I've heard bad things........

[Doubt_Incarnate]

so are you looking for a car with the 3400, or would you settle for a 3100?
grand prixs had a 3100 and they are pretty nice cars, you could get a malibu, or impala. lumina, monte, check around.

[imported_germ]

WTF who said the 4T40 can take more power? I said it was a better design.

http://www.60degreev6.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5252

there were a few people that said it.

keep in mind, im repling to a couple of you each time and not all of my post is ment for one person.


like i said before, design and funtionality are two different worlds. if their "newage" design is so good, how come they cant handle the power and weight of the alero's and grand am's?

seriously, there is no fucking point to arguing about. there are NO REAL WORLD comparisions on the two so we cant compare them.

you like the 40/45's, thats fine, you stick with them, have fun, call me when you want a 60e to replace the 40/45 when you break it with your 2.2 cyl.

[Cliff8928]

I've never seen an engine with only 2.2 cylinders. that'd have to be pretty strange looking..

AND

so PLEASE explain to me this.... if your going to use claim of the 40/45 being a better and stronger tranny, then why are they STILL used on the compact/midsize cars that have 180hp or LESS?

The 3500 has 200HP..



Cliff Scott
89 BerettaGT
04 AleroGX

[imported_germ]

2.2 4cyl, you know what the hell i ment


and wow, 1 engine with barely 200 hp, and in a malibu and MAYBE the G6, but yet the G6 GTP will be getting the manual tranny with the 3900 as standard equipment. they must not trust the 4t40/45 that much on higher HP applications huh? but yet the 4t65 is the standard tranny that will be used on all other makes and models that come with the 3900.


is that your proof in the pudding?

[Cliff8928]

GTP model powered by an all-new 240 horsepower 3.9L HO V-6 paired in the standard package with electronically controlled four-speed automatic transmission with manual shift mode. It also is available with a six-speed manual transmission.

It's rumored that it's the 4T65-E that will be in it (currently the only GM FWD trans with manual shift mode that i know of), and the six-speed (which is a FGP trans, slightly modified from it's Saab epsilon cousin) is not standard equipment.



Cliff Scott
89 BerettaGT
04 AleroGX

[geoffinbc]

The 4T45E had been revised for manual shift mode. It will be in the new G6

[Cliff8928]

I've seen sites that say that it's the 4T65-E in the G6 GTP, that's why i say "rumored"... Really just have to wait until it's out on the street to see for sure.. I'm sure most of us here probably wouldn't be concerned with what auto trans it came with if we were in the position to buy one.


Cliff Scott
89 BerettaGT
04 AleroGX

[Quinky]

Wow I just read through all that...

Germ I think you are miss reading out comparisson and the point of the topic... The person is looking for reliability... Not what car can handle the most power.. He wants something thats gonna last him and not break down..

Now lets see where my arumeng and everyone else that supports the 40/45 as being more reliable

The 40/45 are designed for lower hp engines, and smaller cars... The 60/65 is designed for the larger cars and higher hp motors.. ok?...

Now lets look at it this way.. The 60/65's put to work in the cars they are designed to work in, bolted to the motors they are designed for only last on average 120,000 - 160,000km before they break down and need a rebuild...

The 40/45 put to work in the cars they are designed for, bolted to the motors they are designed for last on average 200,000+km before breaking down and needing a rebuild...

So you tell me how that makes the 40/45 a less reliable transmission? Thoughs facts have nothing to do with the number of cars on the road.. All they are saying is on average when we see one of thoughs transmission failed and in need of a rebuild, this is how many km's are on the clock..

Here is another comparison for you.. Keeping in mind we are talking nothing about modified cars, just looking at the reliablity and how long they last put into cars, with motors each transmission is designed for..

An Impalla or Lumina up till about 00 has a 60e behind either a 3100, or 3400 V6... In the taxi's we generaly see the failure rate is at about 100,000 - 140,000km mark.. .

A malibu has a 45e behind either a 3100 or 3400... In the taxi's we see the failure rate is at about 300,000 - 400,000km..

Damn thats a big difference there for a transmission that is suposidly not designed to handle the same power ratings as a 60e...

The one exception for stregnth I'll make is the HD65E in the GTPs.. They are built well for what they are put against... But they aren't a while lot like a normal 65E.. A lot of the parts are hardend, as well as a different finner cut diff for more stregnth.. Rebuilding an HD65e is more costly and does use different parts then a normal 65e...

Do you have an understanding yet why we are saying the 40/45e is just simply a more reliable transmission when come paired to a 60/65e stock for stock??

[vsop4me3.1]

no germ is not mistaken, the topic of the thread is how much power can the 3400 handle and someone came in and said the 40 was a better transmission. the subject was power not reliability. next thing you know you got multiple people arguing over 2 different points, power and reliability. I know now that the 65 is not a reliable tranny by experience. mine needs a rebuild @ 67k miles, I also know that the 60/65 can hande more power, and I got my facts from gmpowertrain.com

[Synestral]

Basically I want a reliable, affordable car asap, and am exploring all my options.

no germ is not mistaken, the topic of the thread is how much power can the 3400 handle and someone came in and said the 40 was a better transmission.

According to the author of this thread, which transmission is more reliable.

[bszopi]

It was the topic of the post mentioned in the second post which was about how much power a 3400 can handle...

[Cliff8928]

If everything is left stock and the car is used as intended, either transmission should last the life of the vehicle. It's the modifications that change that.


Cliff Scott
89 BerettaGT
04 AleroGX

[vsop4me3.1]

no germ is not mistaken, the topic of the thread is how much power can the 3400 handle and someone came in and said the 40 was a better transmission.

According to the author of this thread, which transmission is more reliable.[/quote]

I was talking about the previous thread.

[sharkey]

If everything is left stock and the car is used as intended, either transmission should last the life of the vehicle. It's the modifications that change that.

in a car owners eyes, yes, that should be true. a car shouldnt break and if you do your matinance, nothing should break. however, this is not how cars are designed anymore. if cars last 20 years and 500k km, manufacturors dont make any money selling new cars. if cars didnt break, then the an entire industry would be gone. if transmissions didnt break, i would have no job.

now back to transmissions, most arent designed to go more than 200k km. i see 60/65s in a variety of vehicles (vans, mid size, full size cars), and they are all between 90-140k km, some lucky ones last almost 200k km. these are unmodded vehicles driven by typical people. they just dont last. same deal with the 40/45, they are unmodded cars, and the only 2 i have ever pulled had over 300k on the clock.

i will admit, the 65hd is a tough trans. it has to be, or gm would never be able to warrenty it behind the 240hp motors, but it still wont stand up in the long run. i worked on an 01 gtp, l67/4t65e hd. the car had just over 100k km. the transmission was so smashed, it was welding itself together. there was going to be $2800 in parts alone in that trans, so the customer decided to get a used one. the used one had 47k km on it, 2 weeks after we put it in it started slipping. doesnt say much about the 65e hd.

[imported_germ]

im not even going to post in this thread anymore because its just fucking stupid to try and even discuss this.

the point is you CANT compare the two tranny's NO MATTER WHAT!

neither tranny is offered in the same vehicles for comparison.

and this shit about 4t60e's not lasting, tell that to my 200,000 mile STOCK tranny that actually still works to this day.

each tranny has failures, each tranny has its success'. but you cannot compare the two'd failures or success'.

accept it.