You can find the driveshaft you need at www.planetsalvage.com for about $40. I just looked for a driveshaft out of an 82/83 Camaro with the 200C, which from what I am told from many manufacturer's is the right length for a 200-4R swap. Just a nugget of info for those who are looking to drop a few tenths off their ET, which would be particularly good if the 700 failed and your looking for a replacement.

 

I am just courious, I responded to your post on this the other day. I had sated that the first gear was better on the 700-r4 and you replied that you would be using the torque in your seciond gear better. How would this be the seciond gear is only different by .05 with the two trannys. BTW the 200 4r dosn't take the torque that the 700 r4 does.

just asking

 

Not to be a *****, as we all know that I am, but you are OBVIOUSLY neglecting some serious considerations. Sure, the 3.06 ratio of the first gear of the 700 would be great if you were in first for the entire 1/4 mile run. However, you have to shift into second at some point in time, and eventually into 3rd.

700R4 ratio's - 3.06/1.62/1.00
200-4R Ratio's - 2.75/1.57/1.00

Now then, take the percentage of difference in the one - two shift in both trannys. The percentage is directly related to the percentage that the engine speed will drop between shifts. Larger spaced ratio's causes the motor down further in it's operating range, shift per shift, which in a car meant to for high performance at the strip (AKA - NOT TORQUE from 2000-3000RPM! TORQUE from 4000-6000 RPM is important however) will cause the car to be yanked further from it's peak power points, causing slower overall acceleration. The same thing happens in the 2-3 shift between both trannys. Oh, please don't argue the statement about torque zones...if you know ANYTHING about racing, you know that the rate of acceleration falls dramatically and proportionately the further away you are from peak torque once you move past your peak torque. In other words, as horsepower may very well increase, once you pass your point of peak torque your rate of acceleration will slow down, period!

By example, the LS1 and the L98 make about the same peak torque number, but the LS1 makes it an additional 1400-1600 RPM higher, and what motor is quicker at the track?

So now then, why do you think manual cars are generally not just a little bit faster, BUT MUCH faster at the track than auto's? It's all about keeping the car closer to it's torque peak, 4 close gear changes to 1:1 is better than 3 wide changes to 1:1 any day. The 700 just compounds this problem by keeping the ratio's wider.

2004R not being able to take torque...ROFL, what do you think is found in the GN's? It's no 700R4. Stock the 200 may not be as strong as the 700, but modified (both), they are very equal in terms of strength.

Now then, if the 700's first gear ratios was all that, why didn't GM put a 700 behind the Turbo Regals? It would make sense, according to your logic...the turbo would spool up faster, creating more power sooner...however, then you have to shift...oh ****, you are yanked right away from your peak torque point, and not just a little bit, but FAR away, where in the 200 your much closer to it, not just 1-2, but 2-3 as well, which only means you will be accelerating more quickly throughout the race, as opposed to shifting to a somewhat dead spot in your power range compared to the area of peak torque.

Further more, the 700 causes yet another problem with it's deep first gear! Traction...it's already a problem in our cars, why make it worse? So you can impress people and get tickets by smoking the tires?

The reason I can't state engine speed differences between gear shifts is because that depends on rear gearing and tire size. However, let's say you should shift a stock L98 at 4600 RPM, all you have to do is do the math and select a gear that will allow you to be crossing the line at about 4500-4700 RPM. If you have a higher revving combination, then the same applies, choose the proper gear, and select a convertor with a stall speed 400-600 RPM away from peak torque to get out of the hole quickly in either case. The 3.06 ratio of the 700 will just cause more traction problem, because both cars end up at a 1:1 ratio, which means that the gears would be close to the same for motors with similar power bands, but the 3.06 will cause traction problems because it will multiply the torque 3.06 times, when the motor is only a few hundred RPM away from it's peak, instead of 2.75... which while you may think that's better, it might be, if you could keep the power to the ground, and the 700's ratios had closer spacing. But they don't, the 200 does, and that's WHY the switch makes sense. The cost to built a strong 200 is no more than that of a 700, so what's holding you back besides your pride of being able to "Smoke 'Em" with the 3.06 first gear?

Gee, I guess that might be a fairly good answer from a guy that doesn't know how to build or tune a motor, ROFL.

 

Some of that was mis-worded, but I don't have the patience to go back and correct it now.

