stand alone controller for a 6L80E
09-11-2013, 05:04 PM
#41
Moderator
I've only experienced a 6L80E once - I went to test drive a Pontiac G8-GT (LS2 engine with 6l80E) with serious intent of buying it. From a stop light I did a brisk acceleration - it leaped nicely in 1st gear, but at a relatively low speed yet high RPM shifted into 2nd gear at which point it completely bogged down. IMHO, GM's choice of rear end ratio, typically-low-stall converter and trans were completely unsuitable to this car.
Also the 6L80E covers a 1st to 6th gear ratio of 6-to-1 versus 4-to-1 for the TCI 6X. IMHO, no large-displacement performance car needs a 6-to-1 range of gear ratios; however SUVs and trucks do due to their weight. Therefore, I believe (again IMHO) that this trans was designed for heavier vehicles and is perfect for those. But not relatively light weight cars.
Needless to say, I didn't buy the Pontiac G8 and discourage people from considering a 6L80E for their hot-rod cars.
Also the 6L80E covers a 1st to 6th gear ratio of 6-to-1 versus 4-to-1 for the TCI 6X. IMHO, no large-displacement performance car needs a 6-to-1 range of gear ratios; however SUVs and trucks do due to their weight. Therefore, I believe (again IMHO) that this trans was designed for heavier vehicles and is perfect for those. But not relatively light weight cars.
Needless to say, I didn't buy the Pontiac G8 and discourage people from considering a 6L80E for their hot-rod cars.
09-11-2013, 07:29 PM
#43
Moderator
Why give up? We have learned a lot from you; your posts are very informative. Also Joecar's numbers showing that the 6L80E gear ratios are no wider than a 4L80E; that was definitely a myth buster.
I'm just saying (and I thinks others are implying) that the 6L80E would not be suitable for an e.g. 3200 lb Vette or similar light-weight car. The 4.08 1st gear would only make sense with a 2.43 (if there is such a thing) rear ratio and who would then need a 0.65 6th gear. A performance cam doesn't like to run under 2000 rpm.
Your signature has pictures of heavy SUVs for which a 6L80E is perfect and for which it was designed.
Anyway, sorry if you felt offended by my or anyone else's comments, but it has been an informative thread and I sincerely thank you for your contribution to it.
I'm just saying (and I thinks others are implying) that the 6L80E would not be suitable for an e.g. 3200 lb Vette or similar light-weight car. The 4.08 1st gear would only make sense with a 2.43 (if there is such a thing) rear ratio and who would then need a 0.65 6th gear. A performance cam doesn't like to run under 2000 rpm.
Your signature has pictures of heavy SUVs for which a 6L80E is perfect and for which it was designed.
Anyway, sorry if you felt offended by my or anyone else's comments, but it has been an informative thread and I sincerely thank you for your contribution to it.
09-11-2013, 10:08 PM
#44
11 Second Club
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: TN
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So beings you want to talk about real world…let’s talk about the REAL REAL WORLD.
That said, I am not sure where to even start with your reply bc it's 1) kinda all over the place 2) conveniently fails to address the key items to my argument- specifically that gearing (transmission AND rear axle in COMBINATION) along with specific engine torque curves are all a system and cannot be conveniently isolated to support notion. I'm sorry if my (and scientists') engineering math calculations are considered 'shuck & jive' or witchcraft to you. But you speak of things you don’t understand. The fact that your particular Vette with a very specific engine torque curve works well with the 6X is fine. Clearly, you selected/built your engine first with a specific power curve before choosing your rear end ratio, then as an afterthought threw a transmission in there. I prefer to look at ALL the components of a given system to insure they work together before hand. You could use a Powerglide to achieve your ¼ mile times….but oh yeah.. .you’d have to change your rear axle ratio to match up...and might have to push that redline higher.
