the_am_man

iTrader: (3)

I'm looking for input for anyone familiar with TTA's GN's and swapping between the too

I have the opportunity to buy the complete drivetrain (engine, tranny) and all the accessories to do the complete swap. Guy wants 700$ but I'm sure I can haggle it for less. I know this is the carbed version and doesnt have the potential for performance that the SFI version does.

What I've learned from looking at the car/ talking to the owner.
-roughly 145,000 mile car
-recently rebuilt turbo
-will need major engine overhaul, doesnt run very well, only 5 cyls
-won't be removed hack job style
should be able to swap in place of small block easily because mount locations/ hardware are interchangeable.

I was also told that the 'metric' trannies are garbage and should be tossed aside for a 700r4

Even if I can use the engine the tranny would be a great swap in place of my 200c

Questions I have is, since this is the carbed version it should be easier to swap in place of the 305 or no?

is it possible to swap out the carb setup in the future for the sfi setup for more performance without major modifications?

Thanks,
Jeff

backgammon7

the transmission bolt pattern is different between the 90 and 60 degree (metric) engines so you'll have to use one out of a v6 f-body. and i think the v6 700r4 is built to the same standard as the v8, but with a different bolt pattern but i'm not sure.

the_am_man

iTrader: (3)

Anyone here have any experience with the buick carbed turbo engines, or should i look for a buick forum?

bl85c

iTrader: (2)

Contact TTA850 or UR50SLO, they both own tta's. You might have more luck in the engine swap forum. But from what I hear the carb versions are better left alone. Ditto on the tranny. It can be built up, but the 700's are all around better.

Backgammon7- it's a 90 degree motor so it has a v8 bolt pattern.

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

No, it is not worth it Jeff. Think about what your saying for a moment, your going to buy an older Buick 3.8 w/carbureted turbo, no intercooler, with an engine that needs a major overhaul, not to mention it isn't the better 109 engine block. All turbo buicks came cast from the factory, all of them, so for the amount of money your asking yourself to invest in this project, just to say that you have a Grand National engine in your car, definitely isn't worth it. Your talking about swapping to SFI later on as well, well, if you stick with your 305, you can swap to fuel injection right now without even removing the engine, then slap on a turbo and go even faster than you would have with the Buick engine. The factory 3.8 heads are absolute garbage, trust me, I know, so you'll be spending even more money upgrading them. Stick with what you have, you already have more cubic inch displacement, and larger intake valves, so your already ahead of the game. Don't waste your money on that engine....

the_am_man

iTrader: (3)

Thanks for bringing me back down to earth street lethal, there probably would be a lot of problems that I would run into with this swap, including the fact that it will most likely need machine work done, and still make less than 200hp or so.

Given that I will most likely pass on the engine, I still think the tranny would be a great replacement for the one I have. I keep getting "the 7004r is the only option, metrics are junk." But there are also people that swear by the 2004r.

Hopefully the tranny in this buick has the dual bolt pattern, but if not trans adapters look to be less than 100$.

If I swap to a 7004r I will also need a different driveshaft, so I would like to be able to just buy a spohn crossmember/t arm and bolt in a 2004r (assuming the spoon 2004r piece will bolt up using my factory mounting holes which it does not specify on the website)

backgammon7

[/quote] Backgammon7- it's a 90 degree motor so it has a v8 bolt pattern.[/quote]
-bl85c
it is? i read somewhere that the 3.8 was a 60 degree motor, thanks for the info

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

The 700R4's have a much better 1st gear ratio over the 200R4's, however, the 200R4 allows for a transbrake to be used, which I'd rather just avoid though because of the increased stress on the tranny, not to mention already seeing cars run in the low nines using just the foot brake method. Depending on what you want to do (street, strip or both), there are endless choices. Many turbo buick guys go with a high stalled Turbo 400 (not that expensive), as do Supra guys, as those tranny's can literally take a beating, and they bolt right into place, so you definitely have choices. Stick with the 305, as they're starting to gain popularity amongst the turbo crowd because of their tiny, albeit thicker, bore. A 1.94" intake valve flows more than enough for the 305, and then some, so expect to lay down some very good numbers when pushing 15+psi (symmetry is the key). Remember though, controlled detonation is what you want for allowing a cast rotating assembly last for quite awhile....

ls six

#1 the trans bolt patern is different but it's the POB patern not the 60* V6 patern, The RWD 3.8's were all BOP. The 3800 series I and II was revised with the 60* patern among many other items. This is the one used in all FWD cars and the 4th gen F bodies.

