Guest Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 Hey y'all, I was reading "Hot Rod" today and found myself stumped, would changing tranny's from a TH350 to a 200r4 actually be an improvement? <BR>Come on MARTINSR, you know you got an opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 Actually it would be a pretty good improvement if done right. With the 200r4 you gain an extra gear (overdrive) and you also get a lot better first gear to get that tubby car movin with that 300 pushin. The Overdrive gear will give you more room to put a better set of gears in the car without losing your highway cruizing ablity. I have thought about putting 200r4's in both my cars, but its just not in my means at the moment(money wise, I just finished painting my Skylark) But its an Idea that stay fresh in my mind. My car still has the original powerslide in it, it works great but just doesn't do me any justice in the speed department. So I give you the thumbs up on the 200r4, but I'm sure someone will say other wise.... my 2 cents, GOOD LUCK!<P>------------------<BR>67 Buick GS Pro Street<BR>67 Buick Skylark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 The only problem with the swap is the 200R4 has a much taller first gear and you will need a lower rear gear. If you have a stock 2.76 to one (standard on your '67 with a ST300) and put a 200R4, you won't be able to pull a sick prostitute out of an out house. <P>------------------<BR>buickfam@aol.com<BR>Life long Buick Fan.<BR>1965 Skylark H/T<BR>1965 Gran Sport Convertible<BR>1948 Chevy Pickup with 401 Buick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 Assuming no change of rear-end gears, I thought the 200-4R gave you a deeper 1st gear allowing for better acceleration off the line than the ST-300 (or TH-350 for that matter). Or am I not understanding it correctly?<P> 1st/Low 2nd<BR>200-4r 2.74:1 1.57:1<BR>TH350 2.52:1 1.52:1 <BR>ST300 1.64:1 1:1<P>Ron* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 Ron, you are not taking into account the VP. That 1.64 to one in the ST300 amounts to a much steeper gear with the VP. I am not an expert in these trannies, and you should look into it to verify what I say. From what I understand the cars that come with that 200R4 have a 3.40 or so gear in them. <P>------------------<BR>buickfam@aol.com<BR>Life long Buick Fan.<BR>1965 Skylark H/T<BR>1965 Gran Sport Convertible<BR>1948 Chevy Pickup with 401 Buick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Marencic Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 I can't speak for a ST300 to 200R4 swap, but as long as you can get a 200 that is in good working order, I would consider it a good move over a TH350. First gear is an improvement (2.74 vs 2.52), and I am still using 2.73 gears, wich meant that I could cruise down the interstate at 80 MPH at 2000 RPM's!<P>In my case however, I ended up with a 200 that was already in poor condition, and all it needed was some flogging behind my engine to finish it off.. I haven't taken it apart yet, but I think the problems are related to a bad front pump... The trans made a whine/buzz whenever the engine was running.<P>The reason I decided to go with the 700-R4 is that I knew it was in good condition and it was free! Even with the adapter plate, driveshaft shortening, shift kit, and new trans fluid ($199.73) is cheaper than I could find a 200-4R (prices from $250-$600) The peace of mind that I knew that the 700 was well taken care of was worth at least as much a I paid for the conversion.<P>-Scott Marencic<BR> LDPosse@juno.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 By the By, I swapped a TH350 into my '65 Skylark (not much of a swap, it bolted in)and it doesn't have the out of the hole response it did with the ST300. It was no tire burner but now there isn't a chance. It does cruise down the highway nice though. Scott, doesn't the 80 MPH at 2000 RPM cause problems? I would think that means about 1000 RPM at 50 MPH and the overdrive would be engaging and didengaging all the time. <P>------------------<BR>buickfam@aol.com<BR>Life long Buick Fan.<BR>1965 Skylark H/T<BR>1965 Gran Sport Convertible<BR>1948 Chevy Pickup with 401 Buick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 If you're worried about getting the car moving without the VP convertor, use the 200-4R with the convertor from a Hurst/Olds, possibly also the GN and MC SS. It should still be available from the dealer cheaper than aftermarket.