Manual or Automatic?
Will NOT.

I'm well aware that the trannys from the 60's and 70's and early 80's were jokingly called slushboxes. I called them that myself. Was just pointing out in case you haven't driven one in the past 20 years,(some people haven't) that automatics aren't what would be considered "slushy" anymore. I wasn't trying to argue, I thought perhaps you just haven't driven one in a long time because of being turned off many years ago by their old slushy behavior.
Last edited by christianjax; Feb 14, 2008 at 05:46 AM.
Well my future F5 'vert will definitely have the hipo 6 with an auto. Me and the Mrs. just want to cruise. Can't stand driving my LS1 6 gear anymore in rush hour.
Not to be confused with driving it any other time of the day.
Not to be confused with driving it any other time of the day.
but in all honesty, by the late 90s, automagics had lost their way for me. PWM TCC control strategies are the pinnacle of slushy behavior to me. I know, it's their for driveability, to make everything feel smoother, but i could just never get used to it. I had 2 cars when i bought my GTO, a 92 z28 convertible that i did the PROM tuning for, and an 01 olds aero with a V6. In my z28, I had the TCC parameters set up so that once it locked, it pretty much never unlocked unless you were into the gas enough to downshift. On the flip side, the oldsmobile would unlock the TCC if you breathed on the gas pedal while cruising down the highway.
From what i understand, the new GM A6 tranny can tend to operate more the way i like it, where it will actually stay locked and downshift rather than just sponge around, but that's second hand, i'll admit i haven't drven a modern GM A6. I've driven the A5/A6s in some foreign jobs though and was not impressed, seemed like the TCC was as loose as ever, and with it moving between 5 or 6 gears it seemed to upshift too much/soon (which is no doubt a fuel economy strategy), and then downshifting too eagerly (as well as releasing the TCC, if it was even actually 'locked') if you breathe on the gas too hard once you're rolling.
Torque management is also the devil in modern automatics, as i've experiencedin a few cars including A4 GTOs. Really takes away from the feeling of positive upshifts.
In summary, PWM TCC, fuel economy centric transmission programming and TQ management have revitalized the slush box moniker in my eyes.
Last edited by notgetleft; Feb 14, 2008 at 12:55 PM.
I have driven a lto of automatics. And actually, my favorites were the OD A4s of the 80s and early 90s (2004r and 700r4), mainly because the of the TCC, as well as the fact they generally shifted pretty well too.
but in all honesty, by the late 90s, automagics had lost their way for me. PWM TCC control strategies are the pinnacle of slushy behavior to me. I know, it's their for driveability, to make everything feel smoother, but i could just never get used to it. I had 2 cars when i bought my GTO, a 92 z28 convertible that i did the PROM tuning for, and an 01 olds aero with a V6. In my z28, I had the TCC parameters set up so that once it locked, it pretty much never unlocked unless you were into the gas enough to downshift. On the flip side, the oldsmobile would unlock the TCC if you breathed on the gas pedal while cruising down the highway.
From what i understand, the new GM A6 tranny can tend to operate more the way i like it, where it will actually stay locked and downshift rather than just sponge around, but that's second hand, i'll admit i haven't drven a modern GM A6. I've driven the A5/A6s in some foreign jobs though and was not impressed, seemed like the TCC was as loose as ever, and with it moving between 5 or 6 gears it seemed to upshift too much/soon (which is no doubt a fuel economy strategy), and then downshifting too eagerly (as well as releasing the TCC, if it was even actually 'locked') if you breathe on the gas too hard once you're rolling.
Torque management is also the devil in modern automatics, as i've experiencedin a few cars including A4 GTOs. Really takes away from the feeling of positive upshifts.
In summary, PWM TCC, fuel economy centric transmission programming and TQ management have revitalized the slush box moniker in my eyes.
but in all honesty, by the late 90s, automagics had lost their way for me. PWM TCC control strategies are the pinnacle of slushy behavior to me. I know, it's their for driveability, to make everything feel smoother, but i could just never get used to it. I had 2 cars when i bought my GTO, a 92 z28 convertible that i did the PROM tuning for, and an 01 olds aero with a V6. In my z28, I had the TCC parameters set up so that once it locked, it pretty much never unlocked unless you were into the gas enough to downshift. On the flip side, the oldsmobile would unlock the TCC if you breathed on the gas pedal while cruising down the highway.
From what i understand, the new GM A6 tranny can tend to operate more the way i like it, where it will actually stay locked and downshift rather than just sponge around, but that's second hand, i'll admit i haven't drven a modern GM A6. I've driven the A5/A6s in some foreign jobs though and was not impressed, seemed like the TCC was as loose as ever, and with it moving between 5 or 6 gears it seemed to upshift too much/soon (which is no doubt a fuel economy strategy), and then downshifting too eagerly (as well as releasing the TCC, if it was even actually 'locked') if you breathe on the gas too hard once you're rolling.
Torque management is also the devil in modern automatics, as i've experiencedin a few cars including A4 GTOs. Really takes away from the feeling of positive upshifts.
In summary, PWM TCC, fuel economy centric transmission programming and TQ management have revitalized the slush box moniker in my eyes.
Fair enough. Wouldn't it be nice if now in the day of computer assisted trannys if we could SELECT the firmness of shifts and when it shifts from the dash? Like a built in Hypertech or something. I realize GM would be concerned about longevity if putting that choice in our hands, but that is feasible.
My understanding is that with autos, it's actually better for the tranny (bands I guess), if you program it to shift more firm/quick.
Fair enough. Wouldn't it be nice if now in the day of computer assisted trannys if we could SELECT the firmness of shifts and when it shifts from the dash? Like a built in Hypertech or something. I realize GM would be concerned about longevity if putting that choice in our hands, but that is feasible.
Also, aftermarket wise, IIRC hypertech or someone made a plug in piece that worked with the 4L60E that shorted some control wires with varying resistances to increase line pressures according to a cabin mounted selector switch.
Like i said, the big problem these days is torque management. With ETC, it's far too easy and desireable for the factory to suck power out during upshifts since i'm sure it dramatically extends transmission life. They are not going to give you a factory over ride for that, and if you get caught with a tune that deletes it (which would be my first mod for a modern auto), say goodbye to your transmission's warranty.
My M3 SMG actually had that...select how firm/quick you wanted to shift...it was kinda cool, if your drinking a cup of coffee, you could set it to shift smoother.
My understanding is that with autos, it's actually better for the tranny (bands I guess), if you program it to shift more firm/quick.
My understanding is that with autos, it's actually better for the tranny (bands I guess), if you program it to shift more firm/quick.
i got to beat up on an M3 with one of those tranny's, and i really thought it sucked ***. even on the most advanced setting, it was too slow in actually changing gears. you would throw it into the next gear and it would take a few bounces off the revlimiter before it would actually shift.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sleeperZ96BT
Parts For Sale
5
Sep 9, 2015 08:28 AM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
2
Aug 24, 2015 06:41 AM



