Will GM 200r4 work with factory floor shift location?

[Treblig]

I just measured the through hole on a standard GM (2004R, 700R4, etc) trans fitting, you know, the big one that goes directly into the transmission housing. It measured out to .230". I think this would be the maximum I would go on any part of the cooling system (as far as restrictions go). Especially knowing that you'll have a super duty pump and excellent pressure regulator. GM has used this through hole size for decades and it has never been a problem. Since the lines are .250 on GM components the engineers must have determined that .230" is the best size hole to get maximum flow without allowing so much flow that the coolant doesn't have the dwell time to cool sufficiently. With all this heavy duty/bulletproof stuff you're using you may as well put an inexpensive trans temp gauge in the car. Then you'll know for sure if you're overheating the fluid. Just follow the chart below and you'll exactly where you stand.
The chart shows how long your trans fluid will last (still be effective) relative to temperature. The gauge "sending unit' should be installed as close to the 2004R trans fluid output fitting as possible.
I plan to put one on my Barracuda before I drive around too much.

treblig

 

[jbc426]

That's good advice. I already bought a 300 psi trans pressure gauge, and I need a set of gauges to monitor engine oil and water temp anyway.

 

[Treblig]

My fansy smansy exhaust pipes came in late last night. These should take care of the problem I had with the driver's side exhaust. If you'll remember, I had to put some pretty big dents in the down pipe to clear the starter, torsion bar and the center link. I know I choked off the 340 manifold's flow so the oval mandrel bent pipe should slide in there without having to put dents in them. They are 2 1/2" ID. These are the ones that start out round on one end (to marry up with the exhaust flange pipe) and then transition to oval to get past the narrow space between the torsion bar and the starter. I also had to order some super tight radius 2 1/2" pipe to make the "more than 90 degree turn" coming off the exhaust manifold. These other pipes should be in today or tomorrow. They have a 3" radius bend (mandrel bent), which is about the tightest mandrel bend you can get in a 2 1/2" pipe.

Treblig

 

[Treblig]

Well I took the Barracuda out for a spin this morning. When I drove it home after I had finished the swap (the other day) I took it easy on the transmission to let it get broken in, let the fluid circulate real good and also let it set overnight to check for any leaks and double check fluid level. But today I took it out to see if I had any better low end response from a stop. Well I didn't "floor it" but I did give it about 3/4 throttle off the line and it broke both tires loose :burnout295s) and spun them freely for about 12 feet before I let off the gas. I have a new set of 4:10 gears for the car but now I'm thinking 3:73s or 3:90s. With 3:73s I'd be cruising at 70 MPH clocking 2261 RPM and with 3:90s it would be 2364 RPM.
When I had the 904 it was doing 2786 RPM at 70 MPH. My converter has an 1800 max stall so even with 3.73s I would still be way above that on the highway. The trans shifted so smooth but I noticed that when I punched it and stayed on the throttle it shifted more firmly than when I'm just cruising...the perfect set up for me!!! If I use the 4:10s it would probably be uncontrollable off the line and would also clock 2485 at 70 MPH which would only be 300 RPM less than what I had originally with the 904. The 3:73s would reduce my RPM by 525 PRM. As it sits right now with the 3:08s I cruising at 70 MPH clocking 1867 RPM (no wonder the droning noise is gone!!!!!!!).


HAPPY DAYS!!! :cheers: :blob: You were right Mopar To Ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
treblig

 

[jbc426]

Well I took the Barracuda out for a spin this morning. When I drove it home after I had finished the swap (the other day) I took it easy on the transmission to let it get broken in, let the fluid circulate real good and also let it set overnight to check for any leaks and double check fluid level. But today I took it out to see if I had any better low end response from a stop. Well I didn't "floor it" but I did give it about 3/4 throttle off the line and it broke both tires loose :burnout295s) and spun them freely for about 12 feet before I let off the gas. I have a new set of 4:10 gears for the car but now I'm thinking 3:73s or 3:90s. With 3:73s I'd be cruising at 70 MPH clocking 2261 RPM and with 3:90s it would be 2364 RPM.
When I had the 904 it was doing 2786 RPM at 70 MPH. My converter has an 1800 max stall so even with 3.73s I would still be way above that on the highway. The trans shifted so smooth but I noticed that when I punched it and stayed on the throttle it shifted more firmly than when I'm just cruising...the perfect set up for me!!! If I use the 4:10s it would probably be uncontrollable off the line and would also clock 2485 at 70 MPH which would only be 300 RPM less than what I had originally with the 904. The 3:73s would reduce my RPM by 525 PRM. As it sits right now with the 3:08s I cruising at 70 MPH clocking 1867 RPM (no wonder the droning noise is gone!!!!!!!).


