Register now to get rid of these ads!

700 R4 vs 2004R

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by jeep-joint, Jan 25, 2013.

  1. jeep-joint
    Joined: Apr 11, 2006
    Posts: 35

    jeep-joint
    Member

    I'm building a '32 Ford roadster and trying to select the drive train components.

    I haven't researched this very much, but is there any real advantage for me to use a 200 4R over a 700 R4. My concerns are for cost, strength, physical size and performance behind a sbc.

    While I'm asking opinions, if you a running either of these transmissions, what ratio rear axle are you using?

    Thanks for your response.
     
  2. deto
    Joined: Jun 26, 2010
    Posts: 2,621

    deto
    Member

    2004r would be good. They can be built tough and for easier than a 700.


    Posted from the TJJ App for iPhone & iPad
     
  3. Here's food for thought: http://www.webrodder.com/article.php?AID=426&SID=6

    I race a 700R4 as well as drive it on the street. I run either a 4.30 or a 4.86 gear, turn about 2600-2800 rpm at 65-70 mph and get about 18 mpg on pump gas.

    A 700R4 with a modest build will set you back about $600.00-$900.00.
     
  4. cruzingratiot
    Joined: Oct 2, 2008
    Posts: 353

    cruzingratiot
    Member
    from Detroit MI

    Register now to get rid of these ads!

  5. tudorkeith
    Joined: May 10, 2009
    Posts: 454

    tudorkeith
    Member

    I've been real happy with my 200 but I was replacing a th350 so it was a no brainer. the 700 is quite a bit bigger physically so thaT MAY BE A CONSIDERATION
     
  6. The best a stock Grand National had was the GNX and that was only 274 horse and not that much torque. Big money needs to be spent to make a 2004R hold up to 500 horse. But then, if the OP only has 250 horse then I suppose that a 2004R may hold up.

    And remember, a turbo car's power doesn't come on until its mass is already moving.
     
  7. Deuce Roadster
    Joined: Sep 8, 2002
    Posts: 9,520

    Deuce Roadster
    Member Emeritus

    NEITHER ...

    I have a 700R4 in my 32 3W ( 3.50 rear gear ) ... and I have about 1100 dollars in it counting the converter. I have a Turbo 400 ... in my 32 Roadster with a 3.00 gear in the rear.

    With the 700R4 .. and a 3.50 ... the 3W does not have enough RPMS in high for decent mileage ( it is lugging ) ... I could install a 4.30 but then the tires go up in SMOKE ... too easily.

    The roadster ... has plenty of ZIP and gets better mileage with the same exact engine combination.

    A Turbo 350 is cheap to build and works great. Easily to find parts for and you do not have that pesty TV that you have with a 700R4.

    Just my nickle :D
     
  8. Model T1
    Joined: May 11, 2012
    Posts: 3,310

    Model T1
    Member

    For a dependable driver and to keep it lighter with less bulk use a 2004R.
     
  9. mustang6147
    Joined: Feb 26, 2010
    Posts: 1,847

    mustang6147
    Member
    from Kent, Ohio

    This has been debated so many times on here, fact is, the second gen 700r4 is so much better. The through put shaft, the bearing planetary gear and so on. The 200 isnt even in the same league. BUT it doesnt make the 200r4 a bad tranny. Its just not a 700r4 and never will be....

    200r4 is designed for lighter cars with low power.



    http://www.webrodder.com/article.php?AID=426
     
  10. Hey you're pretty smart for a Mustang guy! :rolleyes: :D
     
  11. Hey Waddayacare....Ya like that 700 vs 200 link don't ya:D
    Moose
     
  12. Keep
    Joined: May 10, 2008
    Posts: 662

    Keep
    Member

    I had this same problem, do you have the lock up convertor? That was where my problem was, as soon as it locked the rpm's would drop to about 1400 at 65mph.
     
  13. Ha Ha!!! Yeah! :eek:

    Hey everybody....

    I'd like to acknowledge and give credit too "themoose" for providing me with the 700R4 vs. 2004R link. ;)

    How's that? Did I do good? :D

    Thanks buddy! ;)
     
  14. txturbo
    Joined: Oct 23, 2009
    Posts: 1,771

    txturbo
    Member

    I had an 83 Hurst/Olds with a 403 and a 2004r and a 2:56 rear gear. The 403 makes good torque and the trans held up without any problems and I drove it pretty hard. I replaced a couple rearends because the pin in the rearend kept trying to cut the carrier in half. But never had a transmission problem.
     
