yeah, same torque multiplication for the lower gears, but much better gas mileage for cruising.. it certainly would be nice if they put the A6 in there

 

Why is GM so goddamned slow with their AT development. WHY? It seemed like back in the '90s, every car mag raved about a GM AT tranny...now they're also rans. I don't get it!

 

Though highly unlikely, I'd like to see a GMT-360 based mini Avalanche or would you call it Trailblazer "Sportback". I think it would fill a niche market very well for people not wanting a full-size Avalanche but wanting something more robust than the 4-door Colorado. Give it some unique styling like the Avalanche has vs the full-size trucks. And........wait for it........with the demise of the SSR, what a perfect replacement a LS2 powered SS "Sportback".

Whose up to the challenge to make a photochop?

 

Yeah, anything would help. Most TB SS owners are reporting a "real world" fuel economy of about 13-14 mpg.

 

Automatic transmissions take a long time for anyone to develop - GM isn't terribly poor in this regard. The folks at ZF and Aisin take just as long to design new ground-up slushboxes.

The difference comes from when each OEM decides to start development of a new transmission. GM failed to put its money on the table early enough, and is now suffering as a result. Development and tooling ain't cheap, but one has to wonder if procrastinating was worth the black eyes that the company is now suffering as a result. Certainly, The Rick and other beancounters have run complicated spreadsheet calculations and "know" the answer to this question.

For what it's worth, I thought that the 4L60E was a decent match to the TBSS' LS2 (that engine has such a flat torque curve...), but certainly a bit more gearing on the highway would be nice. I averaged about 15.1 MPG highway with the AWD one I tested. My Impala SS with the LT4 stroker gets right around 20 MPG on the highway; even better if I don't drive the car the way it's intended to be driven

If I bought a TBSS, I'd be less worried about the shift performance of the 'box and highly concerned with durability, especially if I did any reprogramming that would allow me to actually obtain all the power for which I paid. I'm thinking that with a highly powerful V8 on one end and a very sophisticated AWD system on the other (one that's absolutely awesome at finding traction), the transmission is going to lead a short and tortured life. I'd be a lot happier with the 4L80E, even though it sucks up power and probably doesn't come close to fitting the TB's floorpan.

 

The 4L60E is borderline in its standard applications. There have been many reports of failure when the vehicle is used to tow alot.

One has to remember that the 4L60E is just a distant relative of the 700R4. That is not a lineage that anyone would hope to have.

I agree that that the 4L80E is really the only transmission that GM should have put in the Trailblazer SS. To handicap the engine with all kinds of management systems, just to allow the transmission to survive.......... is assinine. Ford figured out how to put the 4R100 in the Lightning (was only used in the Superduty), so GM should do the same for the SS.

When you start to see the programmers coming out, that eliminate the management systems........... you will see 4L60E's dropping like flies, in the Trailblazer SS's. They were having alot of these same problems in the Silverado SS's............ with 345hp.

 

Just look at the standard engine offerings when the 700R4 was launched. It's a transmission that has been overwhelmed by engine technology for quite some time. It's a bit frustrating to have one in a LT1 B-body and know that the car will consume 2-3 transmissions before the engine begins to show any signs of wear.

For the record, I don't think that the light-duty Dodge and Ford 4-speed autos are anything to get excited about, either. Transmission shortcomings are one of the biggest reasons that I generally prefer a 3/4- or 1-ton pickup.

 

Basically that GMT-360 sportback was the Envoy XUV

 

But with the situation GM is in, what do you do. Get people into the car with "shift performance" or have that vehicle blow the trans (and pay for recalls and get a bad name in the press). It seems hard for GM to do both. It seems that every car has its faults. But I may be a bit fecicious here. Some part has to go first. It may be the rear end, trans, engine, etc. and maybe as enthusiasts, we'll always complain about the weak link.

 

Nah....That one doesn't count

 

Exactly. You can have your cake, and eat it too.

The 2007 Yukon Denali can do 0-60 in 6.2 seconds now?
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....ticle_id=10771

I'm sure the the new 6.2L V8 helped.. but I also bet they gained half a second with the 6 speed tranny.. short gears, hopefully better shifting.. yet still keeps the nice od's.

 

Why doesn't the XUV count?

As someone who understands selling GMC's and SUV's, I would find it close to insane for them to can the 360's. It's the perfect middle ground for someone who thinks a "cute-ute" is too small and a Full size Yukon is too big. It's a great product, that gives you the best of both worlds, great, size, power, room, and towing capacity.

Also, the sales manager dad didn't take well to hearing this rumor. He's already complained to the regional rep and is threatening to send letters to all the people at GM he knows saying that canceling the BOF's would a be "one of their greatest errors of judgement"

 

Agreed that the GMT360 is about perfect for many people. It was the GMT370 that was the real "WTF?!?" - that was not one of GM's smarter moves in recent memory.

With the redesigned Explorer doing so poorly in the market, this would have been a perfect time to get a revised 360 in dealers.