They would laugh because of the bad gear ratios in the 700R4, but the abitity to withstand the highest HP goes to physically bigger parts. If you look online, you can find high HP 700R4's I had a 850 hp unit I think I have seen 1000 hp models. The 200R4's only get upto ratings of 600-650hp

 

Laugh away .. but right is right .. The message your pushing is some emotional one or under informed one. All I am doing is pointing out where your wrong on the facts . . . . .

 

No more laughing at gear ratios, PACT has close ratio 1st and 2nd gear sets that are stronger than the stock gears for the 700R4 trans now.

 

Not emotional at all. I've seen enough 10 second GNs with 2004rs to know, both in person as well as a couple of friend's cars. The 700r4 only got good when they came out with the 5 pinion planetary all the billet parts...but the billet pars have been available for a 2004r for A LONG time now. TURBO magazine built a twin turbo Mustang back in the early 90s I think it was , and they could have used ANY trans...they picked a 2004r. Comp eliminator cars are using the TH200 or TH200C, the older relative of the 2004r in competition drag racing. The rpm drop from first to second had the KING of Chevy engine builders to point out in his book about small block Chevys, the late, great, John Lingenfelter that the 2004r was a better set up. I've said it before and I'll say it again, combining 3.92 to 4.11 rear gears with a 3.07 first gear results in tire spin and no traction with an engine that makes any kind of torque. 12.034 is a granny low truck gear (the result of 3.07 x 3.92) for towing or snow plowing.

 

You're talking better gear ratios, not stronger transmissions. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the 200-4R has better gear ratios, but you can get better gear ratios for the 700R4 now. The 700R4 internals are just physically bigger than a 200-4R and thus stronger. Stock for stock, the 700R4 is stronger than a 200-4R, and modified to equal levels the 700R4 is still bigger and stronger. Like George said, you can get a 700R4 built to handle 1000 horsepower. The highest I have ever seen advertised from any trans builder for a 200-4R is 750.


If strength and good performance ratios is really a concern, look at a 4L80E. Basically a 400 with overdrive. You can get a built version of it that is supposed to handle 1800 horsepower.

PS: A friend of mine has a Buick GN. He had an engine built that made 550HP. Guess what part of the car that then gave him problems multiple times?

 

Did you look at the break down in the article I posted ? I am amazed anyone can see the internals on each unit and still insist the 2004R is a stronger unit. Unless this is about getting in the last word .. If that is the basis for your continual argument you win ...

And come to NY . you are welcome to take theory and enjoy reality and ride along in my zz430 with a 700R4 and 3.92 rear . Tell me it is a granny gear or that I have tire spin . Or when it shifts the motor does anything but constantly scream up the rpm ranges. I have had so many combos in this car that I would never trade what I have now for all the theory I can read on line in a forum.

 

I had an 11.50 T Type...guess which part of my car gave me the LEAST trouble ?

 

Not based on the last word thing, based on my own experience. The 3.07 first gear does it's job...IT MULTIPLIES TORQUE. Now toss in a higher stall converter with altered vane angles (like a Precision Industries) and you get MORE TORQUE. Torque BREAKS STUFF. The 700r4 is a glass jawed sissy compared to a 2004r, and just because there is FINALLY ONE company (PATC, by the way) that offers a 2.85 first gear, who has one ? If the 700r4 and it's descendants (the 4l60e,65e, and 70e) are SO strong, why do guys with turbo/supercharged C5 and C6 Vettes go to the trouble of swapping to a 4L80E ? 1000HP my ***...

 

These are entirely different questions or statements. So I will answer each.

I already pointed out the poor gear ratios of a 700R4. So we are all in agreement about that. I was able to over come the 3.07 first gear with a Precision Industries 9.5 inch 3800 stall by using a 500+ pound rear spring 10X28 Goodyear slicks and 335 width Kumho tires on 12 inch wide wheels for the street. But the Govenor inside the 700R4 was set to 5000 rpm. So at WOT the 1-2 shift was always below the max HP of my 7500 rpm motors. On really prepped drag strips I would swap in a 6500 Gov. So with a little thought you can work around deficiencies.

Back to you first statement. Competition Eliminator class is a CI to weight all out class. No thought about longevity so, YES of course you would run the lightest weight least HP robbing unit you could. These high dollar CE cars have nothing in common with your typical weekend warrior drag or prostreet car. If you really want to go to the next step. I ran a 2 speed power glide with a 8 inch 6500 stall in my dragster

The second statement is also for longevity. Why would you run a tranny on the edge of failure when you could just move up to the next class like the 4l80E? Like in my case why would I attemp to run a 200R4 that would fail all the time in a Vette like mine or live with a run fine and last a long time 700R4 that only spent a instant of time in first gear anyway. By changing the first gear ratio would i have gained 1/10th of a second?