HAPPY DAYS!!! :cheers: :blob: You were right Mopar To Ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
treblig

AND, all this with the factory floor shift console! That is super cool!!! Don't forget to take into account how much quicker the car will get to 70 mph than it used to with the old 904 and those tall freeway gears you currently have.

I double checked and I did pick up a set of 3.91's, but I also have a pretty tall 275 60R15 rear tire. My RPM estimates put me at 2200'ish RPM at 70 mph with the 3.91's too.

 

[Treblig]

What's your max stall on your converter??? If you're running a lock up (which I think you are) you don't want to be cruising at a speed that will cause the converter to be kicking in and out???
That's why I went with a non lock up...that, and the fact that I didn't want extra wires and lock up switch and positive release switch (vacuum and brake pedal switch).
You gotta figure this stuff out before you go too far!!!
treblig

 

[Woods74]

Lock-up negates stall, you could have a 4500 converter and if you lock-up at 1800, that's your cruise stall. 1800. No slip, no drips, no dips. Wired to a toggle switch, or programmed into a fancy vacuum switch or computer, whenever you want it. That's why all these homeboys with newer camaros and mustangs get away with hi-stall drag action, and cruise home like nothing happened.

 

[jbc426]

What's your max stall on your converter??? If you're running a lock up (which I think you are) you don't want to be cruising at a speed that will cause the converter to be kicking in and out???
That's why I went with a non lock up...that, and the fact that I didn't want extra wires and lock up switch and positive release switch (vacuum and brake pedal switch).
You gotta figure this stuff out before you go too far!!!
treblig

Thanks for the heads up, but I think PoisonDart74 has it right. My max stall on the converter is designed to be 3000 rpm. The system I'm using only uses one 12v wire. There are no solenoids or vacuum switches to deal with. It's either on or off, but only in 4th gear. Once it down shifts into 3 or below, it automatically disengages the lock-up.

I'm going to use a small button mounted on the B&M shifter handle to lock it up or leave it off. There are no other parts or switches to deal with. It makes it simple.

I know the 500 and 518's require all that extra control stuff.

 

[Woods74]

^No, it's one wire lock-up, one for OD, '88-'95. They are just as simple, people wanting to sell a kit make it seem that way.

All you need is a toggle switch, and if you want it to kick-down, make a bracket, and install a TH400-like kick-down switch to the gas pedal. Done deal.

 

[jbc426]

I found a very cool series of eye-candy pictures for a crossmember/ transmission mount going on over at Hotchkis. Even though its for a manual trans, it's a great concept, and should be helpful for anyone running an even larger transmission that passes through this crossmember....or what's left of it. Of course it doesn't include tying the crossmember in over the top of the transmission. But that shouldn't be that hard to do, and would make the crossmember even stronger.

Those guys at Hotchkis do some amazing work! Imagine if only the small cut like Treblig made on the driver's side left the rest of the factory crossmember intact. Also, I plan on welding in a concave plate to fill the cut made on the driver's side and add some strength back to the factory crossmember. This style tubular style reinforcement was added to strengthen the factory crossmember and provide the rear trans mount.

After seeing this, my vision is to make new u-shaped brackets welded to the ends of the tube, so it can fit over the remaining crossmember like the original bolt on crossmember/ trans mount does. I'll relocate the driver's side mounting bolt holes over a bit, and have it bolt on like the stock crossmember. The passenger side should remain untouched and use the factory bolt holes.

Enjoy the pics!

 

[Treblig]

Well I guess it's true if you look at it that way. If you can lock up the converter at any RPM or speed it shouldn't make a difference as long as you have the "disengage" system in place for when you slow down.
In my case, I have a non lock up so I have to make sure my cruising speed is above the stall so I don't get too much slippage (and heat). There are advantages and disadvantages to both types of converters. The '46 Chevy I built for my son (350 CU, 700R4) non lock up and been working great for 3 years now and he drives it every day.

treblig

 

[Woods74]

^No need for buyers regret, lock-up ain't that much more efficient. The quality of the converter is more important that if it's lock-up or not. Somewhere above 2800rpm, you have to start paying big money to get the best of both worlds. Those high stall, 4500+ that still cruise very nicely at 2500 or less, do so because you paid $800 for it, not $250. The fact you have a quality low stall, you'll never have to worry about slip or heat because the RPM just isn't there. It's a cruising converter, not a racer.

It comes down to maybe 200rpm difference, 1mpg, one less expense, and thing to go wrong.