 

Actually manual cars aren't much faster if any. The only advantage to a manual is 1.) more gears, allowing lower first gears and closer gears numerically, and 2.)weight reduction and a little less parasitic loss.
If you look at pro street cars and cars that were once stock (not dragsters or funny cars) you will see that more than half of them are TH400's or TH350's because and automatic will never miss a gear. Automatics are the way to get consistent ET's, plus you can have a trans-brake. Maybe bakc in the 60's and 70's manuals were better, but today automatics are only a few percent less efficient than manuals and with the invention of lockup torque converters and overdrive, gas mileage is not affected. The only advantage left of manuals is weight. BTW, the gear ratios i nthe tranny are not as important as you think. you can get a converter matched to your engines power band, and rear end gears to match. Also, the reason an LS1 F-body is faster than an L98 F-body has little to do with the tranny. For starters, the engine is aluminium, so there goes a few hundred pounds. For every 100 lbs you lose, you lose about .1 off your ET. I have proof that an auto is better, actually. One night out at the local street races, there was a pair of 2000 camaro SS's going at it. both stock engines, one standard, one auto. The auto was on stock tires, the standard on nitto drag radials. They races 5 or 6 times, every time the manual lost by about half a car length. The main reason was the auto beat it off the line and the manual never caught back up. And YES the standard driver was a very good driver, well unless everyone can launch an
SS and not break loose at all.

------------------
1983 Firebird
TH700R4 Auto
Small Block 400
LG4 ECM, Intake, Carb, Distributor, etc.
Soon to be non-computer.
Clarion Head Unit 45X4
2 Pioneer 400W 12" Subs
Third Gen Performance
"A four cylinder is half an engine."

 

Wow never thought of that!
I think poncho9789 is right about the torque problem being a weakness of the 200 4r but as gear ratios are conserned for a track transmition they make more sense than a 700r4's ratio.
Can the 200 4r slide right in the same as the 200c,
or would the mount have to be fabricated like a 200c to 700r4 swap?
SSC

 

The 2004r is heavier, especially internally. In general it eats more power than the 700.

 

I knew somebody would be a moron as soon as I compared the LS1 and the L98. I was comparing the torque peaks as evidence that where peak torque occurs is very important, as oppossed to what tranny's were behind them...maybe you should re-read my post. The only reference to trannys was the fact that a tranny with closer ratio's will drop the motor off closer to peak torque making it faster, period!
Okay, so you've accounted for .1 second, but the forth gen is heavier than the third gen, so how about if you just give me that .1 second back, and try to state your reasons for the difference of nearly 1.5 seconds in ET time...

Anyway, the 200 might be heavier than the 700...I just spent some time searching around the web for prices for performance applications, and for the same amount of money most places will build you a 200 that is warrantied to take more power than the same priced 700.

The convertor will not compensate for tranny gear ratio's and the percentage of FORCED MECHANICAL ENGINE SPEED REDUCTION, so what the hell are you talking about, I'd love to know... The only exception is if the shift piont dropped you off below your convertor's stall speed, and THEN it might unlock, rev a few hundred RPM and get back to business....but you loose time in that period of the convertor stalling, so it's actually LESS effective overall.

SSC, I posted yesterday a link to Spohn's Performance Page, they have a kit, that for $355 you can install a 2004R and like I said above, driveshafts can be found VERY cheaply. The kit includes the Torque arm, and crossmember, which the torque arm mounts to instead of the tranny.

There is absolutely no question that the 2004R is a superior tranny for acceleration, and for the same money you can get a 2004R that will have a warranty to handle more power over x time (depends on the company) in almost every case. The overdrive's are very close (.68 to .71) so you won't be hurting your top end or economy, and further more, 200's are easy to find in Bone Yards from G body's that have pathetically weak LG4's bolted to them! That's if you didn't go with a performance rebuild.

I think even in the case of a car with a peak torque occuring at a lower RPM range, the 200 will still be helpful, but I will let you guys know as I plan on slapping on into my 14.4 car and seeing what happens with just a tranny change alone. I'm going to keep the stock stall convertor as a control.

The 200 is heavier, by what..20 lbs? That's cool, I'm sure I will make up way more than .02 seconds of ET time with the ability to drop my engine off at more predictable speeds than with the 700, but I could be wrong.

