slogo1

i am planning on building an ls s10and am prob gonna use a 700r4 trans. is there any power loss difference to the rear wheels between the 4l60e and 700r4?

PBA

In stock form when compared to a 1996 and up 4L60E, the 700R4 will eat a little more horsepower. That is because of the turbulator steel clutches used in the low/reverse and reverse/input clutch packs of the 4L60E, require less horsepower to turn them. GM made the claim many years ago that you could get up to 5% more gas mileage with these installed. In all of my 700R4 rebuild kits I offer these turbulator clutch setups, for this reason. There are ways to reduce horsepower loss, but then this is for mainly drag racing only.

zgp

No difference if you know how to build a transmission. Lo/reverse and reveRse clutch do not have an impact on spin loss in drive range.

Vince B

iTrader: (1)

5% really? I find it hard to believe. Sounds to me who ever put that in print was the one pushing for the product change if you see what I'm saying here. If anything the idea was to help channel the oil and help lubricate the frictions while they were not applied in forward gears. I guess its possible to reduce rotational mass with less drag on the clutches while they are not applied. But 5% I'm not buying it.

slogo1 I honestly would not get caught up in a power loss between these two units due to the fact they are basically the same unit. If your budget allows I would go with an electronic version for shift timing purposes. It will be much easier to get the 4l60e to shift when you want it to. HTH Vince

slogo1

thanks for the help guys. i'm not sure if i'm gonna carb it or fuel inject it. if i can get it injected for close to the same price i would sure go that way and prob the 4l60e. again thanks for your help, i really didnt know if there was any difference.

PBA

I said that GM made the claim many years ago that you could get up to 5% more gas mileage with these installed. From different tests that I have made in different types of transmissions over the years I have seen a slight gain in mph from making these type of changes (adding the turbulator steel clutches where they were not used before). The faster the rpm the more horsepower loss there is from rotational drag from these clutches dragging. The low/reverse clutches can eat up several more horsepower than a transmission without low/reverse clutches. That is why a C-6 transmission will eat up several more horsepower than a TF-727 once in high gear. Since the low/reverse clutches and the reverse/input clutches cannot be eliminated, the Turbulator steel technology that GM created is to greatly reduce the drag that is created when the clutches are in the off position. The added Turbulator slots are to eliminate the ability of the clutch to stick to a steel (somewhat like a magnet) when the clutch is in the open position. The clutches "do not" separate themselves as you would think when they are not being applied. I am sure that you have heard of people putting rubber spacers between the steels to keep them apart when not being applied in certain transmissions. Waved steels would do a similar reduction in drag, but the side effects would be extremely slow clutch engagements because of the long piston apply travel needed to compress the clutch pack fully. GM has used them in 4L80E's for the same reason. I have added them to TH350's, Powerglides, and others, some with slightly better results than others.

slogo1

who builds the 700r4 trans good to hold up at a fairly decent price.

zgp

They can be made just as strong a a 4l60 - 70e. We do it all the time at zero gravity.

zgp

While the reason you describe for turbulator plats is true in theory. Lik Vince states it is not a 5% gain. As for wave plates or dish plates the do not reduce spinloss, they are there to soften the clutch apply. Piston travel is dictated by how tight you make the travel with or without a wave plate. Even with a wave plate in there you still have the same drag for the most part.

Tolley's94z28

iTrader: (4)

I just thought I would throw this out there, I have a stock 93 700R4 for sale, it is in great condition, lmk if you are interested

PBA

Quite a few years ago I talked to engineers at Borg Warner about this on several occasions and they verified what GM had said about gaining some gas mileage with the Turbulator steel clutches due to less drag. They also mentioned with less parasitic drag there was a slight drop in oil temperature. Another side effect was a slightly quicker clutch engagement, and they said that you could run the clutch clearances closer when using the Turbulator steel clutches. When I installed these Turbulator steel clutches in different transmissions, (steel clutches that I modified myself) there was always a slight gain in quarter mile performance, some transmissions gained a little more than others. You say there is no difference in "spinloss" when using "waved plates". I was stating using waved plates throughout, not just one to act as a cushion for the clutch engagement. Yes, there are differences in drag. Using all waved plates has the top of the steels making minimum contact with the clutches, when in the open position, therefore less drag. GM & Borg Warner knew this, but as I stated, but it takes too much time and the piston travel is very long to compress the clutch pack when using waved steel clutches throughout. This would create a delay in the clutch engagement. The Turbulator theory was created to eliminate the "excess drag", and it does work.

