worst transmisison ever

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Mojoed

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Any mid-90s Dodge/Chrysler minivan transmission. Those were utter crap.

Yeah they were. Even into the late 90s. Plastic gears or something dumb. But they learned at least and the ones after that were OK.

I think one of the worst transmissions was on the Accord (forget the year range exactly). Those blew up a lot, mostly on the 6 cylinder Accords.

Another would be (I'm gonna get shot for this lol) the Nissan GT-R transmission

Yeah, 1998-2002 6 cylinder Accords had pretty bad transmissions.

Say it ain't so!!

I thought Honda and Toyota were infallible!

 

[TonyH]

After 25+ years working as a transmission rebuilder I would have to give my vote to the Ford/Mazda CD4E. These trannys are so bad that I won't even buy core units because I usually find that there are few if any salvageable parts to be found in them.

The early A604 transmission found in Chrysler front wheel drive products were very problematic and several of the early attempts to correct the problems tended to incorporate even more problems into the units. Later models of these have shown great improvements in durability. Fortunately almost all the improvements in the later models can be installed in earlier units.

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
only a chevy fan would say the 4l80E is a THM 400. Its a 700 R4 derivative.

Actually the 4L80E is very much based on the THM400. The 4L80E can very accurately be described as 400 with an added overdrive section. Several of the components are interchangeable between the two units. This includes clutches, steels planetary gears, bands, sprags, bearing, bushings and even a drum.

On the other hand the 4L60E is a direct descendant of the 700 R4.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: TonyH
After 25+ years working as a transmission rebuilder I would have to give my vote to the Ford/Mazda CD4E. These trannys are so bad that I won't even buy core units because I usually find that there are few if any salvageable parts to be found in them.

The early A604 transmission found in Chrysler front wheel drive products were very problematic and several of the early attempts to correct the problems tended to incorporate even more problems into the units. Later models of these have shown great improvements in durability. Fortunately almost all the improvements in the later models can be installed in earlier units.

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
only a chevy fan would say the 4l80E is a THM 400. Its a 700 R4 derivative.

Actually the 4L80E is very much based on the THM400. The 4L80E can very accurately be described as 400 with an added overdrive section. Several of the components are interchangeable between the two units. This includes clutches, steels planetary gears, bands, sprags, bearing, bushings and even a drum.

On the other hand the 4L60E is a direct descendant of the 700 R4.

This ^

Yeah, the FWD Chrysler trannies are complete garbage.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Gand1
Nope nope nope....Gotta go with the piece o shit put in the 2001-2003 Volvo XC70, XC90, and S80.....garbagola!!!! Then again..I think I need to nominate Volvo for their inept ability to fix the problem in the first place and deny anything is wrong!

Actually it turns out the reason why the transmission was "bad" in those cars was due to a software programming. When the driver pressed on the brake like when coming to a stop, it'd put the car in neutral, and when Volvo discovered that their transmissions were prematurely wearing out, they changed the software in their newer cars and upgraded the existing cars for free so that it wouldn't do this anymore. The purpose of the car going into neutral when coming to a stop was for fuel economy and emissions reasons but a failing transmission is a higher priority than the gains in fuel economy from such a feature.

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Mojoed

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Any mid-90s Dodge/Chrysler minivan transmission. Those were utter crap.

Yeah they were. Even into the late 90s. Plastic gears or something dumb. But they learned at least and the ones after that were OK.

I think one of the worst transmissions was on the Accord (forget the year range exactly). Those blew up a lot, mostly on the 6 cylinder Accords.

Another would be (I'm gonna get shot for this lol) the Nissan GT-R transmission

Yeah, 1998-2002 6 cylinder Accords had pretty bad transmissions.

Say it ain't so!!

I thought Honda and Toyota were infallible!

These specific transmissions are well known for being "glass' transmissions. I think the reason for this was for the undersized tranny for the engine power it had though I can't quite remember.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Early 80's Jeep CJ's with the Ford SR-4 tranny. Worst I've ever seen. Definitely the worst ever put in a Jeep.

Ford made some complete turds in the 80's and 90's. The E4OD was awful, as was the AXOD, and ATX, and the A4LD, which is probably the one in the Aerostar mentioned a few posts back.