Manual cars not being much faster than auto's? Okay, I think there will be a wave of B4C and 1LE guys with 305's and 5 speeds that will laugh at that one! Why do you think people switch from the 700 to the T56??? Why are AOD to T5 switches so common in Ford land? Why do hillbillys in my area cut a holes in their floor pans and mount a 4 speed in a G body? It works, that's why.

Like I said, some people just won't let go of the fact that the 700 isn't all that great. Sure it's behind SOME 10 second cars, but I promise you that more trannys with closer ratios, and lower numerically first gear ratio's are behind more 10 second cars around the planet than the 700, or any wide ratio tranny. Why are TH 350's and 400's put in third gen's? And when this happens, why is a gain of a few tenths almost always seen? The 350/400 trannys don't have that big 3.06 first gear, but they sure as hell have closer ratios, and don't try to account for 2-4 tenths as weigh difference, because there is no way in hell a 700 weigh 200-400 lbs more than a 350/400, or at all. Power loses aren't all that diferent either, so come up with something good, because I'm going to love to hear it!

SSC, if you want to know more about this swap in progress, shoot me a line, I'll tell you who and where I'm getting all the required parts from and how it works out in the end before you spend your hard earned cash.

[This message has been edited by Slow Iroc (edited May 16, 2001).]

 

There are plenty of very fast cars out there running the 700. it isn't that big a problem.

------------------
"American made baby. 100% American iron. The muscle among the masses. My hero. Yep, you can take your ergonomically designed, space age, computer controlled, 4 door, cup holding map lighted split double wishbone split fold down retractable cargo covered moon roof piece of transportation and keep it. For I have felt the thunder. And I know the difference!"
JSP Motorsports
ICON Motorsports

 

Haven't seen an 8 second car with a 700 yet, I have however seen many 8 second Regals with the 200 and many more 8 second cars with trannys that have gears spaced together in more logical fashions. Take a poll at your track, and compare the 10 second cars...how many of them use trannys with wide ratios, and compare that to how many use trannys with closer ratios....

 

8-second GN with a 200-4R........my a$$ you have seen them.

------------------
Matt

1987 GTA L98 MD8 GW6

"Stop Lights timed for 35Mph are also timed for 70Mph"

 

PBAutomatics builds 9-10sec. or better 700R4's.

------------------
89 RS

Looking For:
87 IROC-Z28 350 TPI

 

Easy Iroc, Man you need to take a chill pill. I just wanted to know your reasoning for the swap. That is a lot of work and money to get maybe .2 in the 1/4 mile but you could be right and the tranny will help you in your quest for quickness. I would love to know the results of the swap. Maybe it will start a trend????

my 97 formula m6 and t-tops weighs 3350
I don't know how much a third gen is but I have heard of GTAs weighting at 3700 is this accurate?

------------------
97 formula w/6speed,cags skipshift eleminator, hurst billet pro shifter, 30#injectors,adjustiable fuel presure regulator,Moroso cold air induction,ported mass air sensor,accell300+ ignition box, accell 9000 wires, bosch platnum4 plugs,flomaster crossflow muffler,Lingenfiter 52mm throttle body,TPIS L98 SuperProfile cam,Crane 1:6 full roller rockers,Edelbrock subframe connectors,Edelbrock strut tower brace.

Other car is a 89 GTA w/700r4w/stage 2 shift kit, corvette servo, B&M mega shifter, TPIS bigmouth intake, TPIS large tube runners, TPIS 52mm throttle body,Edelbrock ported centerbolt heads,LT1 24# injectors,GMPP LT4 hotcam,CompCams Pro magnum roller rockers,Edelbrock headers, flowmaster crossflow muffler,MSD 6A, accell coil, bosch platnum plugs, this car is currently under rebuild and restoration.

 

I just went back and did the math. You will stay in 1st an extra 4 mph, that last for about .2 secionds (wild estimant) than you will in a 700-r4

 

Would you like his email address? Sorry, I don't have time to talk **** about things I can't back up...ROFL.

Anyway, Poncho, .2 seconds is the LEAST amount of time reduction I have seen from swapping in trannys with closer gear ratio's. The more power you make high in the power band, and the amount you gain will grow. Also, in supercharged applications, this will let the blower stay spooled higher, producing more power throughout the entire run.

