Worst Automatic Transmissions Ever Built?

badgerpaul · June 2001

Since they're still using this as a truck engine or did until recently, you might check and see if they hooked it up to an overdrive in a truck.

isellhondas · June 2001

Uh...I'm a bit curious. WHY in the world would you want to invest a great deal of time and money in a 1978 Mercury?

rea98d · June 2001

It's one of those things you do for love & not money. The car has a lot of sentimental value/family history to it. Besides that, the kind of cars I like, Big, old, 4-doors, are not the ones that traditionally have a lot of value, and I'd rather have a car because I like it than have one because someone else says it's worth a lot of money.

andre1969 · June 2001

...I know where you're coming from, brother! I have a thing for big 4-door sedans, too. Especially if it's a 4-door hardtop.

I'm kind of in the same situation with my '68 Dart. All common sense tells me to get rid of it. But I just can't bring myself to do it.

Even worse, I still regret getting rid of my '79 Newport. Now that's a car only a mother (or grandmother) could love...but I miss mine. I liked it a lot better than the '89 Gran Fury I replaced it with.

I'm not sure about other cars, but I there was a guy in one of my Mopar clubs who put a 4-speed automatic overdrive in a Dart (or maybe it was a Barracuda...I forget now, but it was an A-body). The transmission housing itself was bigger than the 3-speed automatic, so he had to cut out part of the transmission hump and re-weld some metal to make it fit. That's something you might want to take into consideration if trying to get a more modern tranny into your Mercury...it might take a bit more work than a simple bolt-up to make it fit.

-Andre

rea98d · June 2001

Hadn't thought about that, Andre. Thanks for the heads up. No, I don't want to be modifying the transmission hump on my car, I'd stick with a C-6 or FMX before I'd start chopping sheet metal. I really like this car, and want everything done right.

isellhondas · June 2001

OK, I understand, I guess...I suppose I tend to get too practical.

I figure, I've got a 500.00 car, if I spend 3000.00 on it, I now have a 600.00 car.

And I'm thinking, some idiot runs a light and creams it, I get nothing in return.

But, life is too short to be practical all of the time.

Enjoy it!

smokin_olds442 · August 2001

In all my experiences I've thought that the TH700 R4 trans was indestructible compared to the TH200 4R....but the 700 R4 IS very weak...

stsman · December 2001

I concur with the number of replies that the biggest "dog" of a transmission was the 2-speed turboglide.Example,I was 20 yrs.old,going to college,carryuing a full load,playing baseball,and working 35 hrs./wk.Finally saved enough to buy a gorgeous turquoise 58 Chevy Impala convertible.To be short,I had to have the trans rebuilt 4(!) times,and ended up putting in a floor mounted 3-speed.This was back in 63.The way to tell a turboglide from a powerglide,was that turboglide had "Gr"(grade retarder"?),instead of Lo(gear).I symphatize with anyone who got stuck with a turboglide trans!Oh well!Drive and learn!!!Mr STSMAN

im_brentwood · December 2001

Most anything they put in 80s SAABs!

ghulet · December 2001

I've heard both the automatics (Borg-Warner 3-speeds, shared with 80s Jags, Bill!) and weakish manual trans aren't good on 80s Saab 900s. I'd place bets that the manuals are better. I've had an 85 SPG, original trans at 280k when I sold it, and an 86 900S, original trans at 130k (but an awful gas guzzler for a 4-cylinder.......).

im_brentwood · December 2001

BW 75s? Yeah they put them in XJ6 Series 3s..

TOTAL Junk!

Bill

rea98d · January 2002

Those BW transmissions in Jaguars are so popular, an outfit out of Dallas actually makes a kit to put a Chevy transmission in the car, without touching the XK engine!

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

Much better idea than putting a Chevy V8 in one. The Jaguar engine is the best part of the car.

jrosasmc · January 2002

What about the transmissions (both manual and auto) in the 1993-97 Volvo 850? I know early examples had reliability problems with the trannies.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

Yeah, I think we talked about that. I believe 1992 was the worst year but the complaints seem to get less and less as the cars get newer.

dennisjhs · January 2002

I've read a few of the comments regarding the various american automatic transmissions and I feel that although some of the transmissions the US built; jetaway, turboglide, c3, 700r4, th200, have less than sterling reputations, let me assure you they cannot hold a candle compared to transmission that Renault built in the R-10.
Truthfully, none of Renault automatic transmissions are very reliable, even the late electronic ones, (Eagle models, Early Passat models)...But, the R-10 has to be among the world's worst. Firstly, it was an "electronic" magnetic clutch automatic with a manual gearbox that was "controled by an electronic brain." It had a "city/country" switch that in theory changed the upshift/downshift modes. They never worked right. The magnetic clutch would often stay locked up and cause the vehicle to stall at idle, shifted rough, burned "clutches", overheated the magnet and often hunted between gears depending on throttle position. We had a huge suitcase tester from Jaeger with a millon switches to diagnose this thing and they rarely lasted more than 15,000 miles before giving problems. It makes the Subaru Justy variable automatic transmission look bullet proof in comparsion.

im_brentwood · January 2002

93s... 93s werte the bad ones...

