[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: bmw-digest V5 #77

> From: henri baccouche <henri@domain.elided>
> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 23:35:42 +0000
> Subject: GM transmissions
> 
> >The GM TH 400R4,

I'm going to have to believe that you mean 200r4, being as they never 
made a 400r4.

 4L60E and 4L80E automatics are widely respected in >the industry for 
more than just Cadillac shift characteristics -  ;-))  - >(e.g., reliabi
> 
> Do you remember the 80's?  When GM continuesly made a bunch of
> unreliable automatics?  TheTHM 400R4  which was the" new and
> improved" 

Which was updated several times, the biggie being in 86 or 88. They 
increased some clutches and the number of vanes in the front pump.

 THM700R4(the original bomb) and now the 4L60E 

No, the 700r4 and the 4l60e are similar, with the primary difference
being electronic controls.

 which is
> the  THM400R4 with ECU controls.

They never made a 400r4. The 400 is similar to the 4l80e with differences 
being another gear and lockup torque converter in the 4l80e, along with 
an aluminum valve body(yech)  

 This particular design was dropped on
> the American public in 1982 and it took  GM  10  years to build in the
> reliability(1992).

200 and 700's started showing up in the mid to late 70's, and were pretty 
much cured with the new pump design of 88.
 
> Is GM somehow better in Europe?
> Is this the new "now we will be reliable" GM ?

Nothing's changed. They always screw up the first time out the gate,
but given a few years to exterminate bugs they(used to) end up with 
a superior product.

> I suspect the real issue is a cost savings here as far as BMW AG goes.
> ZF should have resolved the durability issues by 1993 in  the 4hp22/24
> but, the cost was higher .

Talk about cost! I think I could install chevy enj and tranny in BMW
for less than I could fix the tranny for!
 
> Sincerly
> 
> henri baccouche
> los angeles
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of bmw-digest V5 #77
> ************************