Now to enlighten all parties involved with regards to my voodoo calculations and the scientific truth about gearing, I'll explain a few things. First my experience comes not only from formal education in high end mathematics, physics, accounting, and computer programming, but also from 3 generations of family construction and trucking which included being an OTR owner operator myself. Cars are just my hobby and passion. Also, I don’t just “build”, “repair”, or “fix” things….I design, engineer, test, and manufacture things. That means essentially creating what doesn’t exist and having to adhere to pesky details like "the scientific method" to make something come into existence.
The REAL REAL world involves more than just two variables (rpm and power). It involves rpm, power and time. [We won’t even get into temperature and frictional forces.] How the rpms and power (independently and cooperatively) relate to a given moment in time is critical to any argument. Engines don’t make the same power at all RPM levels. Just because two engines make the same peak power doesn’t mean they make ANY of the power at the same RPMs. Just because two engines have a 6000 RPM redline doesn’t mean they rev from any given rpm to that redline in the same amount of time (eg. Long stroke diesels vs. short stroke F1 engines). Further, dynos don’t “directly” convey the latter. While ‘how quickly’ the engine revs through a given RPM can be inferred by looking at the HP AND TQ across same rpm range, you have to consider that the gearing and drivetrain friction play a role in that, not to mention wind resistance on the road/track that isn’t present on the dyno… as the following explains.
As you can see from my previously posted “calculations” your Vette upshifts and drops your RPM around 5000, which as your dyno shows, is optimum for your engine because your torque is at peak and your HP is on the rise. So it’s pretty clear from my spreadsheet that I posted BEFORE your dyno sheets, without having to swap transmissions, that the 6L80 gearing would drop you to a lower RPM where your torque may be equal, but your hp is lower...making your engine pull back up to higher power. So congrats, the gearing of the 6X worked for your very specific engine torque curve, very particular gearing, and light weight. That may not work for every other engine curve, axle ratio, and vehicle weight.
To dismiss the impact of your torque converter may be convenient, but it’s not negligible in THE REAL WORLD. A custom tc usually allows the motor to rev faster (time variable) and with less resistance. So your high stall slick piece does more than just what you observed and wanted it to do. Now, unless I’m misunderstanding or misreading something, your motor doesn’t look all that powerful. I see it making less than 200 lb/ft of torque under 3000 rpms. You’re damn near pushing 5000 rpms before your torque and horsepower get to 300. I mean…stock LS2 GTO’s put over 300 lb/ft of torque to the wheel by 2000 RPMs, so, I mean…you NEED a high stall converter to get that motor to move the car along. Plus LS3’s have heads that need high rpm to make them shine. Soooo…to summarize you have a engine spec’d for HIGH RPM power. So yeah, lower numerical gears, a high stall tc, and a transmission that favors keeping the motor running LONG and high in the rpm band WOULD make you faster than a transmission that is geared for low to mid rpm torque engines.
That said, I am not sure where to even start with your reply bc it's 1) kinda all over the place 2) conveniently fails to address the key items to my argument- specifically that gearing (transmission AND rear axle in COMBINATION) along with specific engine torque curves are all a system and cannot be conveniently isolated to support notion. I'm sorry if my (and scientists') engineering math calculations are considered 'shuck & jive' or witchcraft to you. But you speak of things you don’t understand. The fact that your particular Vette with a very specific engine torque curve works well with the 6X is fine. Clearly, you selected/built your engine first with a specific power curve before choosing your rear end ratio, then as an afterthought threw a transmission in there. I prefer to look at ALL the components of a given system to insure they work together before hand. You could use a Powerglide to achieve your ¼ mile times….but oh yeah.. .you’d have to change your rear axle ratio to match up...and might have to push that redline higher.
Now to enlighten all parties involved with regards to my voodoo calculations and the scientific truth about gearing, I'll explain a few things. First my experience comes not only from formal education in high end mathematics, physics, accounting, and computer programming, but also from 3 generations of family construction and trucking which included being an OTR owner operator myself. Cars are just my hobby and passion. Also, I don’t just “build”, “repair”, or “fix” things….I design, engineer, test, and manufacture things. That means essentially creating what doesn’t exist and having to adhere to pesky details like "the scientific method" to make something come into existence.
