difference between tbi od trans and lt1 od trans?

Hi everyone, thinking of doing an lt1 swap in my 92 roadmaster. the trans in it is recently rebuilt and wondering if its a bolt up to an lt1?thanks

Physically I don't think that becomes the issue. The big change was electronic control of some functions in the 4l60E tranny from what the 4L60 had.

Unfortunately, I can't tell you if it was at the 94 model year or later. Might want to have Sherlock9C1 or others check in with specific details of what ECM's and trannies work together as well. I suspect you'll need to be careful in component matching in that regard.

Your car has a 700r4 trans,. lt1's have a 4l60e, transmissions are almost identical hard part wise and physically, the difference being the 700r4 has a throttle pressure cable running trans pressure,. the 4l60e does it all electronically,
you can use a 93 only camaro lt1 throttle body , it has the cable pull for your 700r4,.

Nick

thanks guys for the quick responses, much appreciated

One other important change!
In 1995 on the 4l60e, they changed the signals for doing torque converter lockup!
Previously they used a single solenoid in the tranny, but for '95 and later, they added a
2nd solenoid in the trans case. They do not interchange! There is additional machining done
on the '95 & later case to mount this extra solenoid!
I know! It cost me a tranny on my converted 1994 Sonoma that has an '95 LT1 engine!

rkmdogs wrote:

One other important change!
In 1995 on the 4l60e, they changed the signals for doing torque converter lockup!
Previously they used a single solenoid in the tranny, but for '95 and later, they added a
2nd solenoid in the trans case. They do not interchange! There is additional machining done
on the '95 & later case to mount this extra solenoid!
I know! It cost me a tranny on my converted 1994 Sonoma that has an '95 LT1 engine!

check out joels sticky about staking the lockup valve to bypass the pwm ,.best thing in my opinion,. gives a positive lockup,.lesswear and tear and heat,.

jmho,.
Nick

[quote="phantom 309"]

rkmdogs wrote:

]

check out joels sticky about staking the lockup valve to bypass the pwm ,.best thing in my opinion,. gives a positive lockup,.lesswear and tear and heat,.jmho,.
Nick

Can't find it! Please add a link to this info. Thanks

While this is not relevant to a 4L60 ('91-93), for what it's worth:

I no longer recommend staking the PWM valve in the TCC apply circuit. After talking with someone who really truly knows what they're talking about, that valve is there partially to keep lockup pressure at no more than 80psi in the converter. When you stake that valve full-open, the converter sees line pressure. If you think about the sheer size of converters, and the fact that line pressure can be 2x-3x of 80psi, that's a LOT of added force inside the converter. My contact has seen quality aftermarket converters with broken rivets inside due to doing this mod.

Yes, the "staking the valve in place" fixed the P1870 code but it also introduces a whole new problem.

No, you won't hear about this out on the forums.

FYI -
Jared @ Current Performance in Tampa, FL. fixed my issue by doing a "fix" in the ECN.
My '95 box now 'thinks" that it is seeing the double signals required instead of the
single one provided in my '94 4L60e tranny.
This solved the lock-up problems that I had before with the vintage mis-match
between engine and trans.

sherlock9c1 wrote:

While this is not relevant to a 4L60 ('91-93), for what it's worth:

I no longer recommend staking the PWM valve in the TCC apply circuit. After talking with someone who really truly knows what they're talking about, that valve is there partially to keep lockup pressure at no more than 80psi in the converter. When you stake that valve full-open, the converter sees line pressure. If you think about the sheer size of converters, and the fact that line pressure can be 2x-3x of 80psi, that's a LOT of added force inside the converter. My contact has seen quality aftermarket converters with broken rivets inside due to doing this mod.

Yes, the "staking the valve in place" fixed the P1870 code but it also introduces a whole new problem.

No, you won't hear about this out on the forums.

??? so 94 trans will tear up a converter?? but a 95-6 won't,.

seems the small 9" i have doesn't mind it,. and if you pull the ball on the input it works fine too,.
rivets?? in a quality aftermarket converter?? i dunno,..should be furnace braised with a torringtons,.
rivets definitely aren't quality,.
And you,d have to show me in the fsm where the 95-6 "sees" 2X=3x line pressure ,.with the valve staked,.
i looked and it doesn't look that way to me,.but i,m willing to learn,.

Nick

You are misconstruing the case!
In my case, because of the mis-match between engine and transmission vintage,
the ECM was not getting nor sending the correct signals!
This prevented my torque converter from locking up!
That apparently caused overheating, which led to my trans quitting,
and in the process fed "junk" into the torque converter, causing it to fail
also!
That's what we said!!!!!