Personally, when I swap in my 42RH, going lock-up because I can. That's about it. Hopefully I don't have to spend $1000+ to get a decent converter, otherwise, I'll probably be in your shoes.

 

[Treblig]

^No need for buyers regret, lock-up ain't that much more efficient. The quality of the converter is more important that if it's lock-up or not. Somewhere above 2800rpm, you have to start paying big money to get the best of both worlds. Those high stall, 4500+ that still cruise very nicely at 2500 or less, do so because you paid $800 for it, not $250. The fact you have a quality low stall, you'll never have to worry about slip or heat because the RPM just isn't there. It's a cruising converter, not a racer.

It comes down to maybe 200rpm difference, 1mpg, one less expense, and thing to go wrong.


Personally, when I swap in my 42RH, going lock-up because I can. That's about it. Hopefully I don't have to spend $1000+ to get a decent converter, otherwise, I'll probably be in your shoes.

When and if you swap out your 42RH what are you going to????

treblig

 

[Treblig]

I found a very cool series of eye-candy pictures for a crossmember/ transmission mount going on over at Hotchkis. Even though its for a manual trans, it's a great concept.

Those guys do some amazing work! Imagine if only the small cut like Treblig made on the driver's side left the rest of the factory crossmember intact. Also, I plan on welding in a concave plate to fill the cut made on the driver's side and add some strength back to the factory crossmember. This style tubular style reinforcement was added to strengthen the factory crossmember and provide the rear trans mount.

After seeing this, my vision is to make new u-shaped brackets welded to the ends of the tube, so it can fit over the remaining crossmember like the original bolt on crossmember/ trans mount does. I'll relocate the driver's side mounting bolt holes over a bit, and have it bolt on like the stock crossmember. The passenger side should remain untouched and use the factory bolt holes.

Enjoy the pics!

Good news bad news.............

I measured my overall trans length today to double check the dimensions given earlier by JBC. As it turns out the chart JBC posted wasn't as accurate as it should have been (no fault on JBC). PATC shows a very different overall length, that's why my measurement didn't seem correct. I measured my tranny length today and found that it was 27 3/4" from the front of the adapter plate to the rear seal. At the PATC site:

http://www.transmissioncenter.net/TransmissiomMeasurements.htm


it shows that the 2004R is actually 27 11/16" from bell to tail. That makes more sense because when I measured mine today (again), it came out to 27 3/4 from the front of the adapter plate to the tranny seal. 27 3/4" minus the 1/4" adapter comes to 27 1/2" which is close to 27 11/16". But unfortunately for JBC, it will require more cutting of the driver's side and the extra cutting on the passenger's side. JBC wrote that his tranny (and adapter) was 28 3/8" which is longer than a standard 2004R with the TCI adapter attached. Mine measured 27 3/4", so with the REID adapter bell housing and plate (ring) JBC will have to cut more than I had to cut. Maybe as much as 1/4" or more. The driver's side cross member will have to be completely removed in the area that I had previously pointed out. The passenger's will have to be cut about 1/8" to 3/16" for the 2004R housing to clear in addition to removing the ear (mounting lug).
Now understand that I am making assumptions. Hopefully JBC will not have to cut more than I did but it does explain why he had to send the converter back to the manufacturer.
QOUTE FROM JBC's PREVIOUS POST,
"No, both the pads and the ring gear are 5/8" too deep into the transmission right now. It's actually in 3/4" with the converter all the way in against the pump with the transmission standing on the tailshaft (dropped it in and rotated it until I got the three clunks), but I have to take away 1/8 to 3/16" to allow the recommended freeplay.

Somebody tell me I'm wrong....please!!!

treblig

 

[jbc426]

Interesting findings. If all this pans out, I wonder if the added length is the adapter ring width. I'll try and get more accurate measurements and post them. Also, the Reid bell seems to have way more meat on each end that could be cut off in an end mill. Of course that would require another change to the depth of the torque converter, and that's not going to happen if I can avoid it.

 

[Treblig]

Interesting findings. If all this pans out, I wonder if the added length is the adapter ring width. I'll try and get more accurate measurements and post them. Also, the Reid bell seems to have way more meat on each end that could be cut off in an end mill. Of course that would require another change to the depth of the torque converter, and that's not going to happen if I can avoid it.