From my perspective I see this
-$355 for crossmember/Torque Arm
-$40 for a driveshaft
-$60 for a running 2004R from a local boneyard.
-$173 for a Kevlar "Bulletproof" rebuild kit
-$320 quote from a local Ammco Tranny Shop for doing the rebuild.

So, that ends up being about $948 for a complete tranny that should reduce ET's by two tenths AT MINIMUM, and the rebuild kit manufacture claims it will stand up to 550 HP. Now, compare that to the price of a 700R4 rebuild, with Kevlar peices, and I bet you that the prices look very similar, yet by stick with the 700R4, you will have gained nothing in terms of ET reduction, unless your tranny was slipping badly in the first place. I've seen some 700's go for over $2,000 - with claimed ratings of only 475 HP! No comparison in my opinion.

The price for Torque Convertor's for the 2004R and 700R4 appear to be the same, so it's break even there. On top of that, I beleive the 89 TTA's came with aluminum DS's, so you have CHEAP access to those from Bone yards.

There was a reason close ratio trannys were the big desire back when muscle cars started, and that's becuase they reduced ET's. Look in local car trader magazines, people list a close ratio tranny as a selling piont!

Either way, I'm not suggesting everyone should go switch tranny's right away, and please don't...leave the DS'es for those who are doing it because they realized the flaws in the 700 and how the 200 dosen't suffer from most of them. However, when it does come time to give the 700 a shot in the arm...this is an option you can consider, that holds not only the potential for ET reduction, but dallor savings combined with greater power handling abilities...

Remember, the 2004R has a VERY SERIOUS aftermarket. By serious, I don't mean large, by serious, I mean guys who do three or four mods to their cars and make 450+ HP and NEED a strong tranny! This has produced a competative market for 2004R kits, as they are the same, dosen't matter if it was bolted to a Regal or a Monte, or anything else. The 700 has it's only serious following, however, the pricing dosen't seem to be as competative per dallor to HP handling for some reason when compared to the 2004R.

 

I've got a friend who had a 200R4 in his GN that was doing 9.80s in the 1/4 mile. He yanked the motor out and put it in an 85 Corvette.

You wouldn't believe how bulletproof his 200 is! Then again, he's got over $3500 US in it and it's got a ****load of billet parts! He uses a trans brake and launches the car at 7500 RPM! He's had it for 5 years and the only problem he had one time was when he cracked the tranny casing on one run in the GN. He bought another casing and swapped the internals.

If you don't believe me, he usually posts on the LS1 and 4th Gen board and goes by the name RogueVette (?sp) or something like that.
If I find his website again I'll post the link.

------------------
Chris T's Website
1989 Trans Am GTA
2 1986 Grand Prixs

 

Here's the link to his site http://members.home.net/rogue15/

------------------
Chris T's Website
1989 Trans Am GTA
2 1986 Grand Prixs

 

Slow, here's the bottom line - Why would you want to waste your time, money, and effort swapping to a TH2004R when it is questionalby even as good as the 700. Anyone with half a brain would swap to:
1.) a TH350 or TH400 both for serious HP, when mileage is not a concern
2.) a T56 for those who like manuals and 400+ ft.lbs or
3.) a built TH700R4 for high HP and good gear ratios, plus OD

------------------
1983 Firebird
TH700R4 Auto
Small Block 400
LG4 ECM, Intake, Carb, Distributor, etc.
Soon to be non-computer.
Clarion Head Unit 45X4
2 Pioneer 400W 12" Subs
Third Gen Performance
"A four cylinder is half an engine."

 

The ratios do suck in the 700, watch and listen when it shifts - the engine falls out of its powerband well below its peak torque. Then it struggles for a second before regaining some rpm, that will cost you some time. The 200 ratios are better, but still not as good as a 350TH. There was a atricle on the 200 vs 700 in I think Car Craft about 2 yrs ago, the 200 won. I had Mike Kurts of PMAC in Houston rebuild/beef-up my 350TH in my 67 Camaro after trashing 2 of them. He run the white Monte SS in factory street class - his car is in all the mags. He builds his trannys to hold up to 9 sec. cars, but he will not build a 700 for more then 475HP. At his shop was a 2001 LS1 twin turbo camaro done by MTI, it was getting a 200 put in it. He also said the 200 take less HP to run and sees about a 2 tenths quicker ET. and you can upshift into OD @ full throttle, the 700 you cant. I'm not saying its worth the effort to swap, but if your lookin for every tenth, thats the difference between a fast car and a good running car. Fast street car RULE!