The REAL REAL world involves more than just two variables (rpm and power). It involves rpm, power and time. [We won’t even get into temperature and frictional forces.] How the rpms and power (independently and cooperatively) relate to a given moment in time is critical to any argument. Engines don’t make the same power at all RPM levels. Just because two engines make the same peak power doesn’t mean they make ANY of the power at the same RPMs. Just because two engines have a 6000 RPM redline doesn’t mean they rev from any given rpm to that redline in the same amount of time (eg. Long stroke diesels vs. short stroke F1 engines). Further, dynos don’t “directly” convey the latter. While ‘how quickly’ the engine revs through a given RPM can be inferred by looking at the HP AND TQ across same rpm range, you have to consider that the gearing and drivetrain friction play a role in that, not to mention wind resistance on the road/track that isn’t present on the dyno… as the following explains.
As you can see from my previously posted “calculations” your Vette upshifts and drops your RPM around 5000, which as your dyno shows, is optimum for your engine because your torque is at peak and your HP is on the rise. So it’s pretty clear from my spreadsheet that I posted BEFORE your dyno sheets, without having to swap transmissions, that the 6L80 gearing would drop you to a lower RPM where your torque may be equal, but your hp is lower...making your engine pull back up to higher power. So congrats, the gearing of the 6X worked for your very specific engine torque curve, very particular gearing, and light weight. That may not work for every other engine curve, axle ratio, and vehicle weight.
To dismiss the impact of your torque converter may be convenient, but it’s not negligible in THE REAL WORLD. A custom tc usually allows the motor to rev faster (time variable) and with less resistance. So your high stall slick piece does more than just what you observed and wanted it to do. Now, unless I’m misunderstanding or misreading something, your motor doesn’t look all that powerful. I see it making less than 200 lb/ft of torque under 3000 rpms. You’re damn near pushing 5000 rpms before your torque and horsepower get to 300. I mean…stock LS2 GTO’s put over 300 lb/ft of torque to the wheel by 2000 RPMs, so, I mean…you NEED a high stall converter to get that motor to move the car along. Plus LS3’s have heads that need high rpm to make them shine. Soooo…to summarize you have a engine spec’d for HIGH RPM power. So yeah, lower numerical gears, a high stall tc, and a transmission that favors keeping the motor running LONG and high in the rpm band WOULD make you faster than a transmission that is geared for low to mid rpm torque engines.
LS3 376/480 HO eng is a low end TQ cammed engine. LS3 376/525HP engine is High RPM HP Cammed option. I bought the 480 HO because it to me is better street engine with it's TQ was higher in the low RPM range I would be driving in the most, not in the upper RPM only usable when raceing and also because it has an Idle similar to a 67 Vette BB 427CI engine.
It's just a GM crate engine option The 1st transmission I purchased for car was not TCI 6X , but a built 4L65E with VSS mod needed to make it work with LS3 ECM. My rear gear choice to use with it was 3.55, but I strongly considered going with a 3.70 because of te 4L65 gear spread.
How 6X came to replaced 4L65E wasn't "Planned". It was because as build of the 64 vette progress, it's LOOK out grew A4 trans in it, "IMAGE" wise. Trans needed to be changed to a manual 6 sp or a 6 sp auto, for "Build Image". I had two A6 choices, 6L80 (already had one of those in my 66 vertt so I knew what was required to swap it in and what it would drive like in a MY vette) and the TCI 6X.
Looked at the 6X gearing and saw it's 2nd - 5th gears looked similar to the old Muncie close ratio manual 1st to 4th ratios that I loved in my 65 back in the day, but that it also had a lower 1st gear that would help getting weight moving around town for that feel of being fast at a Red Light.