JBC, I truly hope I'm wrong. But when I measured my tranny today I was trying to verify the chart you had posted the other day. I wasn't trying to disprove it. But after I got a good measurement I knew something was wrong. So I surfed the net and found that web site PATC and then it all made sense. But let's hope I'm wrong. The company that made the parts you paid for should be absolutely sure of the 2004R dimensions. By absolutely sure I mean that they should have one (2004R) there in their shop.
If your set up is longer than mine you need to find out why. Because the whole purpose of you buying the set up you currently own was to make things easier for you (not more difficult).
Keep us posted....

treblig

 

[jbc426]

No,no Treblig. Don't be bothered at all. This is all great info. I keep finding conflicting information on the web regarding whether the measurement is 27 11/16" or 28 1/4". It does make a difference at the crossmember. Interestingly, if I subtract the thickness of the adapter ring that allows the bellhousing to bolt to the front of the modified 200R4, I get the 27 3/4" you have. Not being able to get around that extra 1/2" length with my set-up, It looks like I will be doing even more cutting at the crossmember than I had originally anticipated.

There are some variances in the production tolerances in these cars, but likely not an extra 1/2 " in where the trans will end up. I knew I would be doing some modifications at the crossmember. My goal has always been to minimize the cuts, weld up any "holes" that result with concave plates to reinforce the area and build a very structurally strong bolt-on crossmember that also serves as the rear transmission mount. I will attempt something similar to the Hotchkis piece, but with the square, u-shaped attaching points that bolt to the factory crossmember like the original one does.

If after looking at the results of that and your collective opinions are that it needs to be reinforced even more, I will have to add some extra reinforcement in some way yet to be determined. The floor pan is an integral part of the actual stamped steel crossmember to begin with, and its just spot welded to the crossmember in a few spots. Treblig's addition of the steel plates to fill the gaps between the floor and the crossmember is going in the right direction. I used the US Cartool Subframe connectors that weld to the floor in my car, and they made an incredible difference in the car's rigidity. Following that lead, I will finish welding the torsion bar crossmember solidly to the floor from one side to the other as part of the first phase of strengthening entire assembly.

If it weren't for not having the components available to measure for an accurate torque converter "depth" right off the bat. This bolt-on bellhousing system has incredibly easy so far, All I did was bolt it on. I did spend 5 minutes chamfering a small 3" by 1/2" edge on the lower inside lip of the bell just under the input shaft side of the housing ( the torque converter just touched it there), and I shortened some bolts by a few threads..

The bottom line is that the challenge and the real truth about installing ANY overdrive install in these old cars is that you HAVE to make the modifications to the crossmember and fab the rear trans mount.

((The only exception I know of is Jamie Passon's new 5 speed...BTW, yesterday he said he's shipping mine for my 1970 "Cuda after this weekend. My 1970, number's 440-6 'Cuda is a car that I would never consider doing any crossmember modifications to. For those following that 5-speed release, I was #18 on the list. I'll add some e-body pic of the car for those interested in such things. I digress, sorry a-body forum members.))

Another "anticipated benefit to the bolt on housing is that the smaller size of the bellhousing in the firewall area, "should" make the rest of the install relatively simple by allowing extra room for exhaust and whatever else goes through that area.

Getting back to measuring the transmission length, I used a large L-shaped straight edge/ 90 degree square and a level to make sure I was getting a parallel measurement for the most accurate length measurement I could get from the face of the bellhousing to the end of the tailshaft where the seal goes.

I came up with 28 1/4". I also measured the adapter ring that goes between the transmission and the bellhousing and found it to be exactly 1/2" thick.

Once I have the transmission up in the car, I will see just how much of the crossmember needs to be modified. I'm sure your predictions will not be far off Treblig. I do want the cuts to be simple in nature and reinforced where the cuts are being made to make room for the transmission. I'm also hoping that by using a design similar to what Hotchkis used, and welding the crossmember solidly to the floor for it's entire length will make it even stronger than it is now.

 

[Treblig]

You do know that if you have subframe connectors it makes the job of fabbing the trans mount much much easier??

treblig

 

[Treblig]

I received the super tight radius 2 1/2" pipes. I needed these because when I was installing the 2004R I noticed that exhaust place (where I had the down pipes installed) used smaller pipe than what I had asked for on the driver's side. I can't really blame them because they were barely able to snake the 2 1/8" pipe through the small places between the starter and the torsion bar. I'm using a 340 manifold on the driver's side and the exit hole points slightly forward. The guys at the muffler shop put a non mandrel bend in the 2 1/8" pipe and had to bend it more than 90 degrees basically crushing it down. Then to make things worse I had to put some serious dents it in when I installed the 2004R. So now I have the mandrel J bend 2 1/2" pipe from which I can cut a section that is more than 90 degrees. Then I'll attach the oval pipe (posted earlier) to the tight radius pipe to get past the narrow space on the driver's side. This is the tightest radius pipe I could find (3" radius). I'll have to wait my turn to get the car back on the rack before I can install the bigger pipes.
The Passenger's side is OK, there's lots of room for 2 1/2" pipes coming off the Mag truck manifold.