------------------
91 B4C 305 TPI - SOON TO BE 383
TREMEC 5-SP, STOCK 1-BOLT REAREAND w/342 GEARS
K&N, AIRFOIL
EDELBROCK HEADERS, DUAL CAT TO HOMEMADE Y-PIPE & 3.5" SINGLE PIPE W/ FLOWMASTER
CRANK PULLEY, MSD, FUEL PRESS REG
COWL HOOD, WELD WHEELS
14.1@ 98MPH
-------------
OTHER RIDE
67 CAMARO - STREET CAR
BIG BLOCK, PUMP GAS
350TH w/ATI 10"
12-BOLT w/373 GEARS
10.90s ON MOTOR - ET-STREETs w/MUFFLERS

 

Slow Iroc, You are Right here.

Of course Closer ratio's, To a point, Will help your ET.

The 700R4 is far from the greatest transmission ever, but it is One Of the better Auto transmissions For street/strip use.

The First Gear is Entirely Too Low, Other than that, Its fairly decent all Around.

Also, You show me a Boneyard with TTA's in it, and Ill buy one of you "cheap" ally driveshafts

If My car were at the point, where the Motor was Making every bit of power It could, at the point where I had Sacraficed all the streetability I was willing too, Then yeah, a 2004R swap would be A way to go just a little bit faster.

But as Im looking at it now, and Im sure 90% of the people on this board, For 1000$, I could pick Up over a second and a Half, In ways other than the tranny.

Soo, Maybe When I get My 327 found and built, Ill think about it, but then again, I would rather have a T56...




------------------
60 Ranchero - Project ( Money Hole )
85 Sport Coupe LG4 - Daily Driver
Reader's ride -> My Ride

Just another Hot Rod kid, or thats what they all tell me.
Livin' the Stereotype

 

Obviously that took half a brain to write. I have shown there is no more expense in swapping in a 2004R, with ET gains to boot, so your option three is flat out laughable, and has been shot down with the quickness in my post even before you had the infinate wisdom to write that. Good HP? For the same money the 2004R handles more. Good gear ratio's? That's a joke right?

#2 is far more expensive than a 2004R swap, and is not as reliable as a built 2004R in a serious application. Why do you think they require bearing and synchronizer replacement after only 40k miles in LT1 cars! GMHTP's ThunderChicken received a 490 some HP 396/LT1 and they couldn't make a drag run because in the 3k miles they drove the car from the shop it was built in, they F'ed up the tranny and had trouble putting the car in 4th. Manuals are better from a perspective of closer gear ratio's, automatics will always be able to be built to handle more power.

In #1, sure, but millage is a factor for all of us, with projected gas prices of $3/gallon for the summer! On top of that, the 200's Ratios are MUCH closer to the 350/400's than the 700's are, and the 200 costs less in most cases than a 700 to build, and further more, you get to retain the overdrive for those high triple digit speed trips that you can't with the 350/400.


No, it's not questionably even as good, it is as good, if not better. Closer ratio's, and for the same money you get a 200 that handles more power than it's 700 counterpart.


Bort, like I said in a earlier post, I didn't suggest everyone should go swap out the tranny's this very momment, but eventually your 700R4 will fail, and when it comes to that time...then you have to make a choice.
1. Pay more money for a tranny that will do nothing to reduce my ET's
2. Pay less for a tranny that requires I remove two extra bolts at the axle and handles more power, and will reduce my ET's via closer gear ratio's.


Anyway, I'm glad to see some of you are coming around a little more, as oppossed to earlier posts about the 2004R where you refused to look at the facts but instead look at who wrote them.

[This message has been edited by Slow Iroc (edited May 17, 2001).]

 

I wont make any comments about Taking advice from the Guy with the 15 Second 6grand Motor.




Noone is "Coming around" CAuse your not telling us anything we Don't already Know.