I looked closer at the 6X gearing, were I used a 3.07 Dana 50 machined to fit in Dana 44 housing with the 6l80E, I could stay with the 3.55 rear gear, and not blow the tires off in 1st gear like I can do with the 6L80E/3.07 in the 66 without even trying, and have a 4.19 drive ratio in 4th that made drag racing look to be interesting.
You think taking off in 1st with a 6L's gearing is thrilling, it's nothing like trans downshifting into 4th when passing at 70 MPH or lower to a 4.19 ratio...
Like a shot of NO. While you thought my build was a planned combination around engine and trans as a package, as you see it wasn't, it was all about "IMAGE" instead. Nothing I planned from the beginning.
By the way your right about power being down. You can run the numbers on the crate stock LS3 430HP/424TQ engine to see how it compares to the LS2 and my LS3480HP engine.
My engine is rated at 480HP/470TQ Hot Cam.
The key to the power boost is the Hot Cam’s 0.525-inch lift on both the intake and exhaust sides, along with 219-degree/228-degree duration specs. That’s less lift on the intake side than the stock LS3 cam, but considerably more duration, allowing the valves to stay open a little longer to draw in more air. As a result, peak horsepower comes earlier than the stock LS3 and the torque curve remains flat higher on the rpm band. So a stock LS3 makes it's peak HP higher in the RPM range than my HO engine.
May need to shift at 6000, not 6600.The below LS3 carte engine is rated at 430 HP/424TQ.
Weight of my car is close to that of one used for ET & MPH, rear gear of 4.44 Vs my 4.19 4th is not the same. Engine was tested with either a TH350 or TH400. You can bet it's stalled higher than mine.
I'm stalled for street/low speed auto crossing. TCI 254013 - TCI 8'' Competition Race Converters
8'' Race Converter - Group 2
1965-90 TH350/400
Small Bolt Pattern (except lock-up)
They don't say what tires they used, street or DR's, but vehicle tested in looks to be set up for racing and not street. Because my engine is rated as having 50 more HP and 46 more FT lbs of TQ, I can probably with DR's & intake MAF change from LS2 restrictive one to LS3 style improve car's ET to match that of that motor. Also My exhaust exits through mufflers and headers are homemade not developed to make max power.
Bottom line it's power is what it is with no consideration taken in trying to get MAX Dyno or Racing ETs. As you can see My engine is all about "IMAGE". Image gets you a picture of your engine in Chevy Performance Part "Engines of Hot Rod Power Tour.
People don't care about engine numbers and one can always lie about them if one needs to feel so. It's really all about how engine looks and you only see that parked.
Reading you reply second time, it seems your saying 6L80E works great with any power combination in one place, yet in another it like you say you would not use it in all combination like say mine, so 6X fits it better.
PS: You do realize I'm really promoting my car more than anything else
I do strongly feel 6L80/90 performance wise, one needs to look real close at set up of car it's going in more so than with a 6X. Tuning a 6L80E to vehicle's combination is not an easything to get done. Average Joe can't think he can jsut throw one in drive. I learend that the hard way.By the way you do understand one of the reasons GM has stayed away from offering Crate engines with 6L80E option ECM is because of tuning issues from install to install. Their biggest reason though was they underestamated HOT Rodders installing them in thier cars because of it size. That may change down the road.
Last edited by poorhousenext; 09-11-2013 at 10:30 PM.
09-14-2013, 05:51 AM
#46
The 6x looks great except for the .75 sixth gear ratio. That is what makes the 6l80e so appealing to me. I have a 4l80e now, and my car is a street car. I love the idea of a .667 sixth with 3.23s or 3.42s out back - super low cruising speed. The problem with the 6l is that first gear would be useless on the street with the blower I'm about to slap on the car. If the 6x had a taller 6th I'd be sold.
