Differences in Transmissions???
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
From: Sacramento Ca
Car: 86 Trans am, 91 Camaro RS
Engine: 355 Sbc, nothin yet
Transmission: 700r4- both
Differences in Transmissions???
Hello all... I am starting to brush up on my information to do a T56 swap in my TA. But I had a couple burning questions I was hoping someone could answer for me... What is the difference between the early LT1 T56s and the later years up thru 97? Is there a certain year I should be looking for? Is one geared better than the other? Is there even a difference between the two!? Any useful and conclusive info would be highly appreciated.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 27,918
Likes: 2,448
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Re: Differences in Transmissions???
94-97. Avoid 93. It has the MUCH wider ratios. The later trans, plus 3.73 gears BARE MINIMUM, are the way to go.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
From: Sacramento Ca
Car: 86 Trans am, 91 Camaro RS
Engine: 355 Sbc, nothin yet
Transmission: 700r4- both
Re: Differences in Transmissions???
So the 93s are "off limits"? Ok I think I can handle that. Any other tips I should be aware of?
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 27,918
Likes: 2,448
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Re: Differences in Transmissions???
No, not a whole lot.
Look at the sticky at the top of this forum, and the post in teh FAQ forum on this site. I don't think there's any possible way anything could come up that isn't addressed in at least one of those.
Look at the sticky at the top of this forum, and the post in teh FAQ forum on this site. I don't think there's any possible way anything could come up that isn't addressed in at least one of those.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
From: Sacramento Ca
Car: 86 Trans am, 91 Camaro RS
Engine: 355 Sbc, nothin yet
Transmission: 700r4- both
Re: Differences in Transmissions???
Thank you sir for your help. I will do that
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,522
Likes: 92
From: Aridzona
Car: `86 SS / `87 SS
Engine: L69 w/ TPI on top / 305 4bbl
Transmission: `95 T56 \ `88 200-4R
Re: Differences in Transmissions???
As far as 1993 boxes...
An RPO M28 unit (GM 10236020 / TTC 1386-006) isn't ideal, ratio-wise, with 3.36 first / .62 sixth.
An RPO M29 unit (GM 10236021 / TTC 1386-007) is actually a good trans with regard to ratios of 2.97 first, .62 sixth and can be converted to .57 sixth.
Either one is weaker due to the lessened gear contact width at the maindrive to countershaft teeth.
I wouldn't hesitate to run an M29 unit, with the understanding that it'll never have ultimate strength, but for an average healthy 350, it's a great choice.
The MN6 units from 94-97 are largely the same internally (mild updates in '95) and have 2.66 / .50 ratios that work great if your rear gears match it well.
An RPO M28 unit (GM 10236020 / TTC 1386-006) isn't ideal, ratio-wise, with 3.36 first / .62 sixth.
An RPO M29 unit (GM 10236021 / TTC 1386-007) is actually a good trans with regard to ratios of 2.97 first, .62 sixth and can be converted to .57 sixth.
Either one is weaker due to the lessened gear contact width at the maindrive to countershaft teeth.
I wouldn't hesitate to run an M29 unit, with the understanding that it'll never have ultimate strength, but for an average healthy 350, it's a great choice.
The MN6 units from 94-97 are largely the same internally (mild updates in '95) and have 2.66 / .50 ratios that work great if your rear gears match it well.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Numbah-1
Transmissions and Drivetrain
19
Sep 12, 2015 08:57 PM
10236021, 1386006, 1386007, 1386007e, 56, difference, differences, gm, ls1, lt1, m28, m29, t56, t56s, transmission, transmissions












