I have heard the th200c 3 speed automatic transmissions used in the 1982 Trans ams are terrible were going out after 60k miles when they were new.

Is this true,Has anyone here had any first hand experience with them?

I know they only used that transmission the one year and '83 got the overdrive unit.

 

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/hist...smissions.html

 

The bright side is the 200c shares dimensions with the TH-350.

 

TH200Cs aren't known to be very good transmissions. My '82 Recaro T/A has 49,000 miles and a TH700R4 has already been swapped in.

 

Thanks!
This sure answered my question!
This explains why so many 1982 Trans ams have later transmissions in them now!

What was General Motors thinking? Why didn't they just use a th-350 from the start? Those are great transmissions.

 

Fuel efficiency is why, at least that would be my best guess.

 

My old 82 had a tranny rebuild in 1986 with 40k miles on it.

 

the th200c has less internal rotation resistance and its lighter then the 350 or 400. that is better for gas mileage, which was a big deal in 82. It's also strong enough for the LU5. In a stock car drivin is a "stock" way its fine. I have never had any problems with mine.
However the 350 is a better choice for replacement if originality doesn't matter. there are much more options for performance.

 

Being the original owner of an '82 T/A for seven years, let me say that you would be EXTREMELY LUCKY to get 60K out of a TH200C (Chevette) transmission. They regularly fail at 30K mi intervals. They were designed to just make it through the original GM Powertrain Warranty. My original tranny didn't even make 30K, so the general bought just the first one. And yes, this car was NEVER abused.

 

Having had experience with the chevettes I would have to agree with the above and 60,000 miles for the rearend. But still why not use the 350 turbo w/ lockup as was in my 81 Corvette before it got ran into.

 

It was already explained above....

GAS MILEAGE. The 200c was a lightweight piece that allowed for better MPG through lighter weight and less internal resistance.

Getting these smoggers to have better MPG was absolutely critical back then.

 

Yeah,but there sure would be a lot of pissed Trans am owners when the transmission failed at 30k miles.
That's going to cost a hell of a lot more than the small amount of fuel saved by using a cheapie trans.

And the 1977-1978's with a 350 didn't get much worse fuel economy.

 

It wasn't fuel saving for the customer, it was fuel saving for the CAFE standards. Not much worse was a BIG deal, 1-2 mpg was huge. Remember that GM didn't put t-tops in 350 cars due to CAFE standards and you are talking about a miniscule MPG difference due to the weight of the t-tops.

 

I have always heard that the reason the 350 cars weren't available with T-tops after 1989 was because of the supposed torque limitations of the body.

 

That's just a myth. It was totally weight/CAFE/gas mileage related. It came from a guy who worked for Pontiac at the time.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/hist...0-pontiac.html

 

Thats amazing,how much more could the t-tops have possibly added to the weight of the car!

I had a Formula 350 with T-Tops and always wondered why they quit offering them!

So how do "gas guzzlers" like Hummers and SUVs get away with being as heavy and thirsty as they are?

 

They just pay the 2-3k gas guzzler tax. It isn't that it isn't allowed, but there is a rather large tax that goes with it.

Also, Hummer and SUVs are under different rules then cars.

 

"ArmorgetRS"
Thanks for the link to the 350-T-tops thread!
It was very interesting and sure cleared up a lot of questions.

I'd like a 1991-1992 GTA or Trans am with T-Tops one day.

 

Ya my 200c on my '82 T/A LU5 went out at 65K miles,Got a GOOD Christmas deal on a TH350 swap and very happy with it's performance

I guy I met to get his bowling ball caps had a 2.8 V6 82 s/e with the 200c and his trans crapped out 3 times within a few years after he bought it NEW !!! He said it was the biggest POS lemon car he has ever bought lol


Dave

 

Interesting topic

I too have an original 1982 trans am with an original LG4 engine linked to a original 200c transmission.
I bought the car in 1992 in the UK with 67,000 miles on it.
I have now covered 228,000 with original engine and tranny.The tranny had a bad reverse/low gear seal at around 167,000 and then a year or so later a small roller type bearing went bad ,which have been seen too.Apart from those issues and the odd leak around the pan gasket it's been perfect.I hav'nt got a heavy right foot ( as a lot seem to especially if looking at Youtube videos).THIS is why they go bad.They are abused and cannot handle the stress.The same with the axle set up's.
The main issue with the 200c was early on and with the lock up torque converters.Which was seen to a year or so after it's inclusion(79).
The 200c is now used a lot as a racing tranny as it has a lighter weight and with a few mods does the job very nicely.
Also worth noting another thing which will kill the 200c is if the shift cable is badly out out adjustment.
I may not have the strongest tranny or engine choice but it's certainly been reliable for all those miles.Everything needs a good going over sooner or later, but i have demonstrated with mine they are not always as bad as some make out.
These cars are more aerodynamic cruisers ,rather than foot to the floor muscle cars.The early third gens at least.Treat them with respect and you will be rewarded in return.