------------------
60 Ranchero - Project ( Money Hole )
85 Sport Coupe LG4 - Daily Driver
Reader's ride -> My Ride

Just another Hot Rod kid, or thats what they all tell me.
Livin' the Stereotype

 

Okay this is the last thing i am gonna post, otherwise you will crash the server with another 10 page post. Simply swapping the tranny will not cure the slow f-body woes. Doing this swap will probalby take you an entire day, if not a weekend, and after you have busted your a-s-s you will go to the track and realize you are now 2 tenths quicker. The SMARTEST thing to do would be to keep your 700 and get a transgo shift kit and some suspension upgrades and end up with the same improvement. If you are so bent on swapping trannys, get the 82-83 driveshaft, get the $60 conversion kit from Summit and put a TH350 with a transbrake and shift kit in. Mileage will suffer, but who cares, right? Its all about the ET's. Some day I will dish out the cash and use a T56. BTW, LT1 4th gens have weaker T56's. A Richmond T56, or even a T5 will handle serious torque, and will last you a while.

P.S. I wouldn't take advice from anyone named 'Slow Iroc'

------------------
1983 Firebird
TH700R4 Auto
Small Block 400
LG4 ECM, Intake, Carb, Distributor, etc.
Soon to be non-computer.
Clarion Head Unit 45X4
2 Pioneer 400W 12" Subs
Third Gen Performance
"A four cylinder is half an engine."

 

complete tranny that should reduce ET's by two tenths AT MINIMUM, and the rebuild kit manufacture claims it will stand up to 550 HP.

you show me a car runnin mid 8's on 550 horse alone and ill be impressed, damn car should weigh 1000 pounds to do that

 

I thought a T5 can only handle 310 lbs of torque? Am I wrong??


------------------
--Steve S--
1984 Trans Am 305 LG4, 5 speed Daily Driver, Flowmaster 80 Series
Holley 600 cfm & vacuum advance
Soon: Edlebrock Intake & TES

 

Give it up guys, oh and btw manuals are better in cornering but there is no way you can shift as fast as a automatic in a straight line. If you can I think you play with your stick too much! Anyway, I think the 700-R4 is a better transmission stock but when you decide to build it, go with whatever just make sure you do build it right.

------------------
1987 Firebird Formula
305 LG-4
Crane CompuCam 2030
700-R4 Trans
4 barrel quadrajunk remained by holley (this carb stinks!!!)
edelbrock performer intake
Hypertech Thermomaster Chip
Open Element Air Filter
No Cat with Straight pipe (Dynomax muffler rusted apart and fell off probably could not stand the heat )
Accel H/P Coil

- Soon to be installed
Holly Spreadbore 600
Edelbrock TES
True Dual exhaust or 4 inch single pipe to dual 2 1/4"
1.6:1 Ratio Rockers
Set of New Valve Springs

 

Slow Iroc, you had better shut up or this thread is going to get locked. How dare you spread ideas that the 700R4 or any other part of the 3rd gen isn't perfect! Seriously guys, if you're serious about going fast, your tranny is going to explode. Probably sooner than you expect. So, we've realized it will sooner or later come down to getting a race-spec transmission built. Say you have two options for a street/race car with an auto...

A. Build a tough 700R4, so it'll handle the torque and strain you will be putting on it
-or-
B. For about the same amount of cash, get a 2004R built, so it'll handle all the torque and strain you will put on it, but also drop your times by .2 seconds.
Sure, its only 2/10, but its better than nothing.
So, what would you do? I think I comes down to if you want to go faster, or if you're blind to the truth and want a 700 simply because it came in the almightly 3rd gen. But hey, if you ever lose to another 3rd gen with a 2004R by two tenths just because you were too blind to see the 700's faults, maybe you will see what I'm talking about. I didn't mean to insult anyone here, and if I did, I'm sorry, I'd just like it if people could see things in a more rational perspective.

------------------
'89 Firebird Formula 350
L98, WS6, Red/grey, t-tops, and a 3.27:1 rear
K&N, TB bypass, no MAF screens, CAI, full Accel ignition, no cats, Hooker Supercomp shorties, Hooker 3-inch catback
ET? The POS runs 15s.
Also own '83 Firebird 2.8 2bbl. 155K miles.
ET? Break out the calendar!

 

Did y'all by any chance find costs for both builds? Just calling around here netted apx. same costs and a gear change in the 700R4. So where did the .2 come from? Anyone know the article in question?


