forward (first)
-clutch pack for intermediate (second)
-clutch pack for direct (third)
-clutch pack for overdrive (fourth)
-has 2 bands, but they are for reverse and overrun, NOT shifting
The problem with bands used for shifting is that they cannot be overworked without becoming harsh. The band is wrapped around the reverse input clutch drum in the 4L60 and is used for second and fourth. The more pressure is put on a band the more self energizing they become, and it will start grabbing, causing jolting shifts instead of firm shifts.
The 80 uses only clutch packs to shift and each shift is a single event. It is more more precise, responds much more linearly to line pressure increases or to a shift kit, and it transfers power effortlessly.
The 80/85 is not just stronger, it's designed far better.
And finally, a discussion from James on building up a 4l60e
Keeping in mind that my opinion is worth about TWO things: Jack and ****, here goes....
Getting the most out of a 4L60 or 65-E in a high powered application is really a matter of setting up a whole lot of things just right. Even though they can be built and set up not to break, they just cannot serve high power for long. The amount of friction surface is just too small.
Setting up a 6X "right" is a balance between extending the lives of the friction materials as much as possible without putting too much stress on the hard parts. Firmer shifts prolong friction materials life but place greater stress on the hard parts.
The weaknesses in the hard parts are well known:
- planetary carrier casting failure, upgrade to 5-pinion ones from 65-E
- sprag failure, upgrade to Borg Warner 29-element double cage sprag
- reaction shell spline collar fatigue cracking, install aftermarket "Beast" shell
- plastic accumulator piston failure, why GM chose here to save pennies.. ?
- input shaft/drum breakage, aftermarket hardened unit available
- PWM regulator bore wear (P1870 SES), install Sonax fix or TransGo S/K
There are even now hardened output shafts available in the aftermarket.
For frictions the Raybestos Kevlar band is proven. This band is very sticky compared to a stock type band. This has to be taken into consideration when setting up the shift kit. For the 3-4 clutch pack both blue-plate specials and Red Eagle have been successfully used, but I have looked closely at the new Raybestos Z-Pak single-sided clutch pack and I think it has a lot to offer. I don't know of many people running them and have no longevity feedback. The 3-4 clutch pack will be the first thing to expire in a properly built and set up 4L60/65, so I think that ANY improvement possibility there would be worth looking into.
The shift kit firmness needs to be set up taking into consideration the type of friction materials used, apply pistons used for second and fourth, the torque converter, vehicle weight, power levels, shift RPM, and torque management.
Apply pistons for the band have the effect of making shifts more firm, but more importantly they affect how much force is put on the band for a given line pressure. Generally, installing better ones is a good idea. The firmness they add to the shifts has to be compensated for in setting up the shift kit and programming.
Higher-stall torque converters reduce the jolting forces that shifting exerts on the geartrain, however they also produce input torque levels much higher than the stock converter would. In general a higher-stalling torque converter allows you to set up and program more shift firmness without exceeding the hard parts thresholds. This will not necessarily make the friction materials last longer, because the motor will be more likely to stay in the power band after the shift and the higher-stalling converter will be multiplying that power even more.
Torque Management removal is one of the first things on everyone's list of desired programming changes. Obviously this has consequences, so it must be compensated for in setting up the shift kit and the shift programming. There is no positive effect this can possibly have on the transmission as a whole. Shifts will need to be made more firm so that the frictions don't overheat during the shifts, and that will obviously put more strain on the hard parts. If you have to take out TM then accept that it will reduce the life of the transmission - period.
The RPM at which shifts are programmed to take place is important because the higher that RPM is the greater the RPM difference will be between the two assemblies involved with each shift that must be brought to the same RPM by the friction materials. In other words, the delta RPM between those two assemblies increases with input RPM, meaning that the higher the shift RPM is the more work the friction materials have to do. More heat will be produced and this has to be compensated for with additional shift firmness. The additional firmness will prevent the clutches from warping and the band from overheating, but at the expense of putting more strain on the hard parts.
In case it isn't obvious from the above ranting, setting up ANY automatic transmission to shift more firmly than is necessary is mechanical torture on every powertrain part from the belt tensioner to the axle shafts. It seems like every day that I see one more person posting how fun their new tire-chirping neck-jolting shifts are. (sigh)
In summary, if the hard parts are all the best that they can be, making one of these transmissions work under high power is a BALANCE of taking those parts right to the brink of their destruction with carefully set-up and programmed shift firmness in an effort to prevent the over-worked inadequate clutch materials from overheating. Even then it's not going to last.
One term comes to mind - "Band-Aid®"
More from James, this time on the 4l60e vs 4l80e
If you get a chance to compare design schematics of 4L6X and the 4L8X you will notice something interesting...
The 4L60/65 is really a two-speed transmission with overdrive.
-two planetaries
-overdrives low for "second"
-overdrives direct for "fourth"
-band engages overdrive
-clutch pack engages direct
The 4L80/85 is actually a 3-speed trans with overdrive.
-three planetaries
-clutch pack for forward (first)
-clutch pack for intermediate (second)
-clutch pack for direct (third)
-clutch pack for overdrive (fourth)
-has 2 bands, but they are for reverse and overrun, NOT shifting
The problem with bands used for shifting is that they cannot be overworked without becoming harsh. The band is wrapped around the reverse input clutch drum in the 4L60 and is used for second and fourth. The more pressure is put on a band the more self energizing they become, and it will start grabbing, causing jolting shifts instead of firm shifts.
