55ChevDelray

What is CAN?

Speartech

iTrader: (14)

rsz288, Thanks for finally posting some installed pics!

We've sold several systems for 6L's going into early F-bodies, but I've never been able to tell them exactly how it sits or how the ground clearance is. Now I can show them!

Great job on the finished product

kirtondog23

Can anyone comment on actual MPG gains or changes going from a 4 speed to the 6? I have heard it is incremental and my buddies denaili 6.2 gets like 14 mpg, but something tells me there should be a real opportunity here.

Does anyone know?

55ChevDelray

Found it..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller_Area_Network

Bo185

That's in a 5000+# truck. I in a lighter car, with less than stellar aerodynamics you would see nice gains.

The biggest thing is the 4:1 first gear and double OD. You could have a conservative rear gear ratios and still have power off the line with the smaller tire size vs the trucks.

The kicker is the engine needs a Gen IV with 58x reluctor wheel for the ECM to talk to the TCM.

rsz288

Thank you John. You're welcome. 3,000+ miles and going strong . Currently waiting on a Posi so we can run it at the strip.

Do you have an E67 solution for the A6 as well these days?

Your 91 Z28 there is running strong! 10.66! Do you need a cage once you run that quick at your local track?

Cheers

Speartech

iTrader: (14)

Yes, the 91 Z28 is running consistent 10.7's and really should have a cage; they really don't enforce many rules at the nearby track.



Yes, we are using the E67 with our LS9/6L90 package development.

We should have it up and running real soon.

55ChevDelray

lookin Good...

rsz288

Awesome John! Awesome! Leading the way as always!

Does the E67 mean that cruise control might even be possible? Or is that still a BCM only "option"?

holschen

iTrader: (1)

Hi i´m from sweden and i´m building an camaro 69 with L92 and 6l80e from a yocon denali
Were can i find the g8/commodore trans pan and filter?
i´m searching but i seem to have trouble finding them

rsz288

Readily available down here at the bottom end of the planet.

If you cant find one, PM me if you like and will see what we can organise for you.

rsz288

Its really all about the overall final drive ratio, load and driving style.

With a 4:1 first gear and ~0.65 OD in 6th, you can run a 2.5 to 3 rear axle and see something equivalent to a 4.11 or better in first, and low rpm cruise in 6th. We get something similar to Corvette MPG. Aerodynamics aren't quite there, but it is relatively frugal at highway speeds.

MPG is very close to directly proportional to rpm provided there is adequate torque at the rpm to move the car/truck at the required speed. i.e. reduce rpm by 20% can see 15-20% reduction in fuel usage provided the throttle setting can be reduced accordingly. Its not a straight line though.

koaea

Has anyone made any effort to control a 6l80 with a 24x reluctor?

Or can anyone speak to the complexity of swapping reluctors, or what else is involved?

I'm trying to retro an LQ4 with LS6 intake into a '79 G-body, and would love to go with a 6sp auto, but if reluctor wheel replacement is equivalent to nearly rebuilding a motor, I'm likely going to stick with the 4sp.

TIA!

rsz288

Sorry for late reply. Must have missed your question.

Nothing GM can do this (yet). Maybe talk to MAST. Their engine controller might do it.

67RS/SSx2

Great thread!

Rsz288, did you try a 6l80 for fit? I'm curious because I want to swap an L92/6l80e into my '69 Camaro but I don't want to cut the trans tunnel.

Holschen, have you test fitted your combo? Do you have a build thread.

Sorry to hijack (but it is along the same lines).

Thanks!

John McGraw

The 6L80 is the same case as the 90, the pan is shallower, but the part that goes into the tunnel is the same. I am putting a 6L80 into a 67 A body right now
and there was no way it was going to fit without major surgery. I ended up cutting the entire tunnel out and starting from scratch. It is not that the trans is that much taller from the centerline, it is more about how wide the trans is at the top. It is almost the same height as a 4L trans, but is much wider at the top. The pan is going to hang lower, no matter what! The trans is deeper from the centerline to the bottom of the pan, and if you try and raise it up enough to get the pan up to stock clearance, the centerline of the trans will be too high for the driveline angle to work correctly.


Regards, John McGraw

rsz288

As John McG points out, the 6L80 and 6L90 cases are almost identical. The 6L90 case has an additional 1 1/4" on the back to support a heavier duty output stage. But the distance from the output shaft center line to the outer case surface is all but the same between the two, but is 3/4" more than a 4L65E (see the pics at the start of this thread, you will see a nut and washers spacing the pine 3 x 2 up on the 4L65).

There are deep pans for both trans' and a shallow pan for the 6L80 used on G8's at least. Have seen pics of the shallow pan on a Cadi 6L80 trans, but never had this confirmed. Maybe on the Cadi CTS-V with 6L90 there is a shallow pan option for the 6L90 now too.

No real difficult issue with width from the output shaft centerline on an F Body, only height.

There is another 6L80 going into a 68 Camaro that I know of (twin turbo no less referred to elsewhere in this thread too) and with that project the application of some "heat" and a hammer on the trans tunnel roof created the additional fit clearance, but it depends on how much ground clearance you want in the end. If you can work with around 3 1/2" ground clearance, then you probably would get away with some "minor reshaping" . That project is using an aftermarket subframe.

Luckily in an F Body, at least Gen 1, with the trans as high as possible to get safe ground clearance, the driveline angle still works out pretty well and the engine crank centre line is at 1.5 to 2 degrees. Not perfect, but close. The revision of the tunnel roof gained just over an inch of clearance.

Did we like having to revise it via cutting it? No. But kept the cut out pieces so it can be changed back if need be (unlikely for a plain jane) and actually gained tunnel stiffness in that area.

holschen

iTrader: (1)

I might post a thread later but i have not got my engine yet ,and my lt1 is still in my car
i´ll probably go with mast for injection and ecu and brp for my enginge an trans mounts and as rsz288 and john points out
the best result will probably come from cutting and welding the trans tunnel

Bracket Boy

iTrader: (2)

Great read guys!! I currently have a 67 Chevy II and have mocked up an LS1/4L80E trans. The 6 speed has me thinking though. I have reworked the trans tunnel to accommodate the 4L80E, but TCI says they build the their 6L80E using a 4L80E trans case. My 4 needs rebuilt and wonder if I could update it to the 6 internals since my tunnel accepts a 4L80 case right now? Or, would the 6L80 case fit where the 4L80 case does? The TCI trans doesn't run as low of first gear, 2.97 I think. Since the Chevy II will probably weigh in less than 3000lbs., the really low 4.03 gear really isn't needed for my application. Especially if it ends up with some twins on it!!
No hijack intended, just throwing in some ideas.
Thanks
Jay

Bo185

TCI isn't a true 6l80 is just a reworked 4l80 made into a six speed. The 6 speed they sell is expensive!

To run the GM 6l80/90 you have to have the new Gen IV e38/e67 ECM and 58x reluctor wheel (crank trigger).

So either way its expensive. And not really worth it over the 4l80 at least the TCi unit IMO for the price $4600 bucks!