------------------
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson

 

I stated the .2 sec in the 1/4 as a wild estimat of the time gained by the swap. I completely understand that a close gear ratio tranny is beter that is why the T-56 is designed as a close ratio tranny. But I think the gain would be minimal in the swap for the expence and the trouble to perform it. I

PS I like the first gear in a 700 not to say the trany dosen't have it's problems. but find me a transmition that no one can say something bad about. and I realize that the third gen has it's problems, but you take the good with the badd.

------------------
97 formula w/6speed,cags skipshift eleminator, hurst billet pro shifter, 30#injectors,adjustiable fuel presure regulator,Moroso cold air induction,ported mass air sensor,accell300+ ignition box, accell 9000 wires, bosch platnum4 plugs,flomaster crossflow muffler,Lingenfiter 52mm throttle body,TPIS L98 SuperProfile cam,Crane 1:6 full roller rockers,Edelbrock subframe connectors,Edelbrock strut tower brace.

Other car is a 89 GTA w/700r4w/stage 2 shift kit, corvette servo, B&M mega shifter, TPIS bigmouth intake, TPIS large tube runners, TPIS 52mm throttle body,Edelbrock ported centerbolt heads,LT1 24# injectors,GMPP LT4 hotcam,CompCams Pro magnum roller rockers,Edelbrock headers, flowmaster crossflow muffler,MSD 6A, accell coil, bosch platnum plugs, this car is currently under rebuild and restoration.

 

Slow, you come off as a complete **** . But I do agree that the 200 is a better choice than a 700 for a street/strip application. I don't think you quite understand how to calculate rpm drops but you do have the right idea. The extra low first gear of the 700 is uneccessary for a thirdgen car as it would cause an excessive drop in engine speed on the 1-2 shift compared to the 200, it definately works in trucks though. Where did you get your prices??? Never buy a rebuild kit with friction and steels. Only buy the paper and rubber kits, Raybestos blue plate special friction and kolene steels don't come in any rebuild kit I've seen. $60 for a core. B.S. I paid $200 for a guaranted rebuildable core in Alger Oh. $320 for the rebuild. Helllll no! What do they do, dump all the pieces out on a table replace the seals and slap it together? Never mind the endplays. It takes me close to 17 hours to rebuild a 200 at $75 an hour you figure it out. If you get a 200 from the shop I work at you get it all though, .560 tv boost valve, billet servo, more frictions and steels in the fwd, direct, and od clutch packs, a kevlar band and a trans brake. We are also going to start increasing the sump of the stock pan 1 inch and substitute a 4l60 filter for the o.e. piece. You can go as fast as you want and not worry about the tranny breaking. We sell our trans brake kits mail order. If anyone is interested e-mail me. A part of the reason 200s were put in the Buicks so that when they execute the 1-2 shift the engine speed won't fall so low as to loose some of the turbo's boost. I'm not sure where you guys get your information but essentially the 200-4r is a 200c of 82-83 camaro vintage with a od unit. The 200cs were designed with gas mileage in mind with a low internal mass which is why the broke so frequently and were replaced with th-350's. Another thing Slow, you are completely talking out your *** on the thunderchicken situation. The t-56 saga took place over 3 issues. They needed synchro replacement because they had a vibration that wiped out the extension housing bushing through which all but a tiny amount of the fluid leaked out. Then they had a problem with their centerforce clutch not fully disengaging. They meaured the effort needed to go from first to second with the engine running and it took 40 pounds of force to move the shifter. They replaced it with a clutch from a company called Star and fixed the problem. So you're from Ohio. Why wasn't Jesus born in Ohio? They couldn't find 3 wise men and a virgin! LOL I'm from Michigan, just going to the University of Northwestern Ohio. Try and be nicer next time. ------------------
82 z28 350cid, vortec heads, comp 262h cam, Holley 600cfm carb, 2in twice pipes, MSD ignition, turbo 350 trans, 3.73 posi, manly b&m megashifter

[This message has been edited by 82z (edited May 18, 2001).]

 

I never thought of simply changingng the gears in the 700, I suppose it would net the same results as the 200 swap. That's something to think about...

 

You better watch your mouth 'son'. Nobody here likes you.

And as far as your 8-second 200-4R goes, I know about twenty turbo buick guys that run 9's or quicker and NONE of them run 200-4R's.

Just cannot seem to get the hint can ya? Get lost.

------------------
Matt

1987 GTA L98 MD8 GW6

"Stop Lights timed for 35Mph are also timed for 140Mph"