09-14-2013, 12:36 PM
#47
11 Second Club
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: TN
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 6x looks great except for the .75 sixth gear ratio. That is what makes the 6l80e so appealing to me. I have a 4l80e now, and my car is a street car. I love the idea of a .667 sixth with 3.23s or 3.42s out back - super low cruising speed. The problem with the 6l is that first gear would be useless on the street with the blower I'm about to slap on the car. If the 6x had a taller 6th I'd be sold.
My 66 Vette with 6L80E with same tire size and rear gear RPM at 70 MPH is 1965.
Because the 6X has a 1.18 4th and 5th is 1:1, you might be able to use a taller rear gear so 4th will match or come close to matching your current 1:1 ratio you want for performance, and still be able to get RPM close to where you want cruise RPM to be.
http://www.apexgarage.com/tech/gear_ratios.shtml
11-20-2013, 05:35 PM
#48
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Woodstock Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1->2
6L80: 4.027 to 2.364 = split ratio 1.70;=1.63:1 difference
4L80E: 2.48 to 1.48 = split ratio 1.68;=1.00:1 difference
those are very close;
2->3
6L80: 2.364 to 1.532 = split ratio 1.54;=0.83:1 difference
4L80E: 1.48 to 1.00 = split ratio 1.48;=0.48:1 difference
those are close;
3->4
6L80: 1.532 to 1.152 = split ratio 1.33;=0.38:1 difference
4L80E: 1.00 to 0.75 = split ratio 1.333;=0.25:1 difference
those are very close.
So the 6L80 compares to the 4L80E which has the closest splits of the GM transmissions.
( we're talking AT's, not MT's, you can see this from what is being discussed, T56 has nothing to do with this )
6L80: 4.027 to 2.364 = split ratio 1.70;=1.63:1 difference
4L80E: 2.48 to 1.48 = split ratio 1.68;=1.00:1 difference
those are very close;
2->3
6L80: 2.364 to 1.532 = split ratio 1.54;=0.83:1 difference
4L80E: 1.48 to 1.00 = split ratio 1.48;=0.48:1 difference
those are close;
3->4
6L80: 1.532 to 1.152 = split ratio 1.33;=0.38:1 difference
4L80E: 1.00 to 0.75 = split ratio 1.333;=0.25:1 difference
those are very close.
So the 6L80 compares to the 4L80E which has the closest splits of the GM transmissions.
( we're talking AT's, not MT's, you can see this from what is being discussed, T56 has nothing to do with this )
The 1-2 upshifts
4l80e has a 2.48:1 1st and 1.48:1 2nd gear, for a 1.00:1 differential
6l80e has a 1.532 1st and 1.152 2nd gear for a
As you can see a 1-2 upshift difference of 1.63:1 is much larger than a 1.00:1 ratio.
The 6l80e has a 63% larger differential on the 1-2 upshift than the 4l80e.
The 700r4/4l60e/65e/70e it has a 3.06:1 for 1st gear and 1.63 for 2nd
so
3.06:1 - 1.63:1= 1.43:1 difference
6l80e
so
4.027 - 2.364=1.663:1 difference
So when comparing first to second gear ratio differences, the 4l60e has less ratio difference than the 6l80e/90e.
The the 6l80e still has a wider ratio drop than the 4l60e series trans, and the 4l60e is known for a big drop in rpm during upshifts.
If you had a 4l80e vehicle and hypothetically upshifted at WOT at 6000rpm, you may a hypothetical 1500rpm drop(tach would read 4500rpm) in rpm as 2nd gear engages.
If you then swapped in a 6l80e/90e and hypothetically WOT upshifted at 600rpm, you would hypothetically see perhaps 2000rpm(tach you read 4000rpm) or more rpm drop as 2nd gear engages.
The ratios of the 4l60e and the 4l80e have closer ratios than the wider ratios of the 6l80e/90e 6 speed GM automatic transmissions.
peace
Hog
11-20-2013, 10:18 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: VA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original Post Question This one works well in my Dodge truck with a 5.9L Cummins and 6L90. It will also work perfectly in a 03 V12 Aston Martin Vanquish with a 6L80.
