WHY gm always put the 350 with the 700R4 and only the 305 came with 5 speed ??

 

well from what ive heard they were worried about the 350 turning the 5 speed to dust..it not a very strong tranny
Snuffit

 

That's the reason. Stock 5 speed will handle hp but gets destroyed with too much torque. In other words, a few power shifts and you'll loose a gear .

------------------
, Jon (350 TBI!)
91 Red My website

 

Yeah, the T-5 can't even handle the torque of a V6. I've rebuilt mine 3 times since it was new, and while I've run it very hard I've never abused it.

------------------
'86 Camaro Sport Coupe

 

I always thought that this was part of it, but it ran a little deeper. Obviously, GM could have used a different manual for the 350. But they chose not to. I was under the impression that they didn't want a same year Camaro L98 manual beating a Corvette L98 auto at a stoplight. That 'Vette owner would be pissed and definitely be taking the car back to the dealer...

I always thought that it was product strategy myself. If the 350 manual trans were available in the Camaros, they would have sold ALOT of them.

This is the sort of thing that hobbles the Camaro when compared to the Mustang. The Mustang should be a better car than the Camaro by now since they have no limits... The amazing fact is that the Mustang (to this day) still takes a back seat to a top Z28 of the same model year...

Does anyone think that the product strategy thing is wrong? I'm genuinely interested in comments.

 

yeah, this argument definitely had some bearing on things. The vette always had to be top dog, which is total bull****. The "vette has to be faster" mentality cost us a 300hp tpi 6spd 25 anniversary heritage edition, and it's gonna cost us an LS6 35th anniv f-body. It was also at least partially the reasoning behind underrating the TTA, and the syclone/typhoon.

 

They thought they would crunch. I think they should have put them in. The gears are are strong enough it's the high rpm powershifting that kills the syncros. I think they are a junk trans all around though.

I just had mine rebuilt this spring and the 3rd and 5th syncros are already shot from powershifting. I think they would be fine behind a stock 350 without powershifting.

------------------
1986 CAMARO Z28 ->
151,000 original miles, 43,000 on 89' vette 350 block, Holley 650 DP, Weiand intake, 1.6 rockers, 1 5/8" headers, no cat, 2 1/2" Flowmaster catback, Mallory coil, March pulleys, B&M Ripper shifter, T5 with 3.35 1st gear and 0 miles, 90% Centerforce clutch, 3.73 posi, Eibach 1" drop springs, Spohn LCA's, Spohn adjustable panhard rod, Subframe connectors, all bushings are urethane, 2 12" Sound Streams, 2 Infinity 6X9's, 2 Pioneer 6X9's, 800 watt Lanzar Vibe amp. ET 13.32@ 106.4MPH 3300lbs less driver and speakers Next mods-> Extreme Energy 268 cam, Holley street dom intake, ported heads.

1987 TRANS AM ->
73,000 miles, 305TPI, auto, gutted air box, gutted cat.

 

There was a GM engineer on this board a while ago that cleared up this topic. The reason the T-5 was never mated with the TPI 350 was not because of the torque( 87' L98 rated at 320 lb-ft torque, 87' World Class T-5 rated to handle 335 lb-ft torque.) And it was not because they would take sales away from the Corvette. If GM could sell more F-bodies they would. It was due do emissions regulations. Under deceleration with a manual trans, the engine goes very lean and NOx emissions increased so much that the cars could not pass the federal standard for new cars. Automatics will upshift to overdrive and the torque converter will freewheel so that the rpm's drop and the NOx emissions are acceptable. The Corvette got away with this because it had aluminum heads so the combustion temperature was lower. My state tests for NOx emissions along with HC and CO and most 350TPI that I know of, including mine run very close to the limit for NOx, and way below for everything else. I hope this helps clear things up.

------------------
89 Transam GTA, 350TPI, auto, 3.27 rear, dual cats, gray.
Magnaflow cat-back,
K&N open element,
Best E.T. 14.63@95mph

 

Here's more food for thought>>

Starting in 1987, the 5-speed was available with the 305 TPI. If the automatic can withstand more torque than the 5-speed, why did GM elect to put the "peanut" cam in automatic cars and the "good" cam with the 5-speeds? It should have been the opposite if you believe the T-5 cannot handle much torque. Can anyone explain this to me?

------------------
Willie

Supercharged 1987 305 IROC-Z, Daily-Driver, Emissions-Legal.
Former Paxton (6-psig): 12.57 @ 111 mph.
Former Paxton (6-psig) & former 50-hp nitrous: 12.04 @ 114 mph.
ATI D1SC (5-psig):
12.26 @ 113.55 mph
ATI D1SC (10-psig): Projecting high 11's.
Future ATI D1SC (15-psig): Gotta catch them pesky 26-psig boosted TTA's!!

http://willie.camaro-firebird.org/

1987 "20th Anniversary Commemorative Edition" Z28 Convertible -- Super Chevy Show Class Winner, 1998.