GM had some bad ones also. The 700R4's and 200R4's were terrible when they came out. They did keep modifying and improving them until they're pretty solid today....the 4L60 GM uses now is just an electronically-shifted 700R4, and they hold up pretty well.
Same thing happened with Ford's E4OD...they eventually improved them to where they'd last.

On the opposite spectrum, the GM Turbo 400 is the best auto ever made.

Heh, I just had my 700R4 rebuilt. This isn't the first time it has had this work done over its lifetime. They did eventually become pretty solid, but a lot of the earlier ones had this annoying shift issue between 3 and 4 - as it could never decide which gear it wanted around 40mph.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

only a chevy fan would say the 4l80E is a THM 400. Its a 700 R4 derivative.

AMC used the 727 too.

727 is still the better transmission. It was the automatic for racing in the Stock and Super Stock classes.

don't forget the crappy Ford FMX.

besides, I am just messing with you.

I know.

Don't know if the bolded part was serious or not, but it's wrong if you were. The 4L80E is definitely a descendant of the TH400. About 75-80% of the internals are identical.

The 4L60E is the descendant of the 700R4.

And yeah, the 727 would be "the" tranny for a Mopar racing in Super Stock...since you have to run a factory tranny in those classes. Otherwise, they'd probably have been running a beefed TH350 or a Glide....less weight, and quicker. Nowadays, everyone uses a Powerglide. They had an awesome Challenger/Cuda race car on Pass Time awhile back, with an old Steve Smith Pro Stock engine in it....with a Glide.

Oh, and AMC also used the TH400.


Most info I've ever heard and read indicates the TH400 is better than a 727....not that the 727 isn't a great trans, but just not as strong as the 400. And not as much potential. Even Mopar guys are split on this subject. Comes down to cost, and from what I've seen, a built-to-the-hilt 727 still isn't as strong as a built 400, (although it's very strong) and the 727 costs a LOT more to do so.
That said, still....most people run Glides. Maybe that makes them the best tranny. At least for drag racing.

8 or 6 what's the diff?

See, I am not much of a chevy man.

Apparently the big problem with the 727 is in the sprag(sp?). Factory stamps them in, whereas the aftermarket bolts them in.

I had a Super Turbine 300 in my old Buick. Sort of a strange powerglide made by Buick. Replaced that with a turbo 350.

 

[radioouman]

Saturn CVT in the VUE. It would grind and catch and made the car gutless.

 

[StageLeft]

My brother and I did kill the transmission on an early 90's Subaru Justy with the CVT. That was a damned gutless car, especially after we were done with it. Flooring it _all the time_ and _very many_ neutral drops may have been to blame, though.

 

[BW86]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Any mid-90s Dodge/Chrysler minivan transmission. Those were utter crap.

beat me to it

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: radioouman
Saturn CVT in the VUE. It would grind and catch and made the car gutless.

I think all Saturn CVTs have had their problems. Hopefully the one in the Vue didn't asplode like the ones in '03-'04 Ion Coupes.

 

[Arkaign]

I don't know what they were, but the 3-speed autos (no overdrive) in the early 90s Cadavalier and Escort were both cringe-worthy, even brand new. Nothing like needing 5000rpm to do 65mph.

 

[joesmoke]

Originally posted by: exdeath
The T-56 is horrible. Makes me waste so much gas and makes me unable to tolerate remote mount cable shifters. It whines a lot and sounds like it's full of gravel too.

...:frown:

 

[joesmoke]

87 accord, right before they switched to the electronic controlled transmission. rebuilt twice in a year. friend had an 88 and it shifted 500% smoother.

 

[angry hampster]

It is an undoubtedly strong transmission, but the 6-speed in my '03 GTI is ridiculously difficult to shift smoothly. First gear should not be this short in a VR6 car.

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Mojoed

Yeah, 1998-2002 6 cylinder Accords had pretty bad transmissions.

Say it ain't so!!

I thought Honda and Toyota were infallible!

I hate when people say this. No one in this thread (or even this entire forum) ever claimed Hondas were infallible. (And where the hell did you pull Toyota from?) I'm not a Jap car nut but you really have to give credit where credit is due; Honda and Toyota built cars that were generally much less prone to breakdowns than any American companies in the 80's, 90's, and even today. (Although the playing field is a lot more level than it used to be.)