11-23-2013, 03:12 PM
#52
TECH Senior Member
Hey Hog,
I was dividing (rather than subtracting) the gear ratios... this gives you the relative ratio between two gears.
( gear ratios can be compared only by their relative ratio, not by their difference, it has to do with the properties of the mathematical field )
so:
4.027/2.364 = 1.70
2.480/1.480 = 1.68
3.059/1.625 = 1.88
and so on.
Hey Joecar, I realize that this an old post, but the numbers you calculated are off.
The 1-2 upshifts
4l80e has a 2.48:1 1st and 1.48:1 2nd gear, for a 1.00:1 differential
6l80e has a 1.532 1st and 1.152 2nd gear for a
As you can see a 1-2 upshift difference of 1.63:1 is much larger than a 1.00:1 ratio.
The 6l80e has a 63% larger differential on the 1-2 upshift than the 4l80e.
The 700r4/4l60e/65e/70e it has a 3.06:1 for 1st gear and 1.63 for 2nd
so
3.06:1 - 1.63:1= 1.43:1 difference
6l80e
so
4.027 - 2.364=1.663:1 difference
So when comparing first to second gear ratio differences, the 4l60e has less ratio difference than the 6l80e/90e.
The the 6l80e still has a wider ratio drop than the 4l60e series trans, and the 4l60e is known for a big drop in rpm during upshifts.
If you had a 4l80e vehicle and hypothetically upshifted at WOT at 6000rpm, you may a hypothetical 1500rpm drop(tach would read 4500rpm) in rpm as 2nd gear engages.
If you then swapped in a 6l80e/90e and hypothetically WOT upshifted at 600rpm, you would hypothetically see perhaps 2000rpm(tach you read 4000rpm) or more rpm drop as 2nd gear engages.
The ratios of the 4l60e and the 4l80e have closer ratios than the wider ratios of the 6l80e/90e 6 speed GM automatic transmissions.
peace
Hog
I was dividing (rather than subtracting) the gear ratios... this gives you the relative ratio between two gears.
( gear ratios can be compared only by their relative ratio, not by their difference, it has to do with the properties of the mathematical field )
so:
4.027/2.364 = 1.70
2.480/1.480 = 1.68
3.059/1.625 = 1.88
and so on.
Hey Joecar, I realize that this an old post, but the numbers you calculated are off.
The 1-2 upshifts
4l80e has a 2.48:1 1st and 1.48:1 2nd gear, for a 1.00:1 differential
6l80e has a 1.532 1st and 1.152 2nd gear for a
As you can see a 1-2 upshift difference of 1.63:1 is much larger than a 1.00:1 ratio.
The 6l80e has a 63% larger differential on the 1-2 upshift than the 4l80e.
The 700r4/4l60e/65e/70e it has a 3.06:1 for 1st gear and 1.63 for 2nd
so
3.06:1 - 1.63:1= 1.43:1 difference
6l80e
so
4.027 - 2.364=1.663:1 difference
So when comparing first to second gear ratio differences, the 4l60e has less ratio difference than the 6l80e/90e.
The the 6l80e still has a wider ratio drop than the 4l60e series trans, and the 4l60e is known for a big drop in rpm during upshifts.
If you had a 4l80e vehicle and hypothetically upshifted at WOT at 6000rpm, you may a hypothetical 1500rpm drop(tach would read 4500rpm) in rpm as 2nd gear engages.
If you then swapped in a 6l80e/90e and hypothetically WOT upshifted at 600rpm, you would hypothetically see perhaps 2000rpm(tach you read 4000rpm) or more rpm drop as 2nd gear engages.
The ratios of the 4l60e and the 4l80e have closer ratios than the wider ratios of the 6l80e/90e 6 speed GM automatic transmissions.
peace
Hog
Last edited by joecar; 11-23-2013 at 03:30 PM.