So neither 700 bolt patern will work directly.



#2 the 200-4R motor used in all newer G bodies ( if it's a carbed motor theres a good chance it's the 200C) is actualy stronger than the 700.

Stock even a basic unit from a non-performance aplication can handle 500 +- CHP. And they can be built to hold 1000CHP easily enough.

Most were universal bellhousing trannies so they'll bolt up to any BOP motor, RWD cadillac motor and the SBC/BBC motors.

The 200-4's also have better ratios than the 700, with just the trans swap you can see as much as a half second difference in your quarter mile E/T.


As for the swap you'll need FWD style heads just to make the motor fit the 3rd gen. You'll need the 3rd gen specific passenger side manifold (discontinued) or to fabricate an alternative and you'll need a custom legnth driveshaft ( unless your car had a 200C to begin with) and a fabricated/aftermarket trans X member with a torque arm mount.

ls six

Only if you are talking about a truck or a relatively underpowered car.

The advantage of the 700's super low 1st also has the dis-advantage of an equaly huge gap between 1st and 2nd causing the RPM
's to drop below peak torque in non stock aplications.

The 200-4's higher 1st can be offset by a lower final if thats really needed and the higher 4th gear ratio helps maintain mileage on the street.

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

Which overpowered cars w/700R4's came without the 3.06:1 first gear.....?

Please tell me you are kidding lol;

700R4 3.06 1.63 1:10 0.70
200R4 2.74 1.57 1.00 0.67

Why would you need a lower final for the 200R4 to make up for a performance difference when at WOT 4th gear isn't even prevalent? Also, exactly how much mileage would you be saving over the 700R4's 0.70 final ratio, in comparison with the 200R4's 0.67 lol....?

1982TA

iTrader: (1)

Thought about doing this same swap to my '82 TA also...Read up on the buick forums. Check out turbobuicks.com in the "before black" forum, they talk about the carbed cars. The only reason I thought about doing the swap was because it was something that could have possibly came out of GM when these cars were new, and I'm not looking for major speed...something more failry stock. Of course chevy had their way, but these engines were considered for the '82 TA's, as well as the 301 Turbo from '80-'81 TTA's. Yes they are underpowered but are you going to race your car? Someone will always be faster than you no matter what. Part's availability is what turned me off after doing some research, but if you have a complete setup it might be worth it. I'm sure you will get a lot of people saying "WHY" sort of like when I thought of swapping a 301 Turbo in my TA

the_am_man

iTrader: (3)

Yeah that was almost the exact same mindset I had when thinking about this swap, supposedly there was a 82' bird that was running around on GM proving grounds with this engine in it. Just looking at the engine setup it looks like the carb sits directly below the "turbo" hood cowl on my car, perfect for a custom air intake setup.

Trying to make it look factory and making it into a prototype theme car could be fun, but having it go faster for cheaper with a sbc could be more fun...

ls six

WE are talking non stock cars here, keep that in mind.

You make my point for me. The 700's low 1st made the stock 160-230 CHP cars they originaly came in feel quick off the line. But it contributes to the feeling that these were stoplight to stoplight cars that began to fall behind shortly after.

Assuming you have the car setup for a great hole shot with all the rear gear the tires can handle the car WILL fall on it's face in 2nd with the 700's ratio spread.

Getting ideal 2nd gear power requires a compromised setup for 1st gear launches.

With a 200 in it's place the same overall 1st ratio can be replicated with a numericaly higher final ratio to preserve the launch but the spacing between 1st and 2nd allows the motor to stay closer to it;'s torque peak after the shift making for more consistant exceleration.

The 200's numericaly lower final drive helps to compensate for the lower final drive that may or may not be needed.



It wouldnt, that's not the claim I made so you need to go back and read it again.

But the 200 is better suited for 4th gear pulls either way.

Most 700's were built to not remain in OD at WOT because it's very failure prone.

Cop cars were enabled and you can buy a simple kit to enable almost any 700 for WOT 4th gear pulls but unless you have done serious work to the unit I wouldnt expect it to last behind any motor producing a healthy amount of torque.


The OP didnt mention what the car will be used for so you cant say 4th isnt "prevalent".