[This message has been edited by Willie (edited June 15, 2001).]

 

Willie,
That was most likely to make you buy a 350 over a 305 if you wanted an auto. Why would someone buy a 350 if the 305 was only 10hp less? I sure wouldn't.

------------------
89 Transam GTA, 350TPI, auto, 3.27 rear, dual cats, gray.
Magnaflow cat-back,
K&N open element,
Best E.T. 14.63@95mph

 

You guys sure about the torque ratings for the regular T-5? A Camaro book I read at Barnes and Noble last weekend said that the regular T-5 was only good for 300 ft/lbs, and with the minimum 320-330 a 350 put out, they wouldn't hold up...

If this is wrong though, its far from the first time a Camaro book was wrong...

------------------
Jason E

'89 Camaro RS
Medium Grey Metallic
2.8, A4, T-tops, 91k miles

'97 Z28 w/30th Anniversary package
LT1, M6, t-tops
White with orange stripes, killer system, 42k miles

Speed Kills...Wanna live forever? Drive a Ford.
Long Live #3...

 

The regular T-5 was rated between 275 and 300 lb-ft of torque depending on the year and the gear ratio, but the World Class version was rated to handle 320-335 lb-ft of torque.

------------------
89 Transam GTA, 350TPI, auto, 3.27 rear, dual cats, gray.
Magnaflow cat-back,
K&N open element,
Best E.T. 14.63@95mph

 

Willie, the answer is marketing....simply marketing.

 

GM should have just dropped a V10 in the vette to compete with the viper so the camaro could have had unlimited factory power possibilities Then again, raising a 50K car up to 80K isn't exactly easy...

------------------
-Steve
89 IROC 5.7
FOR SALE
Click for the ad
Accel ignition, K&N, Edelbrock TES headers/y-pipe, Flowmaster American Thunder exhaust, gutted cat, 91/92 Wheels

 

Early T-5's are junk.
After '87, they replaced them with the stronger version. Find one and your tranny troubles should go away.

 

It seems as though everyone I have talked to about this T5 debate, has a different opinion. I have driven a Camaro with a built 400 in it with a T5 in it. The owner of the car has had no problems with it for over two years now. It was the same tranny that came in it in 85. As far as why the 350 didn't come with the 5-spd? Pure marketing in my opinion. Why spend the money on a Vette when a Camaro was faster... That is why the Camaros didn't get the 350/5spd combo. Probably also along the lines of why the Vette got Aluminum heads, and the Camaro got Iron...

------------------
It does not matter which way you are facing, as long as you are going in the right direction.

 

How about cost?
It might have been mentioned but I didnt notice.
You pay to get that manual in a Vette. If you were to do a few mods to a 350, it would eat up a worldclass based on the predicted numbers. Some people say that they should have used a Vette 6-speed then. I think that those trannies were way too expensive for the camaro markey, and I also agree that a 6-speed camaro would really hinder Vette sales more than a 5-speed.

 

Well, the T5 probably wouldn't handle a 350, but what about the NV4500? GM used these manuals in big K Blazers with the 350/5-speed combo. Unless the NV4500 wouldn't fit....

 

you can get a T5 race built and they'll last an extremely long time...

It just doesn't seem as good of an idea when you can get a T56 for another half a grand though

 

Three questions: 1. if the T5 was strong enough for a 350, why did they use the 4+3 spd. manual transmissions in the Vettes when they were putting T5's behind the 305's in the Camaros? 2. Why did they go from the 4+3 tranny to the 6 spd in the vettes? 3. Why did they use a totally different 5 spd in the big trucks?

------------------
Z's r Best

 

my friends always look at me funny when I say I hate the Corvette. I hate it simply because of the fact that it does always have to be faster than the Camaro or whatever.(And the styling doesn't do anything for me) I don't see what everyone else sees in the "almighty" Corvette. I love Camaro's more than any other car. when they pull up next to me in there 50K Vette opposed to my 8K Z28 they will be real envious. Remember when the GN beat the vette in 87? Now that made Chevy mad. Chevy always gets their way when it comes to corporate decisions. I love my Camaro but I really don't like Chevy

------------------
I WOULD RATHER PUSH A CAMARO THAN DRIVE AN IMPORT

1983Z28 350w/ edelbrock performer RPM power package , dynomax shorty headers, 700R-4 with shift kit, 750cfm carb, edelbrock 3" exhaust system, ASCD SS hood, 16" IROC rims.

future mods:
completely done over suspension, black paint with flames, Hurst shifter, dakota digital gauge package, procharger supercharger.