When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Can you give us the price range? I've got a '95 with the 4L60E that needs to be rebuilt or replaced here in Westchester County, NY, now that spring is close I'm going to need to start looking for a shop in this area.
You could always save yourself some aggravation and money and go 4L80e. A lot less work to get them to hold a lot of torque. There's lots of good info on tuning for them on the HP tuners forum. I just finished my swap from a 4L60e to 4L80e. Throw in 1350 U joints while your at it. And you get a way better 1st gear ratio.
The downside to 4l80e is
1. VERY heavy it weighs 250lbs~ with fluid, you can't really pick it up by yourself, takes a hoist, I have to slide it around on a tarp
2. Four to Six additional horsepower to keep it turning ALL THE TIME. This doesn't look like anything on a dyno graph but at a constant cruise that is like 2 extra A/C compressor running... it will cost 3-5 miles per gallon extra due to rotating mass.
At 3100lbs, 3.56:1 & 27.4" Tire cruising 65-70mph is around 22mpg, average 18mpg city
there are tons of plus sides... but the bottom line is the lightweight cars are ideal kept to the 4l60e IF You can afford one from a reputable place like 700r4l60e.com
Otherwise use the 4l80e when you can't afford the 4l60e from a good place
but the bottom line is the lightweight cars are ideal kept to the 4l60e IF You can afford one from a reputable place like 700r4l60e.com
Otherwise use the 4l80e when you can't afford the 4l60e from a good place
There is a point where you have to give up on the th700 / 4l60, even from a good place, and start with something stronger.
There is a point where you have to give up on the th700 / 4l60, even from a good place, and start with something stronger.
Well. The 4l80e can handle what, 1200hp? 1500hp? Even stock unit can hold 1000hp for some time.
The 4l60e might hold a mere 700hp and that is taking it easy with $5000 in parts, baby it.
Obviously the 4l80e is much stronger.
However, the vehicle application takes precedence over strength. If fuel economy or lightweight drivetrain parts are necessary then the 4l80e will never fit that app.
Naturally aspirated engines for example should NEVER use the 4l80e for 'performance'. Huge mistake.
To utilize a 4l80e proper the vehicle should have excess of 500rwhp, for starters.
Well. The 4l80e can handle what, 1200hp? 1500hp? Even stock unit can hold 1000hp for some time.
The 4l60e might hold a mere 700hp and that is taking it easy with $5000 in parts, baby it.
Obviously the 4l80e is much stronger.
However, the vehicle application takes precedence over strength. If fuel economy or lightweight drivetrain parts are necessary then the 4l80e will never fit that app.
Naturally aspirated engines for example should NEVER use the 4l80e for 'performance'. Huge mistake.
To utilize a 4l80e proper the vehicle should have excess of 500rwhp, for starters.
Otherwise the tradeoff is hollow.
I think it comes down to preference. I would never spend money on a built 4L60e or a 700r4. I would have to spend $2K at least to get the some durability as a 4L80e transmission that I can get for under $200 at my local pick a part. That and the gear ratio's are a lot better for a street car in a 4L80. I don't understand the weight argument. If you want less weight ditch the iron block and LS swap the car. The fact is that people pound junkyard 4L80e's over and over again on the track. I have seen several "built" 4l60's and 700r4's die on the drag strip.
But you're right about lower power. I ran a 4L60e with a 400 hp motor for a long time and it held up just fine. It was just a bone stock trans that I pulled out of an 02 Camaro.
Last edited by Phobos84; Mar 10, 2021 at 08:08 PM.
I think it comes down to preference. I would never spend money on a built 4L60e or a 700r4. I would have to spend $2K at least to get the some durability as a 4L80e transmission that I can get for under $200 at my local pick a part. That and the gear ratio's are a lot better for a street car in a 4L80. I don't understand the weight argument. If you want less weight ditch the iron block and LS swap the car. The fact is that people pound junkyard 4L80e's over and over again on the track. I have seen several "built" 4l60's and 700r4's die on the drag strip.
But you're right about lower power. I ran a 4L60e with a 400 hp motor for a long time and it held up just fine. It was just a bone stock trans that I pulled out of an 02 Camaro.
I love talking about the different transmissions... ! lets cut it open
Weight is critical in general performance. e.g. 150+ extra pounds is enormous to add to any car, but especially for racing its almost a sin to add that much.