<P>This convertor stalls at 2600 RPM behind my 350 Chevy (the lack of torque from your 300 will drop this slightly) and still retains the lockup for zero slippage in overdrive. And there is no need to fool around with toggle switches or any other butchery like that, either.<P>If you find yourself at a speed that confuses the tranny, drop into third. Usually you can find a comfortable speed without going over the limit too much... 5-10 over... just watch for cops. <P><BR>PS. Most 200-4R donors have 3.0 or numerically less gears still. One of my donor cars was an '86 Olds Cutlass (Malibu style) 4-door. It had a 200-4R and a 2.73 geared posi rear end, powered by a regular 4bbl. 305. This was a real nice car on the highway, smooth and quiet.<P>Exceptions to this would be vehicles with towing packages, or V6 powerplants, etc. (my S10 had a 700R4 and 3.42 gears) Most 5.0 Rustangs were 2.73 geared as well.<P>------------------<P>1968 "Canadian" Pontiac Beaumont<BR>1988 Buick LeSabre T-Type<BR><p>[This message has been edited by Derek Broerse (edited 07-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 Martin,<P>The VP or switch pitch has no effect on overall gearing. All it allows is the motor to stall the convertor at a higher RPM, hopefully at or near peak torque. As was mentioned, if you use a 200R4 with a higher stall convertor, you'll basically have the same thing. The problem with high stall convertors is streetability because they slip alot under the stall RPM. With a 200R4 lockup you get rid of this....so basically a 200R4 is a VP or SP tranny. Stall and no stall are it's speeds. Much more efficient tranny also. It's weak in its stock form, but can be built to survive...costs $$$$ tho. But doesn't anything worth having for a Buick cost more than the generic Chebby parts?<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 July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 Drew, I know the VP doesn't actually change the gearing. As you said, it does however allow the motor to get up to a more torque providing RPM which in turn gives the illusion of a lower gear. If you put a 2.73 rear end gear in a '69 Z28 you would have to smoke the clutch to get it moving, as the 302 Chevy has very low torque. Put that same 2.73 gear in a '65 Buick Gran Sport and you can start out in third gear if you want, because the 401 has tons of torque (by the way my buddies '69 Z28 turns about a half a second slower in the 1/4 than my Gran Sport, at 10 MPH faster! It has the HP) So, when you get your little 300 up to 1500 RPM or so, it is producing more torque and is able to pull the car from a stop easier. So in that sense the VP does affect the pulling power. Check on what the rear end gearing is on new cars equiped with the 700 or 200R4. <P>------------------<BR>buickfam@aol.com<BR>Life long Buick Fan.<BR>1965 Skylark H/T<BR>1965 Gran Sport Convertible<BR>1948 Chevy Pickup with 401 Buick.<p>[This message has been edited by MARTINSR (edited 07-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 And Drew, yes I rather have to cast my own parts than have to lower myself to a Chevy. <P>------------------<BR>buickfam@aol.com<BR>Life long Buick Fan.<BR>1965 Skylark H/T<BR>1965 Gran Sport Convertible<BR>1948 Chevy Pickup with 401 Buick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Marencic Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 I didn't have problems on the highway with shifting back and forth between 3rd and 4th, but I did usually leave the gear selector in 3rd when I was driving around town. My trans shifted 1-2-3-4 pretty quickly when idling around town... and engine RPM's changed little between 35 and 65 when in 4th. <P>I was suprised that my 350 had enough torque to deal with that gearing, I was even more suprised when I drove over the mountain coming home from the track, I left it in 4th and I drove the whole way up at about 50 mph.<P>I heard people saying that 1.82 gear ratio (2.73*.67) would be too much, but it seemed fine to me :-)<P>Later<P>Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 Yeah Martin,<P>The Boss 302 and Boss 351 Ferds are like that also. They were only designed for one thing...making HP ABOVE 7500 RPM....something no Buick without aftermarket rods will do for more than 5 seconds!!!! <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 July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 Yes Drew, they make power at high RPM (not above 7500 like you mentioned but as high as 7500), whats your point? They are a fine race bred motor that produce tons of horse power and the Buick is a fine old mans car motor that produces tons of torque. They are like apples and oranges. I was merely stating a fact about torque and the lack of it, did I hit a cord? <P>------------------<BR>buickfam@aol.com<BR>Life long Buick Fan.