If he plans to run the golden stat or something similar then 4th is extremely important, if he just plans to go on long highway trips with the intention of having some fun at the same time I'm sure he'd like not losing the trans in the middle of nowhere.




And if you want to debate the +'s and -'s of any given unit that's cool. But dont be an *******, you're just making your self look foolish.

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

Irrelevant, you clearly stated only in truck and underpowered applications, so kindly provide the other makes that you were ridiculously implying that did not implement the 3.06 first gear....

.... followed by;

First of all, get your argument straight, as you start off indicating that you are referring to non stock cars, only to now be back to stock. Second, there is no such thing as "feeling quick", as a lower sixty foot solidifies a quicker car, not the sensation of it....

.... are we back to non-stock, or are you still embellishing on stock here lol?

Okay, we're back to non-stock....

Prove it, and I imply proof with factual proof, not theoretical. Show me a time slip from the sixty foot mark, to the 1/8th mile mark, in both applications, where speed is substantially reduced on the 700R4's side because of it's inferior spread. Both cars can use turbo's (which is obviously relevant to this thread), both can use whatever size stall speed converters, but both must use a rear gear that will not benefit the 700R4, so there will be no need for "all the gear the tires can handle"....

.... only in stock applications, which I thought we weren't discussing here. You keep reverting your argument back to torque range, when with modified engines, that area specifically changes from stock, not to mention horsepower winning races at the track, not necessarily torque. You insist your arguing non-stock engines, yet, it sounds like your comparing ratio stretch between two stock cars racing from stop light to stop light.

.... and the way to replicate that 1st gear ratio of the 700R4 would mean to compromise not only trap speed by swapping to a lower (higher, numerically) rear gear differential, but gas mileage as well. That doesn't necessarily justify the 200R4, in comparison.

.... in boosted applications LOL? What are you smoking, pass that stuff!

Interesting how you keep speaking in terms of final drive ratios, and yet, offer no numbers to conclude this comparison of yours. Like I said earlier, stop speaking theoretically, and prove your point backed by factual proof. Show me the difference in MPH on a time slip in both applications....

No need to go back and reread what you claim, because as far as I'm concerned your simply a PC racer talking completely out of his rearend (pun intended lol). Incidently, final drive ratios are calculated in all gears, not just the two that "your" referring to, with 3rd and 4th being the deciding factor at the end of the track. Do you even go to the track lol? Do you even have any idea how long second gear lasts in a boosted application for crying out loud....?

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

Here, and oldy, but will illustrate my point. Here's Traxion's old Iroc w/700R4....;

http://www.bescaredracing.com/iroc/movies/track.wmv

R/T :
0.100
60' : 1.624
330' : 4.765
1/8 : 7.424
MPH : 91.94
1000' : 9.731
1/4 : 11.665
MPH : 117.20

.... show me a similarly equipped car, w/200R4 though, running substantially faster/quicker.

bl85c

iTrader: (2)

LOL, kinda quiet now. I'll take a built 700 over a built 200 any day.

ls six

I'm not going to get into some pathetic online whine fest with you. I made my case so you can do what you want.

I do invite you to educate your self though http://www.cpttransmission.com/media.htm

If you dont understand the concept of gear ratio spread then theres nothing I con do for you.

the_am_man

iTrader: (3)

I think was ls is trying to say for the most part is that once you exceed a certain power level, say 350hp, 1st gear is just a burnout unless you feather the throttle or your car is setup for drag racing, which mine isnt.

Also since my car has a highway gear in the rear end the closer ratio tranny would be a better all around performer, or thats what I would assume.

Come on guys keep the facts coming and not the shots at each other, I appreciate both of your inputs into this thread.

That said I'm not taking sides, lol

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

Concepts don't win races LOL....

ls six, you are the one who started a pathetic argument by quoting....;

Such a disadvantage, and yet, despite that, GM continued the very same 700R4 gear ratio spread of; 3.06 1.63 1.00 0.70 in the 4L60 transmission(s), with countless 4th gen owners having absolutely no problem, whether stock, or modified. Hmm, what was GM thinking, ehh lol? Where are my examples by the way to help you factually prove your point....?

ls six

Not interested mate...


Am man, if your interested in the 3.8 setup still think about the newre 2800 series motors.

They use the 60* V6 patern so they'll bolt up to any V6/4 banger F body trans, both 700 and T5. Along with the newer 60-65E units.

