[OnlyTaurus]

I was surfing around Service Information and was looking at the manual transmission specs, and figured I'd post what I found, as many still are unfamiliar with the M32 Manual. Looks like it can handle alittle more than most of us thought. (Credits to General Motors of course, not me)

Transmission Type	M32-6
Production Location	GMPT Europe
Transmission Drive	Transverse mounted– Front Wheel Drive
Maximum Engine Torque	320 N·m (236.01 lbs.ft)
Transmission Content	Fully synchronized with final drive gear and differential
Transmission RPO Codes	MZ0	MF3
Engine RPO Codes	LUW (U18XFR)	LUJ (U14NET)
1st Gear Ratio	3.818	4.273
2nd Gear Ratio	2.158	2.158
3rd Gear Ratio	1.475	1.302
4th Gear Ratio	1.067	0.959
5th Gear Ratio	0.875	0.744
6th Gear Ratio	0.744	0.614
Reverse Gear Ratio	3.545	3.818
Final Drive RPO Codes	FX1	FP9
Final Drive Ratio	3.941	3.55
Transmission Fluid Type	US Part Number: 19259104 Canadian Part Number: 19259105
Fluid Capacity Total	1.9 liters (2 quarts)
Fluid Capacity Refill	1.3 liters (1.4 quarts)
Transmission Weight Dry (Approximate)	53.5 - 55.5 kg (118 - 122 lb)

 

[XtremeRevolution]

Interesting information!

So the trans weighs ~120lbs. I wonder how much the auto weighs, lol.

 

[OnlyTaurus]

And here is the Auto specs. (Again, credits to General Motors, not me)

Name	6T40/6T45/6T50
RPO Codes	MH8, MH7, MHK, MHH, MHC, MHJ
Production Location	Korea/China/Mexico/Toledo
Transmission Drive	Front Wheel Drive
Reverse Gear Ratio	2.94
1st Gear Ratio	4.584
2nd Gear Ratio	2.964
3rd Gear Ratio	1.912
4th Gear Ratio	1.446
5th Gear Ratio	1.000
6th Gear Ratio	0.746
Effective Final Drive Gear Ratio	2.64/2.89/3.23/3.53/3.87
Torque Converter Size– Diameter of Torque Converter Turbine	236 mm
Pressure Taps Line	Pressure
Transmission Fluid Type	DEXRON VI®
Transmission Fluid Capacity	8.0 L/8.5 Quarts
Transmission Type: 6	Six Forward Gears
Transmission Type: T	Transverse Mount
Transmission Type: 40/45/50	Product Series
Position Quadrant	P, R, N, D, * *(Refer to the applicable owner's manual)
Case Material	Die Cast Aluminum
Transmission Net Weight	81/86 kg (178/190 lbs)
Maximum Trailer Towing Capacity	N/A
Maximum Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)	6T40 – 2000 kg (4,409 lbs) 6T45 – 2200 kg (4,850 lbs) 6T50 – 2500 kg (5,511 lbs)

 

[XtremeRevolution]

70lb dry weight difference! Not bad! The extra 6 quarts of fluid probably add a bit more too. A gallon of motor oil weighs about 7lbs, so figure another 10lbs on top of that 70lbs for a total of 80lbs for the auto over the manual.

 

[OnlyTaurus]

Yeah, all these numbers are quite impressive! Unfortunately no torque specs for the auto are shown, but I'd imagine they'd be around the same number as the manual.

 

[XtremeRevolution]

Yeah, all these numbers are quite impressive! Unfortunately no torque specs for the auto are shown, but I'd imagine they'd be around the same number as the manual.

Take those with a grain of salt.

The Getrag 282 and 284 that were put in the 1st gen GM w-bodies are not rated for very high torque numbers. However, we had one guy swap a 284 into his 2nd gen Grand Prix GTP. He put down 680whp on a dyno. He went to a race track and he did not break any internals, but he cracked the case of the transmission. I can find some pictures somewhere.

