4L60 vs 4L85e...size??

[rjsjea]

Originally Posted by Bruning Auto Design

Quicktime is working on a bellhousing. Only 3 to 4 weeks left (which is only about 9 months behind).

Ned's post is from 12/07........fyi

[tjbruning]

Originally Posted by rjsjea

Ned's post is from 12/07........fyi

doh! Bellhousing's are over rated anyway.

[customcam]

Steve whilst were talking about Fitment of the 80E, can you hook an 80e to a SB Ford?

[Steve Chryssos]

We can certainly build the torque converter--which is the hard part. Bellhousing adaptation is easily handled by a simple dual bolt pattern plate. Unfortunately, we do not offer adapter plate kits.

[DRJDVM's '69]

Yeah I started with the 4L85e when the car was going to be a turbo car....now I'm starting to think that the 4L85 is overkill for the motor I have planned and will just rob alot of HP.

The motor plan is (at least right now) and 440 stroker motor (based on a modern 6.1 set up). So figure 600HP or so.

I've even been considering going manual. That was my original plan... then the turbo idea hit me...plus the wife wants an auto....but I love the manual.

But now I have an expensive adapter plate and a huge trans tunnel

So...any thoughts on the downside of sticking with the 4L85e would be great

[Steve Chryssos]

I have not seen any evidence to support that 4L80E's rob more power than other transmissions. The three common complaints are weight, parasitic loss and overall size. The first two complaints can easily be attributed to stock, ginormus 4L80E torque converters. Once replaced with a true high performance 10" billet converter, the weight comes in line and the parasitic loss myth goes out the window. Hoover saw engine dyno and rear wheel dyno with a net loss of 20%. 575 flywheel and 460 rear wheel. And 4L80E's are simply not that much bigger than a 4L60E. They are just big enough to make room for beefier internals--and that's a good thing.

So, if you keep the 4L80E, just take solace in the fact that it will probably outlast the cars next two paint jobs. The only reason to get rid of it is because the Chrysler NAG1 transmission is a nice piece.

[DRJDVM's '69]

cool... I'd rather not have to change direction yet again....

I was just concerned that bigger over all size and components would be detrimental to the overall performance if the motor etc, really doesnt need to have than big/beefy of a trans behind it.