And forget about the dead weight for a minute- there is also rotating mass to consider which carries a far heavier sentence (pun intended?)
The 4l80e is a parasitic monster and it ALSO weighs a ton. I don't think GM ever made something so parasitic or heavy for a gasoline engine before.
You are right that the 4l60e is a piece of paper, flawed in many ways, complex, difficult to build properly and even more difficult to setup properly for racing.
But the one thing it has going for it, and the only reason people still use it over the 4l80e, is the weight factor.
Basically
-If you want 28mpg in a 3000lb car you can't use 4l80e, it will do 22mpg due to all the weight
-If you only have 400hp to spare, the 4l80e would gobble all that up and leave you standing still, you need a 4l60e instead
It comes down to parasitic loss, and mileage, mostly. Not so much preference... but then again mileage IS a preference? Sort of? idk
4l80e Rebuild short discussion:
As to the capability of the 4l80e unit as STOCK with high mileage. I have run these type of 4l80e successfully for years behind 500+hp
The 4l80e because of it's heavy rotating parts tends to have excess busing wear over about 100,000 miles. The bonded pistons are also said to be 'worn out' by 100,000 miles + 20 years as well (the seals get hard). There are also a couple flaws with the OEM units... the AFL valve and boost valves for example need service, the boost upgraded and the AFL reamed and a new valve used. The TCC also has a similar history of wear and leaking. the EPC solenoid from pre-02 is considered unreliable due to it's screen and weird spade style plug connector. There is some shenanigans possible with the reverse circuit in OEM transmissions where the driver slams from reverse to drive too quickly and this burns up the band and ruins reverse. Clutch wear clogs up the accumulator housings for some reason also killing reverse I've seen that. When the bushing starts to go bad in the forward drum the sealing rings on the input shaft start to cut into the drum (those teflon seals are harder than steel apparently)
Basically: I guess there is no such thing as a "good" used 4l80e with 100k+ Miles. They all need a rebuild, bushings, dual fed directs, avoid trans-go pressure mod and avoid the HD2 shift kit separator plate due to leaking historically and malfunctioning relief valve. They need AFL valve fix reamed, sonnax boost valve and sleeve. New bearings and inspect the planetaries etc... And further some lubrication mods, holes in the shafts and drums enlarged to provide addl cooling is often done in th400 and 4l80e units.
The sprags should be replaced after 100k as well, and the sprag surfaces need polishing with 1500grit. And then there is the output shaft bushing which can walk out on some units, sonnax makes a "no walk case bushing" which many will install backwards to provide 0.112" of purchase for rollerizing the rear out put shaft, another 'non critical' mod which can free up some energy and tightens up the unit. Similarly the reaction carrier needs shimmed up 0.011"~ from the center support.
Perhaps the biggest pro to the 4l80e is it's simplicity. Unlike the 4l60e, the 4l80e is remarkably easy to rebuild for beginners. Large durable parts are difficult to damage by slamming around. No tiny teflon seal & no multi vane in the pump, no difficult snap rings in the case, no special load springs for the drum, no tiny parts to fly out and get lost for the most part. Nothing annoying in the bottom of the case to deal with. The bushings are easier to install because they are larger and easier to handle. Parts being so large makes it easier to tell when something is bad during inspection.
Its like the 4l80e was made for babies. And 4l60e is a true professional's transmission... far more intricate, difficult to build, difficult to do anything with... but in the hands of a pro it can save 100+lbs of weight and a massive rotating energy cost from a car.
That said. The "real" bottom line here is a simple recommendation, since both transmission need rebuilds anyways, here is the final eschew:
< ~500rwhp use 4l60e
> ~500rwhp use 4l80e
You could always save yourself some aggravation and money and go 4L80e. A lot less work to get them to hold a lot of torque. There's lots of good info on tuning for them on the HP tuners forum. I just finished my swap from a 4L60e to 4L80e. Throw in 1350 U joints while your at it.
And you get a way better 1st gear ratio.
If the car is built with a 4L60E, won't it be harder to get a 4L80E in as opposed to doing an R&R and rebuild as opposed to taking the 4L60E out, rebuild the 4L80E core, shoehorn the 4L80E in? Like said, if you are exceeding 500 RWHP, fair enough.
How way better? IIRC, I can get a rebuild on the 4L60E with a different 1st gear ratio or am I mistaken?
