automatic transmission failure question

#41

Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒ*ã‚¯ wrote:

Quote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:35:48 -0500, Steve wrote:

He should fix it for as little as
possible and then UNLOAD it ASAP. Its going to be a money pit from now on.

If he takes Jim's advice and brings it to the dealer every time it hiccups!

I have an '88 Supra with about 225,000 miles. Want to talk about a money
pit? If I brought it to the dealer I couldn't afford to own it.

A supra is *not* an Accord or Civic or Camry or Escort or Neon or other
generic front-drive transportation appliance. Its not exactly a '69
Charger either, but its a very overbuilt and relatively simple
rear-drive vehicle that can be maintained pretty much indefinitely, and
is interesting enough to be WORTH maintaining indefinitely. Front-drive
Hondas are not.

#42

Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒ*ã‚¯ wrote:

Quote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:18:02 -0500, Steve wrote:

and in all forms it shifted like the true definition of a
sludgebox. Its the reason I went out of my way to find a Cherokee with a
5-speed (AX-15, also built by Aisin, but its on its last legs and will
be replaced by an NV3550 from a 2000 or newer Jeep).

You got that right. Funny thing is, first thing in the morning the shifts
are nice and crisp, but then get sloppy as the trans warms up.

I have the LAST trans cooler line in the WORLD for the MKIII Supra. It was
shipped from a dealer in Japan. Add that to the list of things to do...

Have a hydraulic parts supplier make you any hose you want. It usually
runs less than $30. Some A/C shops are set up to assemble new hoses and
fittings for you also. If you're gonna play the keep-it-forever game,
gotta learn the tricks of the trade ;-)

Quote:

Unless...will your 5-speed fit a 7M-GE???

I think that just as the AW-4 has a cousin that Toyota used in automatic
applications, the AX-15 has a cousin that they used in MT applications.
In fact it might just be no more than finding a 7M-GE bellhousing and
clutch that works. AX-15s are common as dirt, people are looking for
NV3550s more these days but the problem is that Jeep only used the
NV3550 starting in 2000, and the percentage of MTs in Jeeps was lower
after 2000 than before (demand shifted to 2wd/automatic in competition
with the flood of "SUVs" never intended to go offroad from other
manufacturers).

#43

krp wrote:

Quote:

Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.
I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.

The TH_400 is a good start. The ones they used in the Blazers and
Jimmy were TERRIBLE transmissions. Miine failed the day I bought in in
1989. It was towed back to the dealership before I coulkd make it home
wigth the new cehicle. It took 6 months to get a new trans because GM
was that backlogged with replacements. When I got it back, it failed
again within 3 months. I gave it back to GM and bought a Dodge. Also the
dash kept falling out and the paint peeled. The 89 Jimmy was a DOG in
every respect

I'm certainly no fan of GM from the late 80s... but I find that hard to
believe of a TH-400. That transmission was a rock just like the Chrysler
727 and Ford C6. I didn't remember GM using a 3-speed like the TH400
quite that late, except in extreme HD applications maybe. Are you sure
it wasn't a 700R4? Those were utter crap in the early years (well into
the 90s, actually) but today's 4L80E is basically the same thing, just
updated and electronically controlled.

#44

krp wrote:
Eben tghe old Chrysler fluid

Quote:

drive was better. You could not keep those things working. (Some of
anything work, but by and large they were shit.)

Now you're talking out your ear. The Fluid Drive was just a manual
transmission with a clutch and a fluid clutch in series. This allowed
you to NOT use the clutch from a dead stop. Press clutch, put in gear,
hold brake, release clutch. Wait for light to turn green, release the
brake, step on the gas and go. Then shift normally. You could also just
put it in 2nd or 3rd and leave it there all the time if you didn't mind
s-l-o-w acceleration from a standstill. It never broke, at least no any
more than any other manual transmission.

There was also a dual-range semi-automatic from that era that was a
little more complicated, but generally worked OK.

The first Chrysler true automatic was the Powerflite 2-speed circa 1951,
then the Torquefite 727 in '56. They never had a problem transmission
again until the 41TE in 1989.

#45

krp wrote:

Quote:

I was thinking of that 4 speed monstrosity they put in the Blazers and
Jimmys. 3+ overdrive 4th.

That's a 700R4 alright. The TH400 was a simple, big, heavy-duty 3-speed.

#46

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:45:24 -0500, Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

Quote:

krp wrote:

Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.
I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.

The TH_400 is a good start. The ones they used in the Blazers and
Jimmy were TERRIBLE transmissions. Miine failed the day I bought in in
1989. It was towed back to the dealership before I coulkd make it home
wigth the new cehicle. It took 6 months to get a new trans because GM
was that backlogged with replacements. When I got it back, it failed
again within 3 months. I gave it back to GM and bought a Dodge. Also the
dash kept falling out and the paint peeled. The 89 Jimmy was a DOG in
every respect

I'm certainly no fan of GM from the late 80s... but I find that hard to
believe of a TH-400. That transmission was a rock just like the Chrysler
727 and Ford C6. I didn't remember GM using a 3-speed like the TH400
quite that late, except in extreme HD applications maybe. Are you sure
it wasn't a 700R4? Those were utter crap in the early years (well into
the 90s, actually) but today's 4L80E is basically the same thing, just
updated and electronically controlled.