After that, no worse or better than anything else.

Bill

pjd58 · January 2002

94 & 95 Mazda's(Ford) 626's 4cyc. What junk!

rbenton · January 2002

The ZF 4HP 18 FL used in Eagle Premiers', Saab 9000s', ALFA 164 and AUDI models from the late eighties and early ninties is a nasty piece of engineering. For example the clutches themselves wearout rapidly especially in surburban and urban driving. My Monaco that I had needed a third transmission in less than 55000 miles. Another promblem is the lumpy downshifting from overdrive to third between 35 and 40 mph. Overall a substandard transmission, that is much more expensive to fix than any loser Detroit came out with, $3500+ remanufactured. The similar ZP 4HP 22 is no better, commonly used in BMWs', Jaguars' and Volvo's. Believe it or not ZF still makes the lousy HP 22. Proof that German engineering is not also better, just only more expensive.

jrosasmc · January 2002

I can't remember what THM type it was, but the GM-made 4-speed auto in our old '87 Cutlass Ciera was pure junk. It was gone at 69k.

billyb5 · February 2002

Back then I had a 57 Chevy hardtop with biggest V8 then available. Today the style is a classic. In my two years of ownership I went through 2 rebuilds on the turboglide. Transmission shop told me the additional horsepower for the 57 V8 was tearing out the turboglide because it had undersize ball bearings that could not take the torque side loading. By 58 the bearings were changed to roller bearings and the problem was solved. That is how I remember it. Any comments?

spokane · February 2002

I don't think many would argue with you on the poor reliability of the '57 TurboGlide, Billy. There were engineering changes made for '58 but I recall that those transmissions also had a very poor reputation. More modifications were made in '59 but even those must not have helped this unusual design which utilized a 5-element torque converter. I believe GM gave up on this design in '61.

dustyk · February 2002

.....in my 1977 Impala, my nod for worst transmission ever made would be the THM200, although in all fairness it probably was a good transmission when put into a Chevette. Had a 1984 Chevy pick-up that had transmission problems at 20K. Rebuilt later then eventually replaced. I think that was a 700R4. Out current G20 van is on its third torque converter.

When I worked in the auto repair field some years ago I use to see many Powerglides fail. My one sister, who had never owned any other car but a Buick, replaced the transmission in every one except her 1962 Special.

Been considering a new pick-up truck and the Dodge is on my list. I've heard from a number of people about how bad the Dodge truck transmissions are, however these have been either Chevy, Ford, or Toyota lovers. I have been logging the vehicles at my three local transmission repair shops for the past 10 months. I usually stop twice a week, sometimes more.

Anyway, the one truck I have NOT seen at any of these shops is a Dodge RAM. I have seen a few Dakotas. The most common truck I've seen has been the S10 and like-GMC version. Also, lots of full size GM pick-ups, followed to a much lesser degree by big Fords.

I've asked or known thirty-three Dodge RAM owners if they've had any transmission problems and only one said yes. The two transmission techs I've talked to said that the drainback valve is responsible for most of the problems in earlier Dodge transmissions and the common thing to do was to remove it completely (the valve is located in the return line and easily accessed).

Dusty

rea98d · February 2002

The only bad things I've ever heard about Dodge/Chrysler transmission is in their car line, where the general consensus is that the hard parts are made of a material comperable to Play-Doh. From what I hear, Chrysler (Dodge) makes very good trucks. It's the rest of the lineup that could use some help.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2002

Older Chrysler torqueflights also like to break the servo, I think for reverse if I remember correctly. Common problem. High engine idle, you punch that R button, and WHAM, goodbye!

dustyk · February 2002

.......but from what I've been told most of those problems are related to the 4-speed electronic versions used on certain V6s. I believe the 3-speed units (4-cyl and some V6s) are very durable. A friend of mine who is in the fleet management business here locally says that in the Acclaim, Spirit, Shadow, K-car variants, they were far more reliable then the GM cars and Taurus'.

Dusty

billyb5 · February 2002

I recall that sometime back in late 50's or early 60's that a Hydramatic plant burnt and had to shut down. So a lot of Caddies and Olds cars used the Buick slug (Dynaflo?) transmissions as a substitute. Any comments?

andre1969 · February 2002

...I think it was 1953 or '54. It was fairly early on, before a lot of the other manufacturers had their own transmission. At one point Lincolns used GM Hydramatic transmissions, and I think a few independents did, as well.

I'm guessing the non-GM makers got hit worse, since I'd presume GM would at least prioritize the Hydramatic for it's own cars first!

badgerpaul · February 2002

I believe it was '53, as Andre says Oldsmobile and Cadillac used Dynaflows and Pontiac got stuck with the Powerglide.

spokane · February 2002

Yes, the fire was in '53, but I don't know what month. Fortunately, my Hudson Hornet of that vintage had one of the HydraMatics. An Olds Dynaflow clearly lacked the "Rocket" aura that many of us admired.

Worst Automatic Transmissions Ever Built?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles