Finally found a 2004R $145
10-10-2012, 05:59 PM
#21
Drifting
Thread Starter
To each his own. However, if you believe anything CHP says, here is a article for ya. http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/te...o_calculating/
Basically the theory is that you want your first gear final drive ratio to be as close to 10:1 as possible for performance.
3.08 with 2004R = 8.43
3.08 with 700R4 = 9.42
2004R with 3.55 = 9.72
2004R with 3.73 = 10.22
All depends on what you want. I have yet to install this transmission behind my 3.55 gears to give a real world analysis.
Basically the theory is that you want your first gear final drive ratio to be as close to 10:1 as possible for performance.
3.08 with 2004R = 8.43
3.08 with 700R4 = 9.42
2004R with 3.55 = 9.72
2004R with 3.73 = 10.22
All depends on what you want. I have yet to install this transmission behind my 3.55 gears to give a real world analysis.
10-10-2012, 07:40 PM
#22
10-11-2012, 12:04 PM
#23
Melting Slicks
Member Since: May 2002
Location: Sulphur LA
Posts: 2,686
Received 105 Likes
on
95 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05-'06,'11,'13-'14,'16,'18,'19
the 700 will give a better off the line time than the 200 with a low ratio rear
the 200 will work but the 700 will give better off the line performance
Neal
10-11-2012, 01:08 PM
#25
Drifting
Thread Starter
Here are the actual ratios for the transmissions. 700 has a lower first but a wider gap also. 200 has better spacing, slightly lower first than non od trans and a little higher od than the 700.
Turbo 350 2.52 1.52 1.00 - -
Turbo 400 2.48 1.48 1.00 - -
200-R4 2.74 1.57 1.00 0.67 -
700-R4 3.06 1.62 1.00 0.70 -
Turbo 350 2.52 1.52 1.00 - -
Turbo 400 2.48 1.48 1.00 - -
200-R4 2.74 1.57 1.00 0.67 -
700-R4 3.06 1.62 1.00 0.70 -
10-11-2012, 04:34 PM
#26
Melting Slicks
Member Since: May 2002
Location: Sulphur LA
Posts: 2,686
Received 105 Likes
on
95 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05-'06,'11,'13-'14,'16,'18,'19
I just installed a 200 in mine and must say its a good bit better for driving around both town and hwy than the TH350 I had.
I have 4:11's in the rear so I stayed away form the 700 plus the 200 was a drop in vrs the 700 needing drive shaft mods.
The 700's are a little easier to come by but the 200 is a better fit for the C3.
Plus the 200 has a lower OD gear
Neal
I have 4:11's in the rear so I stayed away form the 700 plus the 200 was a drop in vrs the 700 needing drive shaft mods.
The 700's are a little easier to come by but the 200 is a better fit for the C3.
Plus the 200 has a lower OD gear
Neal
10-11-2012, 05:49 PM
#27
Racer
Questions PLEASE:
Are you guys saying that these 2004R trannys are good/strong enough to use in their stock form in back of a 350ci engine?
"vette400, are you saying that you are using a "stock" 2004R behind your 400 small block?
In a CarCraft article, about the 2004R trans. done by "Calif. Performance Transmissions," CPT, they say that the 2004R trannys w/ the Valve Body Casting Numbers ending in 7 thru 12 are best suited f/ performance use. Does anyone know why that is?
Thanks in advance f/ the info. Also, this is a great post as along w/ the info you guys are giving, the articles you guys posted are great also. Thanks again.
The two articles i have about the 2004R tranny are from Car Craft magazine, April, 2005 & Classic Trucks, December, 2005.
Are you guys saying that these 2004R trannys are good/strong enough to use in their stock form in back of a 350ci engine?
"vette400, are you saying that you are using a "stock" 2004R behind your 400 small block?
In a CarCraft article, about the 2004R trans. done by "Calif. Performance Transmissions," CPT, they say that the 2004R trannys w/ the Valve Body Casting Numbers ending in 7 thru 12 are best suited f/ performance use. Does anyone know why that is?
Thanks in advance f/ the info. Also, this is a great post as along w/ the info you guys are giving, the articles you guys posted are great also. Thanks again.
The two articles i have about the 2004R tranny are from Car Craft magazine, April, 2005 & Classic Trucks, December, 2005.
Last edited by texas jim; 10-11-2012 at 05:53 PM.
10-11-2012, 05:56 PM
#28
Questions PLEASE:
Are you guys saying that these 2004R trannys are good/strong enough to use in their stock form in back of a 350ci engine?
yes if the engine is stock
"vette400, are you saying that you are using a "stock" 2004R behind your 400 small block?
In a CarCraft article, about the 2004R trans. done by "Calif. Performance Transmissions," CPT, they say that the 2004R trannys w/ the Valve Body Casting Numbers ending in 7 thru 12 are best suited f/ performance use. Does anyone know why that is?
they were installed in GNX and other performance inspired cars
Thanks in advance f/ the info. Also, this is a great post as along w/ the info you guys are giving, the articles you guys posted are great also. Thanks again.
The two articles i have about the 2004R tranny are from Car Craft magazine, April, 2005 & Classic Trucks, December, 2005.
Are you guys saying that these 2004R trannys are good/strong enough to use in their stock form in back of a 350ci engine?
yes if the engine is stock
"vette400, are you saying that you are using a "stock" 2004R behind your 400 small block?
In a CarCraft article, about the 2004R trans. done by "Calif. Performance Transmissions," CPT, they say that the 2004R trannys w/ the Valve Body Casting Numbers ending in 7 thru 12 are best suited f/ performance use. Does anyone know why that is?
they were installed in GNX and other performance inspired cars
Thanks in advance f/ the info. Also, this is a great post as along w/ the info you guys are giving, the articles you guys posted are great also. Thanks again.
The two articles i have about the 2004R tranny are from Car Craft magazine, April, 2005 & Classic Trucks, December, 2005.
10-11-2012, 08:39 PM
#30
had I not found a built 200r4 for an excellent price, I would have looked , and did look , for a stock take out and ran it in my C3, based on posts on other forums,( Buick GNX, Hurst olds and others) and would've been able to give a first hand account. I'm basing my info on what I've read on the internet, and we all know no one fibs or makes things up online. I think a stock 2004r that was behind another V8 would work fine and would not have hesitated to install it
10-11-2012, 09:00 PM
#31
Melting Slicks
Member Since: May 2002
Location: Sulphur LA
Posts: 2,686
Received 105 Likes
on
95 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05-'06,'11,'13-'14,'16,'18,'19
from what I've read the main differences in the valve bodies listed are a higher shift point and the trans will shift into OD at full throttle.
I had this upgrade done to mine, they added the GN valve body mainly for the higher shift points and to make the trans go into OD at full throttle.
with the normal governor it will shift at 5800 rpm and with the GN governor it will shift at 6200 rpm if left in drive. these shift points can be raised by 300 to 500 rpm by putting it in low (1st) and leave it there, it will shift out on its own if left in low.
this is what I was told by the shop that built mine.
Neal
I had this upgrade done to mine, they added the GN valve body mainly for the higher shift points and to make the trans go into OD at full throttle.
with the normal governor it will shift at 5800 rpm and with the GN governor it will shift at 6200 rpm if left in drive. these shift points can be raised by 300 to 500 rpm by putting it in low (1st) and leave it there, it will shift out on its own if left in low.
this is what I was told by the shop that built mine.
Neal
