I agree autos have thier place. Rock crawlers, dragster, and bumper to bumper stop and go traffic.

Since the SS S/C is designed to be more of a track car than a drag car, I highly doubt it will get an auto.

 

I think it has more to do with who they are aiming after as far as marketing. They know that the young generation likes to play with a stick and control shifts...possible they even compared it to the fast and the furious (sad to say)...did you see any autos in that movie? nope.

Regardless, the whole point of the SS/SC was something for GM to sell to a younger generation that loves 4 cylinder cars. Just like Scion did with their cars, GM is doing the same thing with the SS/SC (but I'm sure you guys knew that )

 

Sad, but true.

Another thing to look at though is how many "high performance" cars are autos? Z06 Corvette, SVT Cobra, Viper, Enzo, F50, McLaren F1, Ford GT. I could name many more. All different makers, different years, but never an option for automatic.

 

Yup, exactly.

Also, not many realize this but automatics are considered an luxury piece. Why do you think cars with automatics are worth more than cars with manuals? Also because of that, they wouldn't put it in an SS/SC because they are considered more of a "sport" car than luxury.

 

Autos are "Typically Stronger"? What a load of ****. Do have ANY actual experience or did you just read that somewhere on the Internet?

Ummmm, No....

The Automatic transmission when it is designed is tailored to an exact HP TQ Input and Output load. The Torque converter is designed to convert a very specific range from the factory and create a very specific amount of heat in the process. If you overdrive the input shaft, the tranny will make more heat, the ATF will fail and the tranny will slip like crazy and fail, Period. The Torque converter and ATX must be modified at the same time as the increase in HP. It's usually more to modify an ATX than to swap it out for a MTX.

STOP FILLING THE FORUM WITH BULLSHIT OPINIONS. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, DON'T POST.

This is the very BS that is killing the forum and causing very expensive problems for members.

 

If what I'm saying is bullshit, prove me wrong. The fact is you don't see boosted automatics often or high powered automatic transmissions that aren't on race cars. I have proof that those #s are incorrect for the 4T40E and I will prove you and GM wrong myself as soon as I get on a dyno.

As far as "what it is designed for"...this is the world of modifying, we do nothing that the car was designed for.

Also, if you think I'm full of ****, talk to Turbo Tech Racing about his old 2.4 Cavalier running an automatic transmission and see what he was putting down and how it handled it.

I am not killing your forum, I am posting reality, not "book facts". Book fact says the 2.2 ECOTEC can't handle over 250 HP or the rods will snap yet everyone knows that that was proved wrong many times over. If I say anything on these forums, it's from experience of myself or people I have talked to who have personal done something to that nature. I don't sit here and make up fables. If YOU can't handle what I am saying, than don't post. If you think I'm full of ****, prove me wrong than I'll shut up. Untill then, I'll keep posting my realistic point of views and real life situations.

Have a nice day

 

But there is a difference between knowing an engine can handle 7 Psi of boost and thinking that the tranny will hold up as well. It's simply put down to the design parameters of the tranny. A Manual can take pretty much anything you throw at it because the clutch is the only soft spot, once addressed it will not slip under the added HP. An ATX as I stated has a torque converter is designed to run ONLY at a rated input force. Anything more than a CAI and CatBack will wear out the part prematurely as a function of HP increase.

You must as a minimum add a large Oil Cooler to the Tranny to elongate the lifespan of the Torque Convert, It will still fail a lot sooner than before.

It's funny, most car designers use Book Facts and things like tensile load limits and coefficient of friction when they design parts for both street and track.

Bottom line, telling someone that you have done something to your car is one thing... Telling them to do it just because yours has not blown up yet is irresponsible.

PEACE

 

I agree with cooling it, yes and I also agree with you that it might be designed for one purpose and in a certain power area BUT that does not mean that it can not be pushed longer and harder and still not be reliable.

If this was a matter of "hey I did it to my car and you can do it to yours" kind of subject, I wouldn't be sitting here pushing the idea but the fact that I myself will soon prove GMs #s wrong and I have a hand full of others who just meraculously are pushing past GMs #s as well on stock transmissions, leads me to believe that their #s and saying you CAN'T go pass that without breaking something is false.

The person I was refering to early by the name of Skillz, he has used high shots of nitrous and then switched over to a turbocharger. He's been doing this for years on the same transmission...no slipping, no show of wear and has had no transmission problems. He pushes right now 260 WHP with no problems.

Overall, there is a difference of saying "this is what it is designed for" and "what you CAN'T do". Saying someone here with an cobalt being automatic and high powered won't last long on their transmission and can't hold that amount of power would be FALSE.

Like I said before, prove me wrong and I'll shut up.

 

If an auto is so weak--why did GM make a S/C for the 2.4L Twin Cam Cavalier/Sunfire and it was only for automatics?