Back in the good old days of modifying the GM Quad4 on Berettas and Cutlass Supremes, people were putting turbos on those motors and getting upward of 400whp with the Getrag 282 and the only weak point was the clutch.

We won't really know how much power these internals can handle until someone makes a heavily built Cruze and puts it to the test.

 

[OnlyTaurus]

Thats a good point, but back then fuel mileage really wasnt an issue, along with technology not being as advanced as it now obviously. Thus transmission weights and internals were typically heavier and thicker than they are now(trying to save weight and all). I agree, I'd ultimately would like to see reliability confirmation on a Cruze modified for 300+ hp/tq, but nowadays I'd imagine GM posts those numbers for a reason, as I'm sure its been tested by them already? Just my two cents Xtreme, correct me if Im wrong though, I'm always accepting up-to-date info! ccasion14:

 

[70AARCUDA]

MH8 specs from GM-Powertrain website:

Hydra-Matic 6T40 (MH8)
Type:	Six speed front-wheel-drive, electronically controlled, automatic overdrive transaxle with an electronically controlled torque converter clutch.
Maximum Engine power ( hp/kW )	180 hp ( 134 kW )
Maximum engine torque:	177 lb-ft (240 Nm)
Maximum gearbox torque:	277 lb-ft (375 Nm) - All gears
Gear ratios:	MH8
First	4.58
Second	2.96
Third:	1.91
Fourth:	1.45
Fifth	1.00
Sixth	0.75
Reverse:	2.94
Final Drive Ratio:	3.87
Maximum input speed:	Rev 4000 rpm 1-2 7000 rpm 2-3 7000 rpm 3-4 7000 rpm 4-5 7000 rpm 5-6 6000 rpm (corresponds to 4476 rpm in 6th after the shift is complete)
Maximum input speed in 6th:	4476 rpm
Maximum validated gross vehicle weight:	1996 kg (4400 lbs)
Shifter Posistions:	P, R, N, D, M
Case material:	die cast aluminum
Shift pattern:	Variable Flow Solenoids
Shift quality:	Variable Flow Solenoids
Torque converter clutch:	Variable Bleed Solenoid
Converter size:	236mm (reference) (diameter of torque converter turbine)
Fluid type:	DEXRON® VI
Transmission weight:	wet: 82 kg (180.4 lb)
Fluid capacity (approximate):	7.77L (6.56 kg)
Bottom pan removal:	NA
Pressure taps available:	Line Pressure
Transfer design:	Two-axis design, Output Chain
Assembly sites:	GMK (Korea), SGM (China), SLP (Mexico), TTO (Toledo).
Applications:	Chevrolet Malibu & Cruze, Buick Regal & Verano

NOTE the statement: "Maximum input speed in 6th: 4476 rpm"

 

[OnlyTaurus]

Ahhh... :sigh:

 

[XtremeRevolution]

Thats a good point, but back then fuel mileage really wasnt an issue, along with technology not being as advanced as it now obviously. Thus transmission weights and internals were typically heavier and thicker than they are now(trying to save weight and all). I agree, I'd ultimately would like to see reliability confirmation on a Cruze modified for 300+ hp/tq, but nowadays I'd imagine GM posts those numbers for a reason, as I'm sure its been tested by them already? Just my two cents Xtreme, correct me if Im wrong though, I'm always accepting up-to-date info! ccasion14:

I don't have much else to comment on that. Until someone pushes the limit with a heavy clutch, we won't know how much power it can take reliably. You're right about what you said.

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App

 

[OnlyTaurus]

I don't have much else to comment on that. Until someone pushes the limit with a heavy clutch, we won't know how much power it can take reliably. You're right about what you said.

Sent from my Bulletproof_Doubleshot using AutoGuide.Com Free App

Agreed good sir.

 

[OnlyTaurus]

With specs on both corners of the transmissions, and being this information is officially from GM, any chance we can sticky this and keep adding new facts and numbers as the time comes? Maybe change the original title to just 'Transmission Specifications' ?? Just an idea..

 

[Beaker]

I wonder why they gave the Eco manual a more aggressive 1st gear than the standard manual transmission.