zgp

No disagreement on the fact that turbulator plates improve power. The debate is 5%??? Wave plates, however are only used at the bottom of a clutch stack, not as a replacement for every steel. They, do not make contact with rotater plates such as fibers which have an impact on spinloss.

garygnu

do you want to put a non-computorized trans in a computorized car?problems?

PBA

If I remember the article correctly. (This was many years ago). GM stated that at 55 - 65mph on a typical GM vehicle, it would save up to 5% in gas mileage when using the Turbulator steels clutches (low/reverse and reverse/input) in a 4L60E. I know that you do not use waved steel clutches thrughout the clutch pack. I was making a comparison with the different ideas, showing what was being compared as to horsepower gain or loss here.

zgp

Soooo this whole thread was based of a article that you read. Are you or have you ever done any transmission engineering, or do you just google articles?

PBA

The article is "where I started". Since then, I have done comparison test on these as I stated in different transmissions to see what happens in the "real world".

Jake's Performance

iTrader: (2)

So our old friend Trinity Performance transmissions is back from the dead with a different name and a different partner.

To answer your question,
PBA is Pro Built Automatics, Dana is his name and yes he has done considerable research with the 4L60 series units.

His stuff actually works!
Unlike the POS 4L80E transbrake you sold to a bunch of people here on LS1Tech, including me.
What a pile of ****, considering you claimed to be a Hydramatic engineer. You're a joke.

How about you pay some sponsorship fees if you are going to have your business name in your signature?

zgp

[QUOTE=Jake's Performance;15024352]So our old friend Trinity Performance transmissions is back from the dead with a different name and a different partner.

To answer your question,
PBA is Pro Built Automatics, Dana is his name and yes he has done considerable research with the 4L60 series units.

His stuff actually works!
Unlike the POS 4L80E transbrake you sold to a bunch of people here on LS1Tech, including me.
What a pile of ****, considering you claimed to be a Hydramatic engineer. You're a joke.

How about you pay some sponsorship fees if you are going to have your business name in your signature?[/QUOTE

Just because you had issues says very little. You build what 400's and 4l80e's ? I have not seen any rave reviews on a T-brake from you? I Guarantee you one thing I can build any transmission not just 400s and 4l80e far better then anything you offer. I do not post many responses if you would do some research. I respond to threads that are not getting any info. So anytime you want to question my credentials bring it on otherwise let us know what qualifies you to be the expert?

Jake's Performance

iTrader: (2)

[QUOTE=zgp;15025843]I would say being successful where a" Hydramatic Engineer" failed makes me an expert.
I have sold over 150 of the transbrakes with excellent results. Let see, you sold me one that was fucked, Jordan in Canada, how about we ask Frank@ Performabuilt and Chris@ CK about their experiences with your junk, and the other 2-3 guys who tried your junk and are now using mine?

Jake's Performance

iTrader: (2)

I built a 5R55W, 700-R4, Powerglide, Borg Warner Velvet Drive, 2 TH350's, and a TH400 this week. Aside from my guys building 4L80s and TH400's.

I don't sell and ship anything but 4L80E's, TH400's, and occasionally a TH350 anymore.
I have more business than I can keep up with doing JUST 4L80Es. That's how it goes when your product works.

Rave reviews for my T-brake? You should do some more research. The product speaks for itself. Dozens of customers on LS1Tech alone.
Here's one:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/automatic...xperience.html

Another;
http://www.performancetrucks.net/for...d.php?t=482815

Another customer:
http://www.performancetrucks.net/for...d.php?t=480995

Another:
http://www.ls1truck.com/forums/showt...910#post424910

How about another:
http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/in...topic=146542.0




Let's review your record....
https://ls1tech.com/forums/automatic...ransbrake.html

Want to continue with this discussion?