I really wasn't concerned because I had a winning bracket racing Vette

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree I guess...I hate the 700r4 and I always will. To those of you who have them and make them work for you, great. I'll never own another. My 383 TPI f car broke more 700r4 trannys than I can even remember at this point and first gear was an undriveable mess with 3.73 rear gears...smoke show city. Even at freeway speeds, if I matted the gas pedal, the car would kick down a gear (from 3rd to second) and violently kick to the left spinning the tires viciously...NO traction what so ever.

 

It seems to me you just have an irrational hate for 700R4 tranny's. I don't think anyone will change that.

I'll leave you with this. Why do you think GM put the 700R4/4L60E tranny in trucks and the 200-4R in mid size cars?

Maybe so they were capable of towing around things like my boat, which my 4L60E has no problem with!

 

I had 2000 GMC 4.8 2wd truck with a 4l60e in it that I towed a 27' Wellcraft Nova Spyder with, and that trans had a shift kit plus an aftermarket cooler and a deep cast pan installed almost since day one, and it blew up too...The 4l70 in my 08 Vortech MAX 6.0 4wd is still going strong bone stock at 132,000 miles, but I change the fluid every 10,000 miles.

Look, this is the last thing I'm going to say about it : my hatred of these trannies is not irrational or unfounded. They were designed at a time when GM thought the 305 was going to be their performance engine so they saddled them with ****** gear ratios and weak parts thinking that there wouldn't be anymore high torque engines. Did they ever put a 700 behind a 454 ? NO. An 8.1 ? NO. Diesel ? NO. And how long did we suffer with these things ? UNTIL 09 when the 6l80e came out...so 82 to 2009. GM should have upgraded them and come out with the 2.85 gearset themselves...nevermind the aftermarket...but THAT'S Generous Motors for you.

 

Ok, so it's not the last thing,,,my friends have all owned various GM cars and trucks/SUVs and almost ALL of them, if not every one of them, has blown up a 4l60 or 700r4...so I'm NOT alone here...and a bunch of them have owned turbo Buicks and once the 2004r was built, no more problems. THE END.

 

You need bigger stickier tires to plant the power to the ground.

 

Tire spin on the freeway. It almost sounds like a bad thing, the way you say it.

Scott

 

It was a bad thing. The car was an absolute handful to drive because of the low end torque. Between the 383, TPI, 11.5 compression and the 1 5/8 tri y SLP headers and the 3.73 gears and the low weight over the *** end, the car would NOT hook...at all. The only thing that helped was when I changed out the SLP TPI runners for the Super Ram, that took away a small amount of low end and gave more up top, but the 3.73s were a total bad call, if I had it to do over again I wouldn't go more than 3.45 or 3.54. The car had an Australian 9 bolt in it, and gear sets weren't exactly common for them back then...I should have just bought an 89 f car 305 5 speed rear out of a wreck that had factory 3.45s in it.

 

I think a wide set of drag radials would have helped. If you put a lot of hp to the ground the challenge is to plant it. That makes for a quick car. Suspension is key.

 

I went through the cheap *** 700R4's and ended up with $2800 model from Art Carr then add in your $1100 TC 9.5 inch

Over the nearly 20 year period that had a 700R4 with 4.11 gears with much more power than a little 383 tpi and I never had problems of uncontrollable spinning the tires when you get a down shift to 2nd. I could lay some long 315 or 335 width black straight marks for a 100 yards on a second gear rolling 40 mph.

I just read what you said to change TQ with mini ram I went from an all out 383 to 427 SBC because 11.70s with the small motor was not enough

My advice is to get some good tires

I always had Rear Smart Struts, good control arms, and the best posi units. gutted car and a roll cage.

 

My car was a street car with A/C. Weight savings amounted to aluminum heads and water pump, removal of the front sway bar (track only), skinny front tires, KONI shocks set full loose, and Hoosier Quick Time 275/50 15s on 8.5" rims. It would blow the Hoosiers off almost as easily as the stock Gatorbacks. The F car rear suspension was never known for good hook unless you put Southside Machine traction bars on it. I had Herb Adams adjustable lower control arms and tubular pan hard bar, there were no adjustable torque arms back then to set pinion angle, which is what I really needed.

 

One of my 700r4s came from Tony Rossi out in CA, he was a respected 700r4 guy at the time, with his converter too.