Here's an article on the 700R4 evolution. Doesn't look out of bounds
for GM RWD V-8's, but then I'm not sure. Maybe my '76 Impala had one.
That one died but it had a lot of miles. The rebuild failed too but I
got the second rebuild adjusted down. Still cost me though.
Had a '78 Beauville van (G20) too that might have had it, but that one
never peeped, and I put a lot of miles on it. Both those were 350's.
Went to an 88 Celebrity and it's been FWD from there.
I don't argue with anybody who lost money on junk. Once burned, twice
shy is something I go by too.

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/113_0704_700_r4_transmission/index.html

--Vic

#47

"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote

Quote:

krp wrote:

Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.
I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.

The TH_400 is a good start. The ones they used in the Blazers and
Jimmy were TERRIBLE transmissions. Miine failed the day I bought in in
1989. It was towed back to the dealership before I coulkd make it home
wigth the new cehicle. It took 6 months to get a new trans because GM was
that backlogged with replacements. When I got it back, it failed again
within 3 months. I gave it back to GM and bought a Dodge. Also the dash
kept falling out and the paint peeled. The 89 Jimmy was a DOG in every
respect

I'm certainly no fan of GM from the late 80s... but I find that hard to
believe of a TH-400. That transmission was a rock just like the Chrysler
727 and Ford C6. I didn't remember GM using a 3-speed like the TH400 quite
that late, except in extreme HD applications maybe. Are you sure it
wasn't a 700R4? Those were utter crap in the early years (well into the
90s, actually) but today's 4L80E is basically the same thing, just updated
and electronically controlled.

The trans in the late 80's Blazer and Jimmy was a 4 speed. The 4th speed
being slightly overdriven. The thing was constantly shifting in city
driving. I don't recall the exact designation. It probably was the 700R4.
It was still called in the manual a TH 400. It was a 4 speed. It would shift
itself to death.

#48

"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote

Quote:

Even the old Chrysler fluid drive was better. You could not keep those
things working. (Some of
anything work, but by and large they were shit.)

Now you're talking out your ear. The Fluid Drive was just a manual
transmission with a clutch and a fluid clutch in series. This allowed you
to NOT use the clutch from a dead stop. Press clutch, put in gear, hold
brake, release clutch. Wait for light to turn green, release the brake,
step on the gas and go. Then shift normally. You could also just put it
in 2nd or 3rd and leave it there all the time if you didn't mind s-l-o-w
acceleration from a standstill. It never broke, at least no any more than
any other manual transmission.

Despite tremendopus energy loss, the Fluid drive WORKED reliably as did
Dynaslush. They didn't break all the time.

Quote:

There was also a dual-range semi-automatic from that era that was a little
more complicated, but generally worked OK.

The first Chrysler true automatic was the Powerflite 2-speed circa 1951,
then the Torquefite 727 in '56. They never had a problem transmission
again until the 41TE in 1989.

Everyone had transmission problems in the late 80's, even the venerable
Ford "C" transmissions were a bit shakey. The front drive Chrysler minivans
either worked or didn't. Lots of people had loads of grief, others like me
had NONE. Hit and miss. Even though there has not been significant problems
since the mid-90's in the Chrysler minivans the rumor persists of trans
problems. It is very rare today.

I am very happy with my CR-V. Although Honda is on mu shit list because
they messed with my wife on her 2007 Civic. The back tires wore like mad.
The dealer sold her 2 new tires, didn't check WHY the tires were bad at only
10K miles, and the new tires started showing wear, so they did a rotation
and the car chewed up the other two tires before Honda did a recall on the
rear control arms. They fixed the car but left her with 4 BAD tires. Honda's
solution? Is she buys 3 new tires they will magnanimously give her the 4th
tire free! I told off the service manager, by stating, I could go to ANY
tire store in the country and get a 4th tire for free. Pick the brand. Good
Year, Bridgestone, Michelin, Cooper ANYTHING! I didn't expect a "SCREW -YOU"
attitude from Honda of all companies. She never took it anywhere else but
the dealers for service, meticulously kept the records. We have 3 late model
Hondas. Her 2007, by step-son's 2008 SI, and my CR-V. I don't think I'll get
another Honda.

#49

"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote

Quote:

krp wrote:

I was thinking of that 4 speed monstrosity they put in the Blazers and
Jimmys. 3+ overdrive 4th.

That's a 700R4 alright. The TH400 was a simple, big, heavy-duty 3-speed.

I guess the 700R4 was the one they stuffed a 4th gear overdrive in. What a
piece of SHIT!
GM ate the car. I got out of the car and bought another Dodge minivan.

#50

krp wrote:

Quote:

Despite tremendopus energy loss, the Fluid drive WORKED reliably as
did Dynaslush. They didn't break all the time.

OK, I get your point. If I can split hairs, the fluid drive's hydraulic
clutch was less lossy than a Dynaflow.

Quote:

Everyone had transmission problems in the late 80's, even the
venerable Ford "C" transmissions were a bit shakey. The front drive
Chrysler minivans either worked or didn't. Lots of people had loads of
grief, others like me had NONE. Hit and miss. Even though there has not
been significant problems since the mid-90's in the Chrysler minivans
the rumor persists of trans problems. It is very rare today.

Very true. Up through the 80s, everyone said "Chrysler transmissions
never break" even if they hated Chrysler products. After the 41TE
fiasco, the rumor is "Chrysler transmissions always break." People even
said that about the truck transmissions that were still the same old
design that "never broke" from before.