th200 vs. 5spd
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: Fargo, ND
Car: 82 z28
Engine: 400ci 450hp
th200 vs. 5spd
Hey I just have a ??? I had a 82 2.8l w/th200 about 10yrs ago and it was a dog. I know a few people with same thing with the manual and they didn't have that problem. Was it just my car or are all the V-6 with the TH200 that way. Mine was that way even after the trans was rebuild and had it to a couple different shops to see what was wrong with it.
Just curious
Just curious
Supreme Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 0
From: Pueblo Co
Car: 1989 C4
Engine: L98
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 307
I dont know too much about the v6 setup with the 200c but the 200c in my car wasent too bad. I never had much of any power issues except with the highway gears 2.73's. Its basicly a weaker TH350. Now if I was to compare the difference between my old 200c and the T5 I have now with the 3.42 axle which BTW I did play a bit with the 200c/3.42 combo I'd say they put fairly equal amouts of power to the ground. Basicly the power difference is all in the gearing. I know when we swaped my brothers 95 3.4 from an auto to a 5 speed it felt like a totaly different car because the 5 spped allowed him to take advantage of different (better) tourqe multiplication.
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
From: N.E. Ohio
Car: 88 Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: SBC 385
Transmission: 700 w/ manual valvebody & 2400 TCI
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt B&W w/ 3.70s
I had an 89RS w/ 2.8 and 700r4....it was faster than even the 3.1 autos that I tangled with! Then my brother got a 92RS 3.1 w/ 5spd and HOLY CRAP it is waaaay faster! It may be the gearing, or maybe the lil v6 didn't have enough for the slush-box but I KNOW that his 5spd was a lot faster then the auto...especially in the seat-of-the-pants!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post