Just questioning for a future car when my engine fails.
I run a monster unit in one of my 97 camaros. It's a Le2 head cam 355 and the trans works flawlessly. I read tons of negative reviews about the company but at the time (about a year ago) they were one of the few vendors who would guarantee delivery. I had a great purchase experience and couldn't be happier.
For the record, I read the same about MSD optis and have 6 of them working flawlessly.
I run a monster unit in one of my 97 camaros. It's a Le2 head cam 355 and the trans works flawlessly. I read tons of negative reviews about the company but at the time (about a year ago) they were one of the few vendors who would guarantee delivery. I had a great purchase experience and couldn't be happier.
For the record, I read the same about MSD optis and have 6 of them working flawlessly.
Customer service bad is one thing. Product bad is another. Although, it has to be weighed against the fact that it MIGHT BE that they have a lot of customers who are happy but not report in. Hard to be totally certain. I know that if you **** me off, you can bet I will find all kinds of places, Yelp, Google, etc. to leave you a bad review. OTOH, do it right and I will have forgotten about it before I get home. As they say, "The evil that men do lives after them. The Good is oft interred with their bones.".
The total number of teeth in the ring gear and sun gear combined divided by the number of planets must equal a whole number.
The rule above must be obeyed or the gear train locks up. The number of planets determines ratios available with a specific number of planets..
Then you need to explain how there is five planet and four planet gears for a 4L60 - both sharing a common ring and sun gear. Your explanation is true for a compound planet.
Easy.
The sun gear is NOT "common" to both. The sonnax kit changes the sun gear. The ring gear remains the same.
EDIT: I just counted the sungear in the pic, it has 37 teeth, and the 4L60 gear in my stash has 34 teeth. I may have made a mistake counting either one, but the two gears for use with a different number of planetary gears is a different count.
You may have to go back and read what I said. At what point do I say that the sun gear is common to the six planet Sonnax unit and the 4-5 GM unit???? As you once said, "Words have meaning".
No. None of the tooth-count on any of the gears change, so the ratio does not change.
Removing one planetary would not cause lock-up as long as the axis of the remaining gears remain at the 72 degree spacing they are on now, with one gear 'missing'. Change the spacing to 90degrees (equal for 4 planets) and yes, it will then lock up.
Bullshit! The planets have a certain diameter as well as the sun gear has it's. I don't care if you have two planets side by each, across from each other or any combination you wish. The teeth are in mesh with the ring and sun and no matter where you place them, they will have the same diameter, same teeth and same ratio.
Think of it this way: The planets are evenly spaced apart in their carrier. They can not change (adjust) distances between themselves. As the ring and sun gears move in relationship to each other, the planets must maintain their 'even-spacing'. The only way this can occur is if the number of teeth of the sun and ring gear is evenly divisible by the number of planets. If they aren't the gear train will bind, then lock up. There's tons of stuff on the net about planetary gear sets.
Think of it this way. Imagine that instead of the planets being supported the way they are, they are each supported by an "arm" that is attached at the centre of the sun gear. Are you suggesting that arm would not be able to be moved one way or the other around the ring gear, each planet rotating on it's own independant axle, meshing with the ring and the sun? I told you before, your theory is correct for compound planets(two diameters on the same axle). They have to be "timed". I think if you reconsider this for a moment, the logic will prevail.
Think of it this way: The planets are evenly spaced apart in their carrier. They can not change (adjust) distances between themselves. As the ring and sun gears move in relationship to each other, the planets must maintain their 'even-spacing'. The only way this can occur is if the number of teeth of the sun and ring gear is evenly divisible by the number of planets. If they aren't the gear train will bind, then lock up. There's tons of stuff on the net about planetary gear sets.
I hear what you are saying. The teeth of first planetary gear will determine the relative position of sun, ring and planetary gears.
The center of each following planetary gear can only be placed in positions that allow both ring and sun gear to engage.
I totally agree.
But why should the carrier be forced to use 'even spacing' between gears? Having planetary gears a fraction offset to engage closest tooth is not a problem.
You can not use any tooth count because with the correct engagement of sun, panet and ring gear you could end up with a 137.4 tooth on the ring gear and that is not possible.
This is condition 1.
Condition 2 has two options.
2.3 for even spacing
2.4 for uneven spacing