Why did they build Grand Nationals with 200R4 trans missions? The torque of the 3.8L Turbo greatly exceeded the trans rated capacity.

All those real powerful exotic cars are pretty much manuals only--but I'd say cause they are extremly low volume cars.

The SS/SC is common, inexspensive car. Tell me I am wrong when I say that they would sell more S/C SS cars if an auto was an option. If more were built would that not encourage the aftermarket to have more parts?

Tell me how that would hurt you?

Everyone is conviently ignoring this part of the equation.

Your all saying manuals are more fun, blah, blah, blah. Forget about that and tell me why some one shouild be denied the choice? Because you say so? Please get real and look at this from a business point of view.

Now imagine if there was a 4 door S/C SS in auto and manual and a the 2dr in auto and manual. GM would own even more this the sport compact market cause this line up would be very inclusive to many people.

Of course I am unsure why I typed this--since very few can come up with a valid, logical, reasoned counter point of view. Oh well.

 

really dont think they will....

 

Did you even read what I posted?

I said that the ATX is designed to run with the Engine that it's mated to, not the overbosted engine that you have attached to it.

 

You know. Not all transmissions are created equily. The 4L60e in the Fbodies held up very well till about 400 HP. They are also pretty easy to build to hold well over that. The stock 4L60e actually were a tad faster than the stock 6 speed. (you'll hear some diehard going off about if they shifted prefectly they could get about .01 faster than the auto.)

But that Transmission was designed to put up with that amount of HP and TQ. GMs fwd transmissions werent. I have no idea what the upper limit the FWD auto transmission is. But im sure some people figured the 2.0 SC was going to be pushing that limit. Hopefully the next generation of fwd transimissions will be built with performance in mind.


I also find that most people who think auto transmissions are crap come from the Import community. Mainly because until recently fwd vehicles where not consider performance vechicles. (last 15 years or so compaired to the about 65 years when hotrodding first became popular) And many of the FWD auto transmissions will not hold up to any amount of power. Buts its not because its an auto. Its because it was never designed to.

FYI torque converters arent hard to change. The argument that you can change a clutch to fix the week point in a manuel is compareable to you can change the torque converter to fix the week point in an auto.

 

Agreed, It's not the tranny type that is the problem, it's the build of the tranny that I am worried about as well.

I agree also, However, normally it's alot cheaper and easier to find a clutch than a upgraded Torque Converter.

 

I could be wrong but the name of this thread and the question asked was "do you think GM will make an auto SS\SC". It didn't say can we debate manual vs auto in a SC car. To answer the original question. No I don't believe GM will make the SS\SC in an automatic.

 

I don't know much about manuals but to find and change a TC isn't very hard. I paid $500for my TC in my camaro and installed it myself.

I also think mod for mod, an auto with a converter will be faster than a manual.


To answer the original post. I don't think GM will make one, but I think they should. a lot of people are turned off by a manual for every day driving. I know I wouldn't want to use my SS for a daily driver b/c of this.

 

LOL That's freakin HILAREOUS!! So now you and you and your Jbody buddies have "discovered" that those GM Hydramatic engineers that designed and built the 4T40/5E don't know what they are talking about???

You very obviously have never been inside the 4T40E (or quite possibly ANY automatic transaxle) I've done MANY DOZENS and believe me, they DO and WILL eventually fail at various commonly observed weak points. (2nd and direct/coast clutches, input internal gear, low roller clutch) Virtually ANY experienced GM tranny tech will tell you the same. The 4T40/5E also has a relatively low WOT maximum shift points at 6450 rpm combined with a much lower (than say the 65E) main line pressure. Why would you think GMPD engineers would choose to use the 4T65E in their ECOTEC dragcars and Bonneville Flats record setters?
Geez do you THINK there's a CHANCE they might know something some 21 y.o. kid in New Jersey doesn’t??

The numbering system Hydramatic uses on it's trans identification system is based on a relative input torque capacity- which represents THEIR designed maximum input torque at the turbine shaft. So RELATIVELY a 4T40E can "handle" less input torque than a 45E, and QUITE a bit less than a 4T60 or 4T65E and MUCH less than an 4T80E or 90E. Quite simply it represents the design specification for maximum input torque which on a stock 4T40-E is 200 lb ft (270 N•m) and 4T45-E is 215 lb ft (290 N•m). These numbers are used by Hydramatic to insure their customers select the correct transaxle for the application involved- to insure acceptable levels of transaxle reliability and longevity.