 

[eagleco]

I wonder why they gave the Eco manual a more aggressive 1st gear than the standard manual transmission.

I am going to guess that it's to help you get underway with the lower numerical final drive ratio of the Eco manual. It does make for a bit of a gap between 1 & 2.

 

[sciphi]

For creeping along in heavy traffic without needing to constantly shift between 1 and 2, and to launch the car quickly when needed.

 

[eagleco]

With either transmission, you end up with about the same torque multiplication in first gear.

4.273 x 3.55 = 15.17 for the Eco manual
3.818 x 3.941 = 15.05 for the LS and LT manual

So, without the more aggressive 1st gear in the Eco, clutch wear would increase from having to slip it more, you would be more likely to kill the engine, and of course initial acceleration would suffer compared to the LS and LT.

 

[Starchy]

Ok. I really do not understand how gear ratios and all this works at all.... Lets just say i have a 200hp and 200 torque 1.4l Cruze. If i swapped to the 1.8L MZO trans, What car would be faster? with the torque multiplication that eagleco talked about... The 1.8 has a higher number if you multiply all the gears by the final drive. Here is the math for the gears.
MZO- MF3
1st 15.04 15.17
2nd 8.50 7.66
3rd 5.81 4.62
4th 4.21 3.40
5th 3.45 2.64
6th 2.93 2.18

 

[spacedout]

MZO- MF3
1st 15.04 15.17
2nd 8.50 7.66
3rd 5.81 4.62
4th 4.21 3.40
5th 3.45 2.64
6th 2.93 2.18

Numerically higher is lower gearing, giving you more RPM at the same speeds. Also better torque multiplication so more power to the ground. I say it would be faster.

 

[jblackburn]

For creeping along in heavy traffic without needing to constantly shift between 1 and 2, and to launch the car quickly when needed.

LT MT does that just fine.

Ok. I really do not understand how gear ratios and all this works at all.... Lets just say i have a 200hp and 200 torque 1.4l Cruze. If i swapped to the 1.8L MZO trans, What car would be faster? with the torque multiplication that eagleco talked about... The 1.8 has a higher number if you multiply all the gears by the final drive. Here is the math for the gears.
MZO- MF3
1st 15.04 15.17
2nd 8.50 7.66
3rd 5.81 4.62
4th 4.21 3.40
5th 3.45 2.64
6th 2.93 2.18

Theoretically, given similar curb weights and aerodynamics, the LS/LT transmission would be quicker. However, the Eco MT weighs less than a 1.4L LT with the MT and has better under-belly aerodynamics over 55 mph. As first and 2nd are almost the same, I think it would be slightly quicker to 60 because of the weight.

It would probably be close til the end of 60, but I'm curious what would happen in 3rd and 4th gears. I think the Eco might drop out of its powerband with that gear change and fall behind just a bit. Then again, the weight and airflow around/under the car might also give it a slight advantage.

Someone needs to let the Stig to have a run in both.

 

[Starchy]

LT MT does that just fine.



Theoretically, given similar curb weights and aerodynamics, the LS/LT transmission would be quicker. However, the Eco MT weighs less than a 1.4L LT with the MT and has better under-belly aerodynamics over 55 mph. As first and 2nd are almost the same, I think it would be slightly quicker to 60 because of the weight.

It would probably be close til the end of 60, but I'm curious what would happen in 3rd and 4th gears. I think the Eco might drop out of its powerband with that gear change and fall behind just a bit. Then again, the weight and airflow around/under the car might also give it a slight advantage.

Someone needs to let the Stig to have a run in both.

Or I could just let you know ... I messed my 1.4l Trans up :/ .... Long story, ill make a different post for that.... And I am putting the MZO trans in... Should be here within a week... I Drive an Eco. And i already did some weight reduction so i am around 2880 curb weight.... So this should be interesting to see if this makes a difference In combination with my other mods... BTW No one has parts for the cruze trannys in the US.... SO i HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend not being a retard like me... and tinkering