Every CAR can run to 300k easy. But do you have 2500 more for the trans? Or do you have evidence that it'* been replaced? 170k is pushing the limits of the 4T60E.

So in other words, you're asking us if it'* worth it, but you don't have a price.


I'd have to say no. Until you state a price and the actual miles on the trans, and have driven the car. Use the Techinfo guide when looking the car over for purchase.

ok i'll do that but the trns. isnt a problem b/c i can get a engine,trans,harnesses,and gauge cluster for 550 and the trans on that one only had 103K if im not mistaken at the JY

I would never consider putting in a trans with over 100k. That'* ridiculous.

I agree with Will. The 1994-1995 4T60E-HD'* are under a lot of stress and are almost at their max capacity for torque/HP from the factory. I had to have mine rebuilt at 141k miles in my old 1995 SLE SC and Will had to have his redone at around the same mileage IIRC. Not to mention all the other 94-95 SSEi owners who went through the same phase as us (SSEi95 comes to mind and I know of a couple other instances, but can't recall their BC identity off-hand).
I paid right at $2100 for a fairly basic rebuild (I believe they only replaced the exploded differential at first because 3K miles later something else in the trans went out) and I also got a mild shift kit.

Both of mine went at 110k.

:o thats crazy!!! mine just hit 110K today and nothings wrong with it. wjy do i keep hearing how much better SSEi are and their transmissions cop out at that low a mileage? but i had a 90 6000 LE that started jerking bad if you kept the speed at a constant 55mph. so i guess that not all the transmission are good

Your car isn't SUPERCHARGED.

Torque kills trannies. S1 trannies last longer on average than Series 2, so don't complain. You gotta pay to play.

wait im confused. i thought that all bonnes from 92-95 had s1 trans. in them and from 96-?? had a series 2. why would a older version trans last longer than a newer 1? they wouldnt try and solve the problem of making them last longer even with the dreaded TQ issue?

That'* not a simple answer. Let'* just say the 65 was engineered a bit further and can cause problems. The average miles before failure is longer for the older trans than the newer.

Try a search. There have been many discussions on this.

Theres no "dreaded torque issue" per se. Very simply put, the L67 should have gotten a 4T80-e. The 4T60-e is just fine to handle the L27 into 200k easily, but as stated, at the mileage that car has, either its transmission has already been replaced, or its going to need replacement almost immediately. If it is original, and hasn't gone yet, do NOT expect that to be some kind of miracle and give you peace of mind. It will fail, it is an absolute mechanical certainty. As far as a replacement, for an L27, a sub 75k transmission would be OK from a junk yard (even then that allows for alot of unknown damage to have occurred), but if you're looking for a SOLID replacement HD transmission, I HIGHLY suggest getting a performance rebuilt or updated remanufactured with a good warranty. It isn't worth it otherwise.

Also, besides rarity, the only other benefit to having an SE SC is weight. They weigh, IIRC, 200-300 lbs less (bill had his cars weighed a while back IIRC, he can give you an exact figure there)

Based on that information, I can't see any other basis for a decision besides general condition and price, and only YOU can make that decision.