If you have a late-model GM 10-speed slushbox, watch this...

[Ace-Garageguy]

You can not get internal parts for these, and entire gearboxes are virtually unobtainable from anything but wrecks.

 

[Mark]

Seems as though the manufacturers have come to a consensus that the transmission should be the weak link on the path to planned obsolescence.  GM junk, Nissan CVT troubles.  

Parts availability for vehicles sold by GM goes back awhile.  A family member junked a Saturn because the transmission couldn't be fixed, only replaced with a used unit with nearly as many miles and no guarantee to speak of.  Replace a 100% worn out unit with a 95% worn out one.  If the wet belt doesn't take a dump, the transmission will.

[Ace-Garageguy]

2 minutes ago, Mark said:

Seems as though the manufacturers have come to a consensus that the transmission should be the weak link on the path to planned obsolescence.  GM junk, Nissan CVT troubles.  

Parts availability for vehicles sold by GM goes back awhile.  A family member junked a Saturn because the transmission couldn't be fixed, only replaced with a used unit with nearly as many miles and no guarantee to speak of.  Replace a 100% worn out unit with a 95% worn out one.  If the wet belt doesn't take a dump, the transmission will.

Yup. Funny how GM's Turbo 350 and 400, Chrysler's 727, and Fords C4 and C6 would go 200,000 miles with decent maintenance and no abuse, and were entirely rebuildable with readily available parts if you wanted to keep one going forever.

But everyone "knows" new cars are better...

 

[1972coronet]

10 speeds... that's about 5 too many. 

The 10 speed auto in the 2022 Ranger at work ; it's cr4ppy ! Hangs-up between gears ( torque converter flair-up ? ) before blustic acceleration. That stupid Fœcal-Boost certainly quantifies the problem. 

Granny shift-points, too-high-a-stall-speed torque converters, and lack of maintenance ( "Sealed for life ! " RUBBISH ! ) equate to an early demise. 

Edited yesterday at 12:48 AM by 1972coronet
*TYPO*

[1972coronet]

10 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Chrysler's 727

904 is solid, too. Stone-stock T-flites ( 440+6 & Hemi iterations exempted ) have the dreaded "2nd gear clunk" when left... stock. 

Trans-Go kits help monumentally - as well as Type-F fluid, and frequent band adjustments. 

Every 'Flite-equipped car I've owned received a rebuild , Trans-Go improver, deep capacity oil pans, and annual service & adjust. 

[meechum68]

Planned obsolence is bean counters looking at profit. Truly disgusts me, make quality stuff that lasts and make parts for the product and you have loyalty, but the poor manufacturers won't have record years, boohoo.  

The rest of my thoughts would get me banned

[NOBLNG]

I was a Chevy guy up until 2017. My 2006 2500 put an end to that. Glad I switched to Ford.

[89AKurt]

Huh, so replacing with an aftermarket fancy oil pan with lots of crevasses AND A DRAIN PLUG.  Don't go over any boulders.

This guy's truck will outpull anyone.  Also a foot narrower than the Dodge behind there.  Gets only 7 MPG, even in free fall from space, that's why all this complication.  The Ford behind it has been in the same family since new, been restored.  I've heard just one headlight with it's own computer, cannot change the bulb, whole unit is junk.  My older brother bought a new Silverado, with the remote tailgate, a recall waiting to happen.

[sfhess]

Didn't Ford and GM develop that ten-speed transmission jointly?

Edited yesterday at 03:54 AM by sfhess

[Robberbaron]

I used to be a diehard GM loyalist.  Truly believe that, for the most part, GM products were better engineered and more durable than Ford/Mopar back when I was growing up.  That's progressively gone out the window over the last 15 years owing to "new" GM's standard operating procedure.

I started hearing horror stories from coworkers of their Chevy/GMC 6-speed transmissions blowing up (which replaced the long lived 4L60E/4L65E).  That was only available for a short time before they replaced it with the "more reliable" 8-speeds.  Didn't take long to start hearing about class action lawsuits due to those steaming piles.

Lately the auto review "media" has been claiming that these new 10-speeds would be so much more reliable than those 8-speeds.  Why am I not surprised to see this?  And didn't Ford and GM supposedly tag team the basic design on these? (I understand there are quite a few differences in the final product for each brand).

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, 89AKurt said:

Huh, so replacing with an aftermarket fancy oil pan with lots of crevasses AND A DRAIN PLUG.  Don't go over any boulders.

The oil pan is more than "fancy".

The internal and external fins greatly enhance cooling, and the drain plug makes fluid changes vastly easier.

Run a steel guard under the trans if you feel the need to hit boulders at speed.

Thing is...there's not really much you can do to make these silly things last as long as the old ones did.

Any engineering student with half a functioning brain cell ought to be able to work out that cramming 10 forward speeds worth of drums and bands and planetaries and clutches and bearings inside a case that's big enough for 3 will require significant DOWNSIZING OF HIGHLY STRESSED INTERNAL PARTS.

Itty bitty parts under the same loads as big fat ones wear out a whole lot faster.

Make sense?

EDIT: And if y'all want to blame somebody,  besides the whole "planned obsolescence" thing, blame the gubmint for enacting increasingly strict fuel economy and emissions regs. That's what these multi-speed slushboxes are for: supposedly keeping the engines operating in their peak rev-range for more of the time.

But when they break, you junk the vehicle.

We've seen newish Corvettes with blown 10-speeds sitting literally for months at dealerships awaiting gearboxes.

Gee. What a deal.

Edited yesterday at 05:29 AM by Ace-Garageguy

[johnyrotten]

5 hours ago, sfhess said:

Didn't Ford and GM develop that ten-speed transmission jointly?

I believe so.

[bobss396]

The drain plug was taken our of most automatics in the 1960s. It probably saved a few bucks at the factory.

But the sell to the consumer was to force the pan removal so the filter could be changed with the fluid.

I get my fluid changed at 60k miles, with the filter of course. This helps them live longer. Not everyone does that.

I agree on why do we need 10 speeds. I'd think that 6 would do the job and leave room for more robust parts in the case.

[1972coronet]

I've long wondered why work and fleet vehicles fell under the umbrella of C.A.F.E. standards ; when were they - vans, pickups - dragged into that hot mess ?? 

[Rob Hall]

I did get a recall notice for the 10spd auto in my Cadillac...taking it in for a software update w/ the next oil change.   It is a very smooth transmission. 

[johnyrotten]

1 hour ago, bobss396 said:

I agree on why do we need 10 speeds. I'd think that 6 would do the job and leave room for more robust parts in the case.

My 2012 gmc has a 6l80. Not a bad transmission, it was a little "wonky" until I got rid of the AFM/DOD junk. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, johnyrotten said:

My 2012 gmc has a 6l80. Not a bad transmission, it was a little "wonky" until I got rid of the AFM/DOD junk. 

I'm very familiar with the 4L80, which seems to be a very robust piece of hardware.

We're running a substantially upgraded one behind the 750HP (flywheel) 572 in the '66 Chevelle.

I have no direct experience with the 6L80, and judging by what I've read, I probably won't. I hope yours lasts as long as you need it to.

[johnyrotten]

8 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I'm very familiar with the 4L80, which seems to be a very robust piece of hardware.

We're running a substantially upgraded one behind the 750HP (flywheel) 572 in the '66 Chevelle.

I have no direct experience with the 6L80, and judging by what I've read, I probably won't. I hope yours lasts as long as you need it to.

No complaints with it after the cam swap. Eliminating the displacement on demand and active fuel management junk really made the truck more enjoyable to drive.  No more early converter engagement, lugging it down. I've got 120 thousand on it, 60 of which are mine. Transmission shifts PERFECTLY. and it's used as a truck, not beaten or babied. Not 100% certain, I believe the 6l80 was designed from the 4l series trans which started as the 700r4. So proven technology. 

Edited 15 hours ago by johnyrotten
More information

[Ace-Garageguy]

24 minutes ago, johnyrotten said:

No complaints with it after the cam swap. Eliminating the displacement on demand and active fuel management junk really made the truck more enjoyable to drive.  No more early converter engagement, lugging it down. I've got 120 thousand on it, 60 of which are mine. Transmission shifts PERFECTLY. and it's used as a truck, not beaten or babied. Not 100% certain, I believe the 6l80 was designed from the 4l series trans which started as the 700r4. So proven technology. 

I believe you, and yes, the 700R4 is the non-electronically controlled 4L60E.

When the old Borg Warner in my first Jag XJ6 died, I put a 700R4 in it (using the John's Cars kit) and never looked back.

[johnyrotten]

9 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I believe you, and yes, the 700R4 is the non-electronically controlled 4L60E.

When the old Borg Warner in my first Jag XJ6 died, I put a 700R4 in it (using the John's Cars kit) and never looked back.

I changed many 700r4's due to mis- adjustments on the t.v. cable. Other than that I've seen them hold up. I been told Converter problems in the 6l are what kills them in stock trim. The dod delete requires tuning and my guy changed the lock up behavior while he was in there. Not sure exactly what he did, but I'm happy

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, johnyrotten said:

I changed many 700r4's due to mis- adjustments on the t.v. cable. Other than that I've seen them hold up...

Yes, I've been aware of the TV cable issue, and have been as anal about keeping mine adjusted correctly as only I can be. 

I had mine upgraded internally by a "name" shop way back in 1996 without a lockup converter, as I'd intended to do extensive towing of a race-car, which failed to work out.

But of course the car is still quicker off the line with the lower first gear, and manages over 20MPG on the highway at 80MPH, so I'm happy too.  

[johnyrotten]

34 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

the car is still quicker off the line with the lower first gear, and manages over 20MPG on the highway at 80MPH, so I'm happy too.  

Win-win in my book👍👍

[Goose1957]

It's been all downhill after this.

Jeff