The 80 uses only clutch packs to shift and each shift is a single event. It is more more precise, responds much more linearly to line pressure increases or to a shift kit, and it transfers power effortlessly.
The 80/85 is not just stronger, it's designed far better.
And finally, a discussion from James on building up a 4l60e
Keeping in mind that my opinion is worth about TWO things: Jack and ****, here goes....
Getting the most out of a 4L60 or 65-E in a high powered application is really a matter of setting up a whole lot of things just right. Even though they can be built and set up not to break, they just cannot serve high power for long. The amount of friction surface is just too small.
Setting up a 6X "right" is a balance between extending the lives of the friction materials as much as possible without putting too much stress on the hard parts. Firmer shifts prolong friction materials life but place greater stress on the hard parts.
The weaknesses in the hard parts are well known:
- planetary carrier casting failure, upgrade to 5-pinion ones from 65-E
- sprag failure, upgrade to Borg Warner 29-element double cage sprag
- reaction shell spline collar fatigue cracking, install aftermarket "Beast" shell
- plastic accumulator piston failure, why GM chose here to save pennies.. ?
- input shaft/drum breakage, aftermarket hardened unit available
- PWM regulator bore wear (P1870 SES), install Sonax fix or TransGo S/K
There are even now hardened output shafts available in the aftermarket.
For frictions the Raybestos Kevlar band is proven. This band is very sticky compared to a stock type band. This has to be taken into consideration when setting up the shift kit. For the 3-4 clutch pack both blue-plate specials and Red Eagle have been successfully used, but I have looked closely at the new Raybestos Z-Pak single-sided clutch pack and I think it has a lot to offer. I don't know of many people running them and have no longevity feedback. The 3-4 clutch pack will be the first thing to expire in a properly built and set up 4L60/65, so I think that ANY improvement possibility there would be worth looking into.
The shift kit firmness needs to be set up taking into consideration the type of friction materials used, apply pistons used for second and fourth, the torque converter, vehicle weight, power levels, shift RPM, and torque management.
Apply pistons for the band have the effect of making shifts more firm, but more importantly they affect how much force is put on the band for a given line pressure. Generally, installing better ones is a good idea. The firmness they add to the shifts has to be compensated for in setting up the shift kit and programming.
Higher-stall torque converters reduce the jolting forces that shifting exerts on the geartrain, however they also produce input torque levels much higher than the stock converter would. In general a higher-stalling torque converter allows you to set up and program more shift firmness without exceeding the hard parts thresholds. This will not necessarily make the friction materials last longer, because the motor will be more likely to stay in the power band after the shift and the higher-stalling converter will be multiplying that power even more.
Torque Management removal is one of the first things on everyone's list of desired programming changes. Obviously this has consequences, so it must be compensated for in setting up the shift kit and the shift programming. There is no positive effect this can possibly have on the transmission as a whole. Shifts will need to be made more firm so that the frictions don't overheat during the shifts, and that will obviously put more strain on the hard parts. If you have to take out TM then accept that it will reduce the life of the transmission - period.
The RPM at which shifts are programmed to take place is important because the higher that RPM is the greater the RPM difference will be between the two assemblies involved with each shift that must be brought to the same RPM by the friction materials. In other words, the delta RPM between those two assemblies increases with input RPM, meaning that the higher the shift RPM is the more work the friction materials have to do. More heat will be produced and this has to be compensated for with additional shift firmness. The additional firmness will prevent the clutches from warping and the band from overheating, but at the expense of putting more strain on the hard parts.
In case it isn't obvious from the above ranting, setting up ANY automatic transmission to shift more firmly than is necessary is mechanical torture on every powertrain part from the belt tensioner to the axle shafts. It seems like every day that I see one more person posting how fun their new tire-chirping neck-jolting shifts are. (sigh)
In summary, if the hard parts are all the best that they can be, making one of these transmissions work under high power is a BALANCE of taking those parts right to the brink of their destruction with carefully set-up and programmed shift firmness in an effort to prevent the over-worked inadequate clutch materials from overheating. Even then it's not going to last.
One term comes to mind - "Band-Aid®"
ok well let me ask you something .... i have a 07 RcSb 5.3/3.42 with CAI, wheatley tune,and Headers, i just bought a corvette servo for the purpose of "helping" my trans , but reading ur post if im not mistaken vette servo is bad ??? do u think i should have it installed or just leave my trans alone for my mods , ... thanks
03-11-2009, 08:23 AM
#26
I agree 100000%. Why would you consider an old design to put in a new truck when the capability of putting something even better than an 80E... In this case, I don't even understand why an 80E swap is being mentioned. I'd put a 6L90E in that truck and be done with it. The electronics are ready there since they already build 5.3/6L90E trucks, so why not???
I know if electronics weren't the issue in my case, I wouldn't even consider the 80E, 6spd auto only
03-11-2009, 09:27 AM
#27
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dickinson,Tx
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree 100000%. Why would you consider an old design to put in a new truck when the capability of putting something even better than an 80E... In this case, I don't even understand why an 80E swap is being mentioned. I'd put a 6L90E in that truck and be done with it. The electronics are ready there since they already build 5.3/6L90E trucks, so why not???
I know if electronics weren't the issue in my case, I wouldn't even consider the 80E, 6spd auto only
I know if electronics weren't the issue in my case, I wouldn't even consider the 80E, 6spd auto only
03-11-2009, 09:47 AM
#28
TECH Resident
03-11-2009, 09:51 AM
#29
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dickinson,Tx
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-11-2009, 09:55 AM
#30
TECH Resident