  15. Fenders
    Joined: Sep 8, 2007
    Posts: 3,922

    Fenders
    Member

    Minor point I suppose but.............
    The OP had it right, it's a 200-4R
    not a 200R4
     
  16. Aw gee...Now I'm blushing!:rolleyes:
     
  17. First off, GM never put a 403 in the Cutlass.

    Secondly, when the Pontiac Trans Am came with the Olds 403 you could not get it with a stick. If you wanted a stick in a T/A it would only come with the Pontiac 400 engine.

    Reason being: The Pontiac 400 had more torque than the Olds 403. GM/Pontiac was concerned about "off the line" bog complaints due to the low torque of the Olds 403 that they would not build a T/A with an Olds 403 and a stick. Look it up, they never made it!
     

  18. It's not the horsepower that's the problem. It's the torque, plus the weight that's the issue ...in MY opinion
     

  19. Those 80's GM wagons and Caddys with the 200 4R 's weigh
    about 4400 +.. No power is what saves the trans.
     
  20. True!

    But it's been done like that for so long that most just ignore it. :D

    Actually both can and will play a factor on lighter duty parts.
     
  21. txturbo
    Joined: Oct 23, 2009
    Posts: 1,771

    txturbo
    Member

    GM didn't.....but I did...and the 403 wasn't stock. The original 307 was starting to make noise in the bottom end...so I bought a 403 out of a 79 Trans am...had it built...and swapped over my nitrous to it.
     
  22. The 80's fullsize GM wagons had the 700R4 and the early ones had the weaker 27 spline input shaft 700R4.

    Now I believe the smaller GM wagons had the Metric 200 tranny.
     
  23. mustang6147
    Joined: Feb 26, 2010
    Posts: 1,847

    mustang6147
    Member
    from Kent, Ohio


    Did we post the same link??? LoL

    Dont poke the Bear....FEED the bear !!! LoL:eek:
     
  24. 270dodge
    Joined: Feb 11, 2012
    Posts: 733

    270dodge
    Member
    from Ohio

    The 2004r would work just fine in a light rod if you can do some of the tweaking to get it adjusted properly. Don't misunderstand me as I have never done one, just research. I elected to use the 700r4 in my pickup because of the creeper gear in 1st. 2004r is close ratio and 700r4 is a truck tranny. If you choose a 700r4 use a 1988 or later and preferably one from a Iroc Camaro or a Vet. This was advice from the immortal Art Carr some years back.
    It will probably cost a few extra bucks to build the 200 but you will like the close ratio gears.
     

  25. The THM200-4R can be found in the following vehicles:

    The THM200-4R was phased out after 1990 — its final usage was in the GM B-body lineup (Chevrolet Caprice, Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser station wagon, Cadillac Brougham) coupled to either a Chevrolet 305 or an Oldsmobile 307 engine. It is believed that an HD version of the 200-4R was used in the late 80s Caprice 9C1 police package using the internals from the Buick Grand National.
     
  26. I researched this a fair bit myself when choosing a trans for my '30 coupe I am building. The 700r4 late model is definitely a stronger trans from everything I read. It is also large in size. A very tight fit in my Model A but it is in. I am running 4:11 gears in the car so the overdrive was a must. I think the combo will work very well except for one thing. Low gear in the 700r4 is a lot lower than the 200-4r or the 350. I hope it isn't too much of a granny gear and I hope there isn't a huge rpm drop between shifts. The 200-4r had better ratios I thought but it can't take a lot of torque. That's my 2 cents worth.
     
  27. It can take a lot more than the internet / cruise night rumor front says it can.
     
  28. For the record.........

    I'm not an internet / cruise night rumor guy and I don't just "talk" about GM O.D. units.

    I race GM overdrive transmissions

    Now, if someone has one behind their Ford engine then they may know something about them.
     
  29. skidro69
    Joined: Jan 2, 2013
    Posts: 91

    skidro69
    Member
    from Dothan, AL

    I have a 2004R in my model a pick up. Weighs 2500 lbs. with me in it. I had a 3.08:1 rear gear in a freebee rearend, it lugged. I changed to a 3.42, it seemes alot better with that gear. I could get away with a 3.73, but 3rd gear seems about rite to me now. When you clunk it in the big hole (4th gear) it drops rpm considerablly. I can burn rubber anytime i want to. Power brake, figure 8s, manual shift anything but neutral drop. I am happy with my 2004r. It cost $600 for the overhaul with a new converter. By the way, if your gonna hammer it, you need to switch off the lockup function until you power out. I have a TCI lockup kit with a toggle swith on the dash and a vacuum switch on the intake. It works automatically unless i want it off. I get 22 MPG. Don't have a tach.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
  30. jazz1
    Joined: Apr 30, 2011
    Posts: 1,479

    jazz1
    Member

    I used 700r4 cause it was only $125.00 and I had just spent $150 on a rebuilt engine along with steering column and rear end 3;73,, I know $275! It all works,,3000 miles and come home on its own steam every time

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.