Now, CAN you bolt a 4T40E to an engine that exceeds these ratings? OF COURSE!
Will it survive?? Well for a while it will, but exactly for how long depends on a great many variables. But if you expect to regularly compete with 3500lb car on slicks at a real dragstrip, doing fully loaded launches from a built and boosted ECOTEC (300-400HP?) launching at 3-4K (depending on the TC) and shifting at 6500-7500 it wont last the summer! (and very likely wont make more than 1/2 a dozen passes if you're anywhere near 400lb ft) The only reason the 45E can even survive a mildly boosted ECOTEC on the street (besides the absence of traction) is because the stock PCM uses "torque management" algorithms that retards ignition timing during upshifts to minimize delivered torque and shock loading during the "hand-off" between the various applied components during the shift. The stock system also employs a shift adapt (learn) system that alters mainline pressure during shifting to optimize shift times depending on the existing load variables- load variables that WONT be accurate if you are running a piggy-back or FMU with even single digit boost levels.

THEN as soon as you get into "serious" boost, you are likely having to use a stand-alone engine management system such as the MOTEC, FAST, AEM or (my personal favorite) a Megasquirt and manually (i.e. electrically) shift the trans at max line pressures.When using these systems you WILL NOT have any adapts or TQ management systems controlling the shock loading on clutches during the upshifts, and your transaxle durability will suffer significantly for it each pass until it's ultimate failure. Even the competition modified 4T65E has a finite number of passes before it will need the clutches replaced and various parts inspected to eliminate potential for catastophic failure. (which if you're the pilot you DO NOT want) This we can agree on... now maybe go get some youself
(I mean seriously at 21 just how much COULD you have- even if you started at 16)
Go ahead and drop a nickel or a dime to build up that 2.2 in your 2003 AT Sunfire!
Let us know how it goes...

WopOnTour

 

^^^ So Basically, what I said about Auto In General but with GM Specific Numbers...

Tranny Go Boom.

 

Yeah, when they make the Z06 auto only!

Seriously, that is unlikely. I don't think GM has a transmisson that will take that power, yet mount into the Cobalts chassis.

 

^^^ Exactly. GM doesn't have an auto tranny that can handle the power...period. But personally, why would you want an auto S/C? To each his own, i guess.

 

It Isent Hard To Drive A Stick Is It? I Mean My Dad Taught Me How To Drive A Stick When Was 15.

 

No, you guys are implying that.

Listen, all I said was that those #s that GM gave as what you can't go pass, have been passed and still running reliably with no problems...that's it. I never said "GM is full of ****" or "Engineers don't know what they are talking about".

You can write as much factual details as you want, I'm not going to disagree with you. You evidentally know your **** about the transmission and I'll give you that but please understand my intent and what I am saying and not insert words "into my mouth".

I agree with you.

When I said "not experience", I meant as you guys haven't built a turbocharged 4T40E running vehicle. My age is irrelavent but if you want to try and use that against me to infer that I don't have any experience, fine.

I'll be sure to let you guys know how it goes and bring you some dyno sheets along with it. Thanks for caring

 

Ok fair enough, I'll lighten up...
I guess this WAS an unfair attack post in rebuttal to your comments in "that other" thread- apologies for that
Everyone's entitled to their opinions of course, and it certainly wouldnt be the first time a component exceeded designed expectations or anything.
But personally (and based on MY OWN experiences) just wouldnt expect that of the 4T45E having dumped many onto the bench- and those sitting mostly behind stockers!
If you have, will have or know those that have success with that transaxle in real competition... well then I tip my hat.

Wop

PS> Maybe PM 1/2 Cent about this. Him and I "discussed" the topic a while back and he apparently found an outfit that has developed a few pieces designed to increase the 45E's capabilities somewhat.

 

Ding ding ding!!!!! Considering the design of the car, I'm VERY inclined to agree. To put an auto in the car would have killed that completely because if they put a track-worthy auto in it the cost of the tranny would have priced it WAY out of the target market.

 

I'm glad we can come to an understanding. I will give you that I don't have alot of knowledge as far as the 4T45E goes because I do come from the "J-body world".

Peace bro.

 

Lets bring it down a notch guys.

I have been here a while now. And at the start there was lots of speculation (and we still have a lot) on what can be done with the cobalts and how they will perform. And obviously there are some people here that have had experience with GM models of the past that share simular compenents as the delta platform.

I want to make sure that we all learn from each other and that when questions are posed about posts made by other members that we stay on the goal of making the Cobalt and the 2.0 in the case of this forum a fast/reliable/fun car that provides lots of enjoyment to the owners/tuners that build them. Lets try to remember to remember that we all have our experiences to share, rather practical or acedemic and try to work together.

WOT your a GM tech right, well try to remember you see a lot of the failed transmission and probably don't see many of the trasmissions that hold up.

NJHK you need to remember than you don't see all the broken transmissions that WOT has seen and maybe you should take into account that you and your friends are lucky that you still haven't broken a stock transmission.