Nevertheless, the V6 Accords (not even ending at 2002, up until last generation) have what are infamously reffered to as "honda glass transmissions" I will never own an auto Honda car.

Originally posted by: BassBomb
My 2002 Civic transmission is the only one I have had die in my short driving history (~5 years)

Just curious:
Was it an auto or a standard?
Did you do any maintenance to the trans? Change its fluid?

BTW, the Accord was gonna be my nomination.

http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2003/

Edit: Cleaned up some quotes.

 

[reallyscrued]

Also, this really doesn't strictly fall under transmission issues but,
E36 and E46 model lines of BMWs had really soft bushings holding the differential to the frame of the car, after about 80,000 miles there would always be a thud whenever the trans would shift into a gear. (Affected both manual and auto)

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
Also, this really doesn't strictly fall under transmission issues but,
E36 and E46 model lines of BMWs had really soft bushings holding the differential to the frame of the car, after about 80,000 miles there would always be a thud whenever the trans would shift into a gear. (Affected both manual and auto)

Not to mention the sub frame tearing/cracking problems (speaking mainly of the M3).

Pretty much any high performance production street car has the bushing problem, though. On the M3 it was around 30-50k miles; shorter with a manual for obvious reasons. They use soft bushings to try to attract more customers by not making the ride too bumpy or noisy, which the powerful drivetrain and sporty driving quickly tears to pieces.

Interesting that the replacement bushings are completely solid as opposed to the factory ones which have holes with nothing but thin webbing connecting the bushing to the outer shell... in a 333 HP car.

 

[geno]

Volkswagen FWD transmissions...take your pick, they're pretty much all awful within the last decade or so.

 

[KIAman]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I don't know what they were, but the 3-speed autos (no overdrive) in the early 90s Cadavalier and Escort were both cringe-worthy, even brand new. Nothing like needing 5000rpm to do 65mph.

Haha, one of my first cars, an 88 Ford Temp had a 3 speed auto which never kicked into 3rd. I was near redline just to keep up with freeway traffic and the car felt like it was having a seizure.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Squisher
OP, what do you mean by clunky?

Most cars that I've been in that have had their trans modded for performance have had very hard up shifts. Is it possible that GM did this on purpose to increase performance?

difficult to shift. wide shift pattern. the clutch wears out my leg. known for failure. the 2-speed auto "+3" is really gimmicky.

makes the MTX in my Mazda6 feel like the best trans in the world.

 

[crab]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Squisher
OP, what do you mean by clunky?

Most cars that I've been in that have had their trans modded for performance have had very hard up shifts. Is it possible that GM did this on purpose to increase performance?

difficult to shift. wide shift pattern. the clutch wears out my leg. known for failure. the 2-speed auto "+3" is really gimmicky.

makes the MTX in my Mazda6 feel like the best trans in the world.

Our '88 4+3 was pretty bad, but we did some hacking on the shifter and linkages, and its much better. The Super T-10 trans in it is fricken bulletproof, the problem is that overdrive box bolted to the back of it is finicky. Ours is holding up even with some engine with some mods - not to mention a 100-shot of nitrous, and over 100k miles. When it goes, a ZF6 will be filling its place.

Vids in my sig btw.

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
Also, this really doesn't strictly fall under transmission issues but,
E36 and E46 model lines of BMWs had really soft bushings holding the differential to the frame of the car, after about 80,000 miles there would always be a thud whenever the trans would shift into a gear. (Affected both manual and auto)

Not to mention the sub frame tearing/cracking problems (speaking mainly of the M3).

Pretty much any high performance production street car has the bushing problem, though. On the M3 it was around 30-50k miles; shorter with a manual for obvious reasons. They use soft bushings to try to attract more customers by not making the ride too bumpy or noisy, which the powerful drivetrain and sporty driving quickly tears to pieces.

Interesting that the replacement bushings are completely solid as opposed to the factory ones which have holes with nothing but thin webbing connecting the bushing to the outer shell... in a 333 HP car.

Oh the subframe tearing problem affected all E46s. You can get it fixed now for free.

Class action suit FTW.

 

[kevman]

any ford taurus!