<BR>1965 Skylark H/T<BR>1965 Gran Sport Convertible<BR>1948 Chevy Pickup with 401 Buick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 I put a 700R4 behind a 1972 Chevy 350 in my Land Cruiser (with it's stock 4.11 gears). The transmission came out of a 1992 Police Caprise. The motor is midly built and has most of it's power around 3,500 rpms. I've noticed that the transmission likes to rev the motor a little higher than the power curve likes to go, making 1st gear pedal-to-the-metal kinda hairy. But drive it conservatively and it shifts just right. 70 mph puts it (with 33" tall tires) at 2,200 rpms, which is about as fast as I dare cruise that thing on the highway. I do notice it likes to lock up the torque converter on and off when cruising around town at about 35 mph. I usually just put the shifter into 3rd to avoid that.<P>What does all this mean on a Buick message board? Heck, I don't know. My guess is that a 700R4 behind any old Buick motor, with it's lower power characteristics, would be kind of a miss-match under hard throttle senerios. I don't know how the 200R4s drive, but would assume they are somewhat similar. So, if you want a car you can hammer the throttle on every chance you get, I'd stick with a TH350 or TH400 (especially considering the rock solid reputation the TH400 has). They make great cruisin' trannys as well, but I'd go with the 4 speed automatics if you drive conservatively more often than not.<P>Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 Come on MARTINSR, My 300 has a TH350, and it's take a 91 Mitsu Eclipse Turbo to 80 (where it shifts into 3rd). From what I can tell I'm best with the 350, mostly because of the durability, and cheapness (Got one for $75). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 I didn't say that it wouldn't run like a bat out of hell, I said that it couldn't pull a sick prostitute out of an outhouse! That Mits. would blow my doors off across an intersection! My '65 Skylark was originally a two barrel and from what I understand it came with 2.56 gears! (on the build sheet it says the axle code is LA if anyone knows, please tell me what it is) It is a real dog out of the hole. Once you get it going it runs well. <P>------------------<BR>buickfam@aol.com<BR>Life long Buick Fan.<BR>1965 Skylark H/T<BR>1965 Gran Sport Convertible<BR>1948 Chevy Pickup with 401 Buick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 MARTINSR, the Eclipse is a low compression 2.0, it's a dog at slow speeds also, it's saving grace is 14psi of Turbo boost. Trust me, you'd blow it across an intersection. Although I will give it one thing, it gets from 80~100 faster than my car (yeah yeah yeah, I know you hate hearing that, but I'm addicted to speed, but ONLY when I know the road and the car) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Chapman Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 Brian,<P>Just curious...why would one want to pull a sick prostitute out of an outhouse???<P>JMC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Chapman Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 But, if the prostitute is in the outhouse, the prostitute isn't in your Buick.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 ANd if the Prostitute isn't in you're buick, it's where she belongs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Chapman Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 'Prostitute' doesn't automatically infer the feminine gender... Sad, but it's a strange world out there, Master Jack... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 To freshen up the outhouse. Hey, who wants to sit in a stinky outhouse?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 I'm assuming for the sake of arguement that none of us are after male tricks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 Hey Martin,<P>I wasn't doggin ya....just other manuf. made low torque high HP monsters also. My 455 with stock rods saw 75-7600 for about 6 seconds once in the water....had a dial adjust pill in the MSD and accidentally had knocked it from 6800 to 7600! I couldn't figure out why the little needle on the tach was to the RIGHT of the redline!!!! The big buford lived and raced the rest of the season with no problems, tho.<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 John Chapman Posted July 27, 2000 Share Posted July 27, 2000 I'd hope not... LOL 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