2.2 S10 would be the where i would look for a high stall.
oh, and my planned method is a bit more.... involved, due to the unknowns of the TCM. involves gutting the TCM and running more wiring external to the case.
Printable View
2.2 S10 would be the where i would look for a high stall.
oh, and my planned method is a bit more.... involved, due to the unknowns of the TCM. involves gutting the TCM and running more wiring external to the case.
Now that is another possible solution to the problem. I can tell you that the TCM is very complex and far more sophisticated than any previous controllers. The calibration files have to be huge and the processing power has to be pretty impressive because there are so many variables in the calibrations. The adaptive shifting is also pretty complex and these transmissions won't even shift right until the controller has gone through a specific learn sequence. I can't remember for sure, but I think the solenoid packs have 5 solenoids. The configuration is odd, though, and how it uses the solenoids for control is a little different. I'm not trying to scare you off of them, but developing solutions for the 6 speed automatics is definitely not for the faint of heart. Even the torque sequence for securing the TCM/solenoid pack to the valve body is very critical to avoid putting the solenoids in a bind. But, there aren't any issues with the TCM/solenoid pack or the rest of the trans as far as durability is concerned. Transmissions with properly installed and programmed TCM/solenoid packs typically work very well and last a long time without experiencing any issues at all even when abused.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertISaar
The only 6 speeds that have had any common internal issues are the 6T70/75E models and most of those issues have been resolved with the later models experiencing little or no issues at all. I believe the original problem was exacerbated by technicians that were repairing failed units not properly cleaning all of the debris out of the cases and coolers which would cause the repaired units to fail rather quickly. The actual source of the issue, which I believe was a defective wave plate for one of the clutch packs, was addressed a few years ago. But, the recurring issues with previously failed units led to an incorrect belief by some that the transmission was junk.
Anywho, that's my 2 bucks worth lol
some info i've collected on the 6 speeds over the past couple of months:
6L45/50: ???
6L80/90: 2 shift solenoids, 1 VSS, 1 TCC PWM, 1 ISS. 5 PCS, 1 temp sensor (integral TCM)
6T30/40/45: ???
6T70/75: 2 shift solenoids, 1 VSS, 1 TCC PWM, 1 ISS, 5 PCS, 1 temp sensor (integral TCM)
6L80 and 6T70 have identical solenoid setups
6L50
4.06, 2.37, 1.55, 1.16, .85, .67, 3.2
6L80
4.027, 2.364, 1.532, 1.152, .852, .667, 3.064
6T40
4.584, 2.964, 1.912, 1.446, 1, .746, 2.94
6T70
4.484 2.872, 1.842, 1.414, 1, .742, 2.88
i've got a really neat set of PDFs explaining how the 6T70(and related) work, they're certainly complex, but nothing i can't handle.
Would the "5 PCS" mean pressure control solenoids ? The 2 shift solenoids sounds like what I remember and I think I remember the TCC solenoid. It was the multiple pressure control solenoids that always threw me, but I didn't remember how many.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertISaar
They all have the same basic solenoid setup actually. The actual controller assemblies are physically different between the FWD and RWD transmissions, but just about all of the RWD transmissions use the same part # for the controller/solenoid assembly. In the FWD models the 6T40 variants (6T40/45) are based off of the 6T70 series ( 6T70/75) so the controllers can possibly be the same part #. The 6T30 is based off of the same design too, but is physically smaller yet. Although, it likely has the same controllers as the others. In the RWD line even the 2ML70 that I mentioned earlier uses the same part number as the other RWD setups. At the last Chevy dealer, I was one of only two certified 2-mode hybrid techs out of the 17 technicians there so I would do minor trans repairs on them often just to keep the 1 1/2 trans techs out of the weeds. The first time that I had to replace the controller/solenoid assembly in a 2ML70 was fun because the part # was restricted. That meant a call to technical assistance to basically explain that I had gone through the proper diagnostic procedures and exactly what was wrong so they could document it. Then, because it was a hybrid, I had to wait for a call from an engineer that was involved directly in the development of those transmissions and talk to him personally before they would send me one. Luckily, the engineer wasn't a pious prick like many out there and was actually pretty cool. He told me that when the part was sent back that he would personally test it and gut it to pinpoint the problem so it made me a little nervous about my diagnosis. I still actually had to go so far as to completely disassemble the valve body and physically check every valve in it as well before a new module was sent out. Which, they are very simple compared to any other valve bodies as the complexity lies in the controller. Back to the RWD models, the 6L45/50 are basically just physically smaller versions of the 6L80/90 with the configuration being nearly identical. The earlier 5L40/50 were similar, but still had many differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertISaar
The mechanical operation is a little complicated compared to some of the older transmissions, but the real complexity lies within the code in the controller. I'm sure that a lot of the programming is unnecessary and is for emissions and/or driveability and could be completely eliminated. Things like the constant slipping of the TCC probably take a more complex algorithm than just controlling it in an on/off manner. A lot of the shifting algorithms could probably be simplified too since they are highly influenced by emissions and driveability concerns. In other words, someone that knows how the transmission is controlled by the solenoids could make one work (and probably work great) with a much simpler controller and code. I think that it would be nice to be able to just utilize the existing controller and pair it with a later model ECM, but I actually have problems with using a late model ECM. My biggest gripe with late model ECMs would be the need to use drive-by-wire, which I hate with a passion. My other gripe would just be the cost of OBDII tuning equipment. But, if I had the money for a late model 6 speed auto then I would probably be able to afford the tuning equipment :mad1: . Getting one of the late model TCMs to interface with an older ECM would be pretty neat too, but I don't see that being much if any less expensive than just going with a late model ECM setup which would have added benefits like coil-on-plug ignition etc....Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertISaar
Dam! I wonder what we would get for like $10? :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by pmkls1
Ummmm, you could get a plethora of random information that would take days to read and be of little use. LOL :popcorn:Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleMark
For a 4l60e behind a V8 look for a 1995+ 4.3 V6 TC, it will have the code DBLF on it. It gives about 2800rpm of stall rpm behind my L31 vortec 350.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertISaar
The I-4 4l60e TC's are different and will not work.
peace
Hog
The 4L60E has a common problem like this a lot…I would check out the blog at http://www.twincharlotte.com they list a lot of issues with the 4L60E transmission and common problems, symptoms and repair options.
Except I have been driving around with an 80E swap for two months after grenading the 60E.Quote:
Originally Posted by BJackson
Have a copy of that Ram Jet spark table I could eyeball? I googled around and found nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast355
It is on Thirdgen.org, the copy I made from that info was converted to work with the LS style timing map. I also have a Hypertech spark map for a L31 with 5 speed. They only really made WOT changes due to emissions compliance though.Quote:
Originally Posted by brian617