I dont think the early 3.8 RWD intakes will fit directly but the 4th gen cars did come with a nice looking manifold that faces the right way.

Simplest solution would be to swap the entire drivetrain, harness and ECU from a newer 4th gen V6 car. That'll net you a decent 200 CHP that should pretty much trump the carbed motor.

Then you can swap the headers and turbo at a later date.

You can use the internals from any number of sources (turbo buicks or blown 3800's) and I do believe the 4th gen 3800 allready comes with the FWD style heads

Personaly I'd love a 3800 + 5 spd with a few bolt ons for an economy cruiser that'll hang with most stock 3rd gen V8's. If firewall clearance isnt an issue I'd love to drop an M92 on there from an Ultra or GS and tune for an honest 300 CHP.

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

Well, you seemed more than interested when you first quoted me, so we'll just leave it at that then. What's even more interesting though is the similarity between the 700R4's 1st and 2nd gear ratio, and the highly sought after Zed-F (ZF6) used with the LT5 engine found in the 90's ZR1 corvette....;

700R4 3.06 1.62
ZF6 3.07 1.80

.... or the Allison 1000 & 2000 units, which I've seen help to haul @ss at the track;

Allison 1000 3.10 1.81
Allison 2000 3.51 1.90

Meh, but it all boils down to personal preference though....

ls six

Really? The ZF isnt "sought after" because it's expensive and difficult to fix when it's broken. Except for OE replacements and "it was available" situations the T56 is the standard.

The Allisons are exactly what I said the 700 was, a TRUCK trans.

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

Here is where your stupidity embellishes itself, allow me, this will be fun....;

The highly sought after ZF6 was in reference to, not to mention from the perspective of, collectors, due to the transmission's rarity. You obviously missed the entire point because you are completely lost in your own ridiculous argument. The ZF6 costs a great deal more than the T56, and it incorporates a similar first and second gear ratio spread to that of the 700R4 FOR A REASON, because it ISN'T a disadvantage, so the point, me dear ls six, was that it isn't a "disadvantage". Learn how to read between the lines. Incidently, there were three different spreads with the T56, and guess what one of them was, the best one....;

T56: 2.66 1.78 1.30 1.00 0.74 0.50
T56: 2.97 1.94 1.35 1.00 0.84 0.62
T56: 3.36 2.07 1.35 1.00 0.84 0.62

Do you hear yourself lol? Umm, I guess not lol! You CLEARLY said the following after I initially said that the 700R4's have a better 1st gear ratio....;

.... in which I repeatedly asked afterward; show me a car, ANY CAR, that came with the 700R4 which did not incorporate that first and second gear ratio spread, because you implied only trucks and underpowered cars having that 1st gear luxury, and you did not, because you CANNOT! As for the Allisons, umm, they were introduced in 2005, and, well, thus do not have any relevance other than SHARING a similiar gear ratio with the 700R4. You completely missed the point, AGAIN. Since you felt it necessary to revive your transparent argument, I will ask you again, show me any 700R4 that came without that first and second gear ratio.

the_am_man

iTrader: (3)

The guy called me up offering it to me for 600$, his add was originally for 700$. He also pointed out that his cousin said he would pay him 300 for just the turbo lol.

It sounds like he'll have it all out of the car by the end of the weekend, I'm still interested in the tranny(hope its dual bell pattern) even though he doesnt want to seperate the engine/trans.

Seeing as gas is starting to rise up in price again an overdrive tranny would, I think, be a very good investment, although if he wants more than 200$ for the tranny alone (the car has 150k miles) I'll probably have to keep searching for a new deal.

Big question here, since 200's and 200-4rs are internally very similar, would I be able to slap a converter thats marketed for a 2004r onto a 200c. A lockup or non-lockup, would that be an option?

ls six

You know I dont really know if they can be swapped. But any aftermarket converter is likely to be for the 200-4R rather than the 200C as there isnt much aftermarkret for the C.


Unlike the 700 that has several converters available in stall speeds as high as 2200 (or more if the engine is especialy potent) so you will either be investing in an aftermarket converter or using a factory converter with a relatively low stall speed.


Street lethal, stop. Your making no sense at all and you have completely missed my point in your attempt to start an argument. All 700's came with the same ratios period, and if you go back and re-read my posts you'll se that thats why the 700 isnt my favorite factory trans.