200R4 or 700R4?

[mknittle]

I was just thinking [always dangerous} There are lots of the 200R4s in the wrecking yards but I hardly ever hear of anybody swapping them.

They don't have as deep a first and not quite as high a fourth. It seems like the splits between the gears would be more even.

With the 700R4s being popular the 200R4 may be a good alternative?

[JamieGallien]

Having been into Buick turbos in the past (Grand Nationals), I can tell you the 2004r (stock in a GN) can be built to withstand some serious torque. The only issue is, unless you get an actual GN tranny to start with (they have more pump volume, additonal clutches, and band area from the factory), you will need to build the tranny up to reliably handle anything more than a mild v8. By mild I mean anything over 250ft-lbs should really have stronger parts installed. Most of them were installed behind 200ft-lb 165hp g-body cars (monte carlos, grand prix, cutlass, regal of the 1985-1988 vintage).

As far a the swap goes, the length is nearly the same as a th350 or powerglide, so that should keep you from having to shorten the driveshaft in your truck to install one. Should be a very easy swap.

I hope that helps!

[mknittle]

Thanks Jamie, I am planning on running a built 250 six in my 52 GMC and can get a low mileage 200r4 for free so..... Just thinking at the moment. At the price It may be a good way to go. I don't mind swapping better parts into it if I decide to use it.
I was thinking of a T5 but my wife has a bad back so maybe an automatic???

[JamieGallien]

That would be slick behind a 250...I would think a stock would one live just find with anything a "normal" 250 could put out. Good luck with it!

[mknittle]

I think I would see how it looks and at least put a shift kit in it.

[OKGMC4]

The first gear and second gear being closer, the deeper overdrive, and the driveshaft length the same as a TH350 made me do it in my 79 TA. I also had the olds 403 engine so the dual bolt pattern would fit my BOP engine while the 700r4 would not. I beat the CRAP out of it, and the olds is a down low rpm stump puller. Torque monster. I had 14 second flat 1/4 mile times, but the same 60 ft times as 12 second cars. Mine came out of a Monte SS with a factory 2025 stall and who knows how many miles on it but held up great and is still in the car even 5 years after I sold it. After that tranny I am a believer. If you can get it for free, just do it.

[oldcouple]

http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/..._feature9.html

http://www.maliburacing.com/auto_tranny_id.htm

[mknittle]

Thanks OKGMC4, It is interesting. now that I had some time to do some digging I found quite a few Positive responses on the net about the 2004r. Maybe more positive than for the 700r4.

Old couple, that is just what I was going to look for on the specs! great info. Thanks!
The Hemmings article says the 2004r turns freer. I have read that elsewhere. That alone is worth a couple points.

[1project2many]

Chevrolet (not GM) built the 700R4 to help with fuel economy and emissions testing. In order to keep the miles per gallon numbers up and the emissions per mile down, they wanted to use numerically lower rear gear ratios and overdrives. But when you combine a 2.73, a 2.56, a 2.42, or even a 2.26 rear gear with a close ratio auto trans and engines making 200 hp or less, your customers complain about poor acceleration and low power. So Chevy engineers really increased the torque through the 700 1st gear in order to bring back the "snap" that customers were used to in older cars.

I prefer the closer shifts of the 2004R (made by Hydramatic, not by Chevy) over the wide 1-2 of the 700 family. The wide ratio 700 makes vehicle usage, cam selection, rear gear ratio, and shift point programming a little more involved because you can easily "fall out" of the power band on the 1-2 shift, right when you need power the most. That's less likely to happen with the 2004R's closer gears. Both trans can be made to handle quite a bit of power thanks to 30 years of factory and aftermarket work and both trans can be made to live a fairly long life. Ultimately GM decided they liked the wider ratio of the 700 family and dumped the 2004R altogether. If you think you might go with a computer controlled engien and trans at some point, you'll probably end up with a descendant of the 700.

[mknittle]

Originally Posted by 1project2many

Chevrolet (not GM) built the 700R4 to help with fuel economy and emissions testing. In order to keep the miles per gallon numbers up and the emissions per mile down, they wanted to use numerically lower rear gear ratios and overdrives. But when you combine a 2.73, a 2.56, a 2.42, or even a 2.26 rear gear with a close ratio auto trans and engines making 200 hp or less, your customers complain about poor acceleration and low power. So Chevy engineers really increased the torque through the 700 1st gear in order to bring back the "snap" that customers were used to in older cars.

I prefer the closer shifts of the 2004R (made by Hydramatic, not by Chevy) over the wide 1-2 of the 700 family. The wide ratio 700 makes vehicle usage, cam selection, rear gear ratio, and shift point programming a little more involved because you can easily "fall out" of the power band on the 1-2 shift, right when you need power the most. That's less likely to happen with the 2004R's closer gears. Both trans can be made to handle quite a bit of power thanks to 30 years of factory and aftermarket work and both trans can be made to live a fairly long life. Ultimately GM decided they liked the wider ratio of the 700 family and dumped the 2004R altogether. If you think you might go with a computer controlled engien and trans at some point, you'll probably end up with a descendant of the 700.

Thanks 1project2many,I was thinking the same thing on the gear splits. I don't have any plans for a computer controlled engine so the 2004R looks like the one I will use. I have been doing a lot of reading on both trannys. The 2004R I have is from a olds diesel so I will need to change the governer because the low rpm shift points.and there maybe mods to get the lockup right. may be the torque converter too

The rear end I am using needs gears so I am thinking somewhere round 3.55
for the ratio.

[oldcouple]

another link http://nwccc.net/oldsite/garage/Easy_Overdrive.htm

If you do this conversion, please post the stall converter you use, that seems to be the hard part for me.

