I am curious about the owners of the ZF tranny, I had one and honestly, I could have kept it and it would have done the job fine however, I wonder about how well people really like them, hence the poll....

 

The one in my track car has been bulletproof... knock on wood...

 

I love mine.

 

Noise in neutral with the clutch out = yuck, turn up the radio volume.

Square cut gear design (early model) = slight gear whine through the gears. Do not know if its audible outside of the vehicle however I like the whine.

Gear ratio spacing = Good & 50% OD in 6th = great highway mpg.

Shift feel, effort = not so good.

If it would shift like a Muncie or a T10 it would be the "Dogs Dangles".

When I purchased this car I had thoughts about changing the trans but I have learned its quirks & can accept it the way it is.

 

I think it work work better with a 3.73~3.92 axle gears

Lord, that thing is heavy!

I wouldnt change my ZF

 

"Dogs dangles"

 

I did like the 6th gear

 

it was derived from a truck transmission, and if you love driving a truck, you'll love the ZF.

Its heavy. The stock dual mass flywheel is a financial and engineering nightmare. The associated hydraulics test the patience of a saint. The stock shift linkage throws are way too long and slow. A lot of aftermarket transmission are rated at a higher torque capacity.

with all that said. it's greatest assest is that it fits, and is engineered for the C4. It doesn't need, and isn't equipped with a transmission mount. It does accept the (goofy) C beam (support beam in GM speak) without costly and possiblely ineffective adapters.

apparently it is close to bulletproof...at least according to forum members that use it in high horsepower race applications. In a daily driver it would probably never fail. Earlier "black label" ZF's are reputedly stronger...but noisier... than the later "blue label" models.

You can't make it lighter but you can address any perceived short comings in the shifter, clutch, and hydraulics. I did, it wasn't cheap, but I'm very happy with the results, and some of it (the clutch specifically) would have to have been done regardless of transmission.

in sixth gear you can multiply the engine rpm by a factor of four to find your sppeed. 2000 rpm is 80 mph, or if you need a theoretical 240 mph car (6,000 rpm times 4) the ZF is the transmission for you.

 

I liked the T56 in my LS1 GTO better for the first four gears but like the 6th ger in the ZF better.

Its not that heavy. I pulled the one out of my 94 by hand because I couldnt get it out while using a tranny jack. Pretty much manhandled it.

+1111111

 

T56 =

The GTO spoiled me in many ways compared to (even new) Corvettes.

 

I hear you, though the shifter is more refined on my lawn mower than the one in my GTO was!

One thing I HATED with my Corvette was that when I put it in 5th it had LOTS of play side to side. The T56 just felt tighter and I think it was probably the clutch that they put in the GTO that felt better.

Both transmissions are good but I prefer the T56.

 

I had a B&M shifter in the GTO. Best thing I ever did to the car. It did make it a little noisy but that shifter with the T56 was by far the best feeling combo that I have had in any car including the C5Z and my C4 with a B&M and ZF6.

 

The Borg Warner/Tremec T56 in my 06 Vette and 96 T/A both shift better than the ZF. They are smoother and less notchy.

The T56 in the T/A is a noisy sucker though when in neutral with the clutch out.

My ZF has an intermittent back up light switch

Warren

 

i absolutely love my zf6, but its my first manual so compared to automatics its a hoot

 

thinking about going back? is there a better tranny for the C4's?

 

My ZF works fine with the Hurst short throw shifter. I do wish you didn't have to stay with the dual mass flywheel and clutch set up. I would like to be able to use heavier duty clutches and single mass flywheels, "WITHOUT THE ROCKS IN A CAN NOISE". So for now, I'll be happy with the OEM set up. So much better than a sissy automatic after all it is a sports car, not your Daddy's Oildsmobile.

 

like it, but the noise inneutral is alittle unnerving. But it is strong and tight, just the way i like it...

 

That's strange. I experienced the opposite when I went from my '06 C6 to my '92; I think that the ZF shifts way, WAY better. My definition of "good shifting" is drag track, type shifting where shifts are fast, fast, FAST! The '06 let me down several times at the track, rejecting a gear completely, or going into "no man's land" between 1st and 3rd. (?) The ZF, I make passes that I'm proud of, every time. Haven't missed a gear yet. Stock clutch, FW, and shifter.

Both the T56 and the ZF are great trans's, IMO, but I prefer the ZF, so far.

 

I have been abusing the he11 out of mine for 15 years, and it keeps coming back for more. I just change the oil every year. It handles the numbers in my sig just fine.

 

I can't say enough about the difference with a short throw shifter. If it weren't for the gear whine when in neutral (with the clutch out), I'd probably vote for 100% love it. $1500 for new CHS, clutch, and DMF is stupid though.

I couldn't change the trans if funds allowed. I had the funds and spent it on a 383 instead!

If I had more money to spend on a car, there's a possiblity that I'd change trannies but it would be far down the list and would have to have the same 6th gear for mpg.

One other thing. If it weren't for the repuation of the ZF6+Dana44, I wouldn't have put a 450rwtq 383 in the car. So, despite it's shortcomings, there's a lot to be happy about.

P.S. I wanted this poll option: "It's a love/hate relationship". LOL