Guest Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 Hello. I need advice in choosing a transmission for my 64´ Special. The thing is that both have theirs pros and cons:<P>The 700 have a nice 3.0 gear in first and it easy to find, but I have to buy an adapter plate, maybe a flexplate (who knows?) and have to short the drive axle.<P>The 200 is nearly a bolt on, but does not have the same lunch for this heavier cars, it's hard to find and heard the rumors that are a trouble if they are not adjusted very properly.<P>So what do you think? Any comments are gladly appreciated!<BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2000 Share Posted June 5, 2000 I'm going to put a 200R4 in my 64 Convertible behind a 455. It will need some serious beefing up, but for non-racing purposes can be made to live. The 200R4 doesn't have quite as steep of a first gear as the 700, but it is 2.74 which is still steeper than the TH400 2.48.....plus OD.<BR>The TV or kickdown cable is what needs to be in good adjustment or shift problems can arise...but really ANY transmission needs to be accurately adjusted.<P>------------------<BR>Drew Schofield<BR>83 Regal<BR>64 Skylark Convertible<BR>www.angelfire/tn/page4drew/regal.html<BR>droopie@midsouth.rr.com<BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 6, 2000 Share Posted June 6, 2000 Go with the 700r4. The 200 is one of the worst transmissions ever concieved. The 700 is better in performance, wear and everything. That is what i am going to put in my '65 Skylark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Chapman Posted June 6, 2000 Share Posted June 6, 2000 Cool... there's a bunch of GN/T-type drivers that would argue that point with you. The 200 has gotten a bad rap from problems in the light truck (mis)applications and by being installed with drive axle ratios too high for transmission longevity (for EPA CAFE numbers.) There's a lot of 200s out there that have been modified (700s require it too) to handle 400+ HP on the street and strip.<P>------------------<BR>John Chapman<BR>BCA 35894<BR> jmchapman@aol.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2000 Share Posted June 7, 2000 I would go with the 200R4 over the 700. Very reliable in GN trim! If you want to get crazy, how about a 4l80E tranny with an aftermarket controller. Its basically a TH400 with an overdrive added on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Guy Posted June 7, 2000 Share Posted June 7, 2000 There is a supercharged 455 running at the GS nats every year that runs in the 11s and he has a 200-4R and hasnt broken it in 3 yrs. I just put one in my 72 GS and I think it,s good for .2 in the 1/4 and 3 miles per gallon , and with gas prices going like they are I made a good move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2000 Share Posted June 7, 2000 The "200R4 or 700R4" delimna is much like trying to choose between a Buick 350 or Chevy 350. The Buick 350 is a good engine and can be built to produce good power. But why spend the money on one (unless you simply want to keep things original) if you can get better performance out of a Chevy 350 for the same amount?<P>(This from a guy who is contemplating a Cadillac 500 for his '69 Nova!)<P>Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 Bejara, I wouldn't use the Chevy because I already have a belly button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2000 Share Posted June 9, 2000 MARTINSR, That's fine too . . . the Chevy comes with a belly button eliminator kit already installed from the factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 10, 2000 Share Posted June 10, 2000 I should have guessed, being the small block Chevy is Gods gift to the auto enthusiast. They all do produce 1000 HP and not only don't even use any fuel to do it....they actual produce fuel that you can run in the other cars you have, that haven't been changed over to Chevy!! In fact they are so self sufficient that if you just set them on the ground in front of a car that hasn't been upgraded to Chevy...it will swap into it itself!!! How could we live without them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 10, 2000 Share Posted June 10, 2000 Okay Martin, lighten up a little. We don't want any ruptured arteries on this message board. Besides, it's just a hobby. I'm putting a Cadillac 500 in my '69 Nova. Feel better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 10, 2000 Share Posted June 10, 2000 I know you are not one of the "sheep", I'm just funnin you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Cool. I will admit to having a Chevy 350 in my Land Cruiser (and love it), but I'm still a Buick guy at heart. My inlaws, whom are all Chevy fans, think I'm crazy when I talk about Gran Sports or Rivieras. But they'll understand it all when I get another Buick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 I just wanted to say that I love my ST300 w/ switch pitch converter in my 65 Skylark (w/slightly modifed 300)<BR>Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 BuickGS65, It really is a nice tranny. When mine had about 260,000 miles and failed I did install a TH350 and I miss the VP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBRMD Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Was planning on retrofitting a 3800/4L60E drivetrain into my '65 Sportwagon, but after driving it around alot with the original, well-running 300-4V w/ ST300, I must admit, I think the original drivetrain is more than sufficient: peppy, fun to drive and economical. ST300 has plenty of kick-down punch. It has 113k, never opened, and runs great. Just my two cents<P>Steve<BR>Mpls, MN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 Thanks all for your input!:<P>But I still have a number missing out of the equation: Does anybody knows what is the rear end ratio in this car?<P>And the ratios of my current transmission? (Whatever it is). Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2000 Share Posted June 20, 2000 Mr Chapman:<P>It´s a beautifull 64´ Special with A/C, 300 engine, 2 doors, power steering, 2bbl carb,<BR>2 speed transmission, A body and did I mention beautifull?. <P>Hope this is enough, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Chapman Posted June 20, 2000 Share Posted June 20, 2000 Special...<BR>OK.. Beautiful it is, then.<BR>The following numbers are from my '65 chassis manual, but should be identical, or very close to the '64...<P>Rear Axle: 2.78 (this is the normal factory ratio, others available by order were 3.08; 3.23; 3.36) All ratios were available with posi-traction. You can tell if you have this by a small 'PosiTrack Lube Only' tag on the rear gear housing and the axle code will end in 'N' or 'O'.<P>Super Turbine 300 (2 Speed) Lo: 2.86; Hi 1.00<BR>This transmission is equipped with a variable speed torque converter (low stall-while operating, and high stall, engaged when the throttle is closed or for passing gear (unloads the engine at idle and for rapid engine acceleration on wide open throttle). This trans was also marketed in the Old F85/Cutlass/Jetstar as the 'Jetaway' and by Pontiac as the 'Tempest Torque' (with a conventional torque converter)<P>All that said, your best bet for info on the car is to buy a set of service manyuals. They are offered all the time on eBay. You'll need: Chassis Service Manual, Parts Manual and the Fischer Body manual.<P>Cheers,<BR>JMC<P>------------------<BR>John Chapman<BR>BCA 35894<BR> jmchapman@aol.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Chapman Posted June 20, 2000 Share Posted June 20, 2000 Special,<P>That'd depend on the body style, factory options (A/C) and factory engine. What, exactly do you have?<P>Cheers,<BR>JMC<P>------------------<BR>John Chapman<BR>BCA 35894<BR> jmchapman@aol.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2000 Share Posted June 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Special'64:<BR><B>Hello. I need advice in choosing a transmission for my 64´ Special. The thing is that both have theirs pros and cons:<P>The 700 have a nice 3.0 gear in first and it easy to find, but I have to buy an adapter plate, maybe a flexplate (who knows?) and have to short the drive axle.<P>The 200 is nearly a bolt on, but does not have the same lunch for this heavier cars, it's hard to find and heard the rumors that are a trouble if they are not adjusted very properly.<P>So what do you think? Any comments are gladly appreciated!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This month's HotRod has a detailed article of swapping a 2 speed S/T for a 200R4 in no other than a Skylark!!!!! Said after it was done the car gets 60%!!!!!!! better gas mileage!!!!!<P><P>------------------<BR>Drew Schofield<BR>83 Regal<BR>64 Skylark Convertible<BR>www.angelfire/tn/page4drew/regal.html<BR>droopie@midsouth.rr.com<BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2000 Share Posted June 25, 2000 I have a 200R4 on eBay right now!!!! Rebuilt with converter!!! <A HREF="http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=366936395&r=0&t=0" TARGET=_blank>http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=366936395&r=0&t=0</A> <img src="http://members.aol.com/goodstuff53/aaaf.jpg" width=500> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 Think I made up my mind:<P>For the easy installation, I'm going for the 200r4 and to compensate the lunch I'm going to stuff a 3.36 gear in the end. With the numbers of Chapman this alteration will feel like a 15% increased torque in first gear (at the wheels) and an 18% more top end velocity at OD. <P>I haven't read the article (can any one send it to me? (physic1@hotmail.com)) and I'm waiting for a post from Marencic to know how the 700r4 behave in his installation to make the final decision. And still have to know from what car I can get the rear end. <P>Any comments or corrections are welcome. Thanks for all!<BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 What ever happened to the TH400 era? Many racers still use them as opposed to the powerglide's and the take-up-half-your-car Lenco's or Jeffco's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Guy Posted July 18, 2000 Share Posted July 18, 2000 I have 200R4 in my 72 GS and it is GREAT!!!! I took it to BG and found that the 87GN governor is too much for my 455. it wouldn,t shift til 5900 and thats too much for my motor. Also the speedo was off 20% ,so I put in a Cadillac governor with the red speedo gear and it shifts at 5200and the speedo is almost dead on. I have a 3.31 gear and a 4,000 lb. convert and it runs 13.1and gets 17+ MPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2000 Share Posted July 18, 2000 Hey old Guy, what rearend are you running the 3.31's in and where did you get them, the best I can find is a 12 bolt with 3.42's already in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Guy Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 I bought a 72GS a few years ago and the 3.31 12 bolt was in the car. I haven,t the faintest idea what it came from ,but it fit and it works, so until it breaks I,m just going to run it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2000 Share Posted July 20, 2000 Yeah, I'm having the same problem identifying mine, it's not a chevy, the cover is round, I checked out a crap load of gaskets at work to see what would fit it, nothing in poncho either, the only thing I could find even close to is a 70 olds cutlass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2000 Share Posted July 21, 2000 700R4 no doubt--that thing can take a beating. Right now I have 3 friends with 80's GM trucks, one has a stock 700 behind about 550hp (454HO, another has it behind his 6.2l diesel, and yet another has it behind his 370hp 350 crate engine. Never a problem. I think the one with the 454 may have a shift kit on it now, but its still going strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now