[mknittle]

Originally Posted by oldcouple

another link http://nwccc.net/oldsite/garage/Easy_Overdrive.htm

If you do this conversion, please post the stall converter you use, that seems to be the hard part for me.

Thanks again oldcouple all good info!
Yeah me too on stall speed. I think on this one I will use one from the lightest car that used the transmission. Maybe a Camaro or firebird.
I read that some people don't use the lock up converter but for just driving around and to cruse nites I like the idea of the lock up.
Ill post what I end up doing.

Right now I need to get the engine and transmission together so I can finish my motor mounts. two steps forward one step back.

Indecision is the key to flexibility!

[lmdangerous]

I have used both the 700 and the 2004r and the 700 is the bigger unit - ( build wise) what it will tolerate etc.I have used the 2004r on my latest build and actually like it better ( gear spacing , etc).This is behind a basically stock 250 chevy six in a 1951 3800 1 ton pick-up mind you - so gear spacing is very important.I have been very pleased . I used the stock converter, with a lock up switch, and the rear end gear is 4:10.Only time I lock the converter in is on the open high way - interstate- etc.
so far I like it.
LMD.

[1project2many]

3.55 to 4.10 gears seem to keep people happy and get decent mileage. Monte SS, 86 or 87, had a decent converter. I can try to find some pages on the net if curious.

Lockup is usually worth connecting.

[mknittle]

Originally Posted by lmdangerous

I have used both the 700 and the 2004r and the 700 is the bigger unit - ( build wise) what it will tolerate etc.I have used the 2004r on my latest build and actually like it better ( gear spacing , etc).This is behind a basically stock 250 chevy six in a 1951 3800 1 ton pick-up mind you - so gear spacing is very important.I have been very pleased . I used the stock converter, with a lock up switch, and the rear end gear is 4:10.Only time I lock the converter in is on the open high way - interstate- etc.
so far I like it.
LMD.

I know what you mean about gear spacing. I used to be a truck driver. I liked the Roadranger 18 speed single overdrive a lot in construction and logging. There was the perfect gear for everything.13 speeds are ok and I hated the 15 and 10speeds

Back on subject. I hadn't even considered the 200-4r until I was offered this one. I wasn't even interested at first but The more I read the more interesting it sounds.

[mknittle]

Originally Posted by 1project2many

3.55 to 4.10 gears seem to keep people happy and get decent mileage. Monte SS, 86 or 87, had a decent converter. I can try to find some pages on the net if curious.

Lockup is usually worth connecting.

I am going to pull the transmission this week. It is in an early 80s olds 98 5.7 diesel that had lots of engine problems from day one. It was on it's second engine before the first was broke in. and the lady that owned it gave up when the fuel pump drive broke a short time after installation. My dad bailed it out of the shop and replaced the ceramic fuel pump drive with a stainless one and my mom drove it back and forth to the store 3 miles until she got tired of it having no power so it is pretty low mileage.

I read quite a bit lately on different forums but more info is always welcome. The way the internet is, it is easy to miss good articles.

Thanks again!

[mknittle]

Thanks lmdangerous, I looked through some of your old posts and found lots of good info.
Is your one ton a 9 foot bed?

[lmdangerous]

Yep it is . Its what was called a JS code pickup . 9 ft 2 1/4 inches long . I used the hydromatic factory column shifter , box , switches and all. Would you belive the tranny detent hit the column detents perfect . It looks factory , and has a lot of people scratching their heads.I really like the look and there is a lot of floor room now.

[mknittle]

Originally Posted by lmdangerous

Yep it is . Its what was called a JS code pickup . 9 ft 2 1/4 inches long . I used the hydromatic factory column shifter , box , switches and all. Would you belive the tranny detent hit the column detents perfect . It looks factory , and has a lot of people scratching their heads.I really like the look and there is a lot of floor room now.

I love it!

[1project2many]

OT, but I used to work on those Olds diesels quite a bit. Lotsa broken stuff in the early days. Poor man's fix is to pull the top end and and install gas job parts. Plenty of power that way.

Then there was the German made 4.3 V6 diesel used in some front driver Oldsmobiles. Hard to believe but it made the 5.7 look like a decent engine.

[mknittle]

Originally Posted by 1project2many

OT, but I used to work on those Olds diesels quite a bit. Lotsa broken stuff in the early days. Poor man's fix is to pull the top end and and install gas job parts. Plenty of power that way.

Then there was the German made 4.3 V6 diesel used in some front driver Oldsmobiles. Hard to believe but it made the 5.7 look like a decent engine.

I read an article in hotrod or car craft magazine in the late 80s that the olds drag guys liked the 5.7 diesel blocks because extra webbing and the higher nickel in the iron. I don't know much about Oldsmobile engines. I was into GTOs at the time.
I did know a guy that had a 4.3 but I only saw it a couple times.
There are still people that wont go anywhere near A diesel engine because of those Oldsmobile's.

[lmdangerous]

When I was in high school I built a 403 olds - came from a trans -am -requires a special intake from eldebrock and the cam kit was a little pricey but after that - I used to give my brothers 383 ( really built SBC 383 stroker all it ever wanted) at about 1500 RPM less-I built it because the guy pulled it to put in a 455- It was one hell of an improve ment over the 235 in my 57 truck. Some of the class ( stock / super stock NHRA classes required you to run those - I also beat a 260 olds in a cutless unmercifully - I should have been arrested for what I did to it - but it was a really dependable -great engine-at almost 200K totalled the car - engine still ran great. lol
LMD

[mknittle]

Wasn't the 403 the engine Pontiac used in the trans am after Pontiac quit building engines?

[lmdangerous]

Yes , It was actually an olds motor. Big bore / small stroke.
LMD

[mknittle]

At the time I had a 66 GTO With a 400 tri power and a 4 speed. I miss that car.