11-23-2013, 03:20 PM
#53
TECH Senior Member
i.e.
4.027 / 2.364 = 1.703
2.480 / 1.480 = 1.676
3.059 / 1.625 = 1.882
so you can see that for 1->2 even tho 4L60E has a lower ratio difference, it has higher relative ratio compared to either of the 6L80 and 4L80E...
i.e. the 4L60E has a wider 1->2 ratio drop (split) compared to 6L80 and 4L80E.
For example, say rpm is 6000 in 1st gear, calculate the new rpm in 2nd gear (ignore rpm slip due to TCC being unlocked):
6000/1.703 = 3523 <-- 6L80 1->2
6000/1.676 = 3579 <-- 4L80E 1->2
6000/1.882 = 3188 <-- 4L65E 1->2
4.027 / 2.364 = 1.703
2.480 / 1.480 = 1.676
3.059 / 1.625 = 1.882
so you can see that for 1->2 even tho 4L60E has a lower ratio difference, it has higher relative ratio compared to either of the 6L80 and 4L80E...
i.e. the 4L60E has a wider 1->2 ratio drop (split) compared to 6L80 and 4L80E.
For example, say rpm is 6000 in 1st gear, calculate the new rpm in 2nd gear (ignore rpm slip due to TCC being unlocked):
6000/1.703 = 3523 <-- 6L80 1->2
6000/1.676 = 3579 <-- 4L80E 1->2
6000/1.882 = 3188 <-- 4L65E 1->2
Last edited by joecar; 11-23-2013 at 03:36 PM.
12-22-2013, 03:38 PM
#55
As a stock motor. NO bc an LQ9 is a 24x Gen III, not a 58x Gen IV (ie electronics won't recognize the engine). Secondly, so long as it's under 500hp and tuned properly (i.e. someone with extensive experience tuning the transmission), then it'll live just fine.
12-22-2013, 04:26 PM
#56
11 Second Club
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: TN
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If what Jamie (Tech for PCS "Powertrain Control Systems") says and if PCS has come off it's OME only postion The PCS TCM-2600 should work.
Somebody might want to contact PCS and see if average Joe can buy one and expect 6L80E or 90E to work with any engine you can adapt a 6L to bolt up to.
12-22-2013, 09:57 PM
#58
BTW... Is anyone working on a 6 speed 4l80e, like the TCI 6x?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/automatic...e-use-one.html
And did anything come out of this?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/automatic...e-use-one.html
And did anything come out of this?
I would like a technical explanation of how TCI does the 6X conversion to the 4L80E... I have rebuilt quite a few 400's and 350's but never a 4L80E, which I know is more complicated, so this is just to feed my intellectual curiosity.
On the 6L80E, I believe PCS has said that they are developing control parameters for its TC.
On the 6L80E, I believe PCS has said that they are developing control parameters for its TC.
Last edited by RONIN LSX; 12-28-2013 at 02:50 AM.
12-22-2013, 11:10 PM
#59
You can use a 6l80e or 6l90e behind the LQ9 with the PCS 2600. As long as you are under 500 hp it will not have any problems.
12-22-2013, 11:13 PM
#60
BTW... Is anyone working on a 6 speed 4l80e, like the TCI 6x?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/automatic...e-use-one.html
Another question...Apparently you can retrofit your III with all the components from a VI so that the 6l80 will see it as a VI. What all needs to be done to do this to a lq9? Sorry for all the basic questions, but I'm no Einstein at this
And did anything come out of this?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/automatic...e-use-one.html
Another question...Apparently you can retrofit your III with all the components from a VI so that the 6l80 will see it as a VI. What all needs to be done to do this to a lq9? Sorry for all the basic questions, but I'm no Einstein at this
And did anything come out of this?
There are others doing the 6 speed version of the 4l80e, we do them but use the PCS valve body and controller. Far superior to the TCI trans.