treblig

 

[Trogdoor]

So if I understood correctly you are using a 340 manifold on the driver's side and a magnum truck manifold on the passenger. Would the magnum work on the driver's side or what is the reason for going with the 340 since you are using the mini starter? Also is the passenger side truck manifold the larger 2 1\8 version or the later 1 7\8? Thanks

 

[Treblig]

Hi Trogdoor, I ran across a driver's side 340 manifold for a very good price but couldn't find a passenger's side so I went with the 2 1/8" Mag truck manifold (actually it's a little larger than 2 1/8"). Anyway, I went with the 340 for better flow and used the Mag truck for the same reason to get equal flow on both sides. I tried to fit a Mag truck manifold on the driver's side but there's no way with power steering. I've heard that some member's with manual steering have been able to use the mag truck on the driver's side with a little grinding and swapping to jorgenson type u-joint on the steering shaft.
I have sold two extra mag truck manifolds that I had and I still have two more extra (for the passenger's side). They work perfect on the passenger's side with plenty of clearance everywhere. The best part about the mag truck manifolds is that they don't warp like the stock 318 manifolds, they are thick and heavy duty. Here are some pics of some of the mag truck manifolds I've had. I haven't taken any pics of the other ones yet.
If you look at the last pic you can see (on the passenger's side) from underneath the giant exit hole on the mag truck manifold.

Remember, before going to the mag truck manifold, you have to have the more modern heads or heads that have the 360 exhaust ports (I'm running the 302 castings) which have the large port with the capped off smog hole. Anyway the mag truck manifolds have very large ports and you probably wouldn't be able to get them to seal on a regular 318 type head.

Treblig

 

[jbc426]

You do know that if you have subframe connectors it makes the job of fabbing the trans mount much much easier??

treblig

I've seen some of the bars for the rear mount that run between the subframe connectors. Some of them with bolt on ends for easy removal. I think my exhaust is in the way, but i'm not 100% sure yet. I still am favoring the modified Hotchkis style mount.

I'm running Summit headers, the Summit 2 1/2" dual exhaust with a home-made crossover tube and Hooker Aero Chambers. I also added oval megaphone type exhaust tips. The tips make a big difference in the sound. I really like the megaphone tips ability so sweeten the sound of any exhaust, especially on the exhaust cut-outs on my e-body.

 

[Treblig]

You're certainly entitled to your choice of cross members. But if you're trying to save money like me you could easily tuck some 1" X 2" box iron (laying sideway) between the sub frame connectors because the factory trans cross member is about 1 1/2" tall so that leaves 1 1/2" of space plus the extra space between the exhaust pipes and the upper cross member. The box iron would only be 1" tall laying on it's side. But that's just me, I like to make stuff!!
The route you're taking would be easier.

Treblig

 

[jbc426]

You're certainly entitled to your choice of cross members. But if you're trying to save money like me you could easily tuck some 1" X 2" box iron (laying sideway) between the sub frame connectors because the factory trans cross member is about 1 1/2" tall so that leaves 1 1/2" of space plus the extra space between the exhaust pipes and the upper cross member. The box iron would only be 1" tall laying on it's side. But that's just me, I like to make stuff!!
The route you're taking would be easier.

Treblig

Treblig, I like the idea of adding more rigidity in that area, but I am no mechanical engineer. I would like to add a short triangulated bar to the front of the subframe connectors to original torsion bar crossmember, but there's not a lot of room there unless I just use just a triangle piece of flat plate and weld it to the inside, bottom at the intersection of the subframe connectors and the factory crossmember.

For crossmember add-ons, I've always liked the look of the round tube type crossmember with the mandrel bends for the drop down at the trans mount with a flat tab to mount the rear trans mount, but I don't have the technology for that at home. I guess if I found a race care fab shop in my area the could make me up one, but this isn't LA.

Which rear mount did you use? I was a bit confused when I started looking at the Chevy parts on Summit. They didn't list a 200R4 mount, but just about every other one.

 

[Treblig]

Treblig, I like the idea of adding more rigidity in that area, but I am no mechanical engineer. I would like to add a short triangulated bar to the front of the subframe connectors to original torsion bar crossmember, but there's not a lot of room there unless I just use just a triangle piece of flat plate and weld it to the inside, bottom at the intersection of the subframe connectors and the factory crossmember.

For crossmember add-ons, I've always liked the look of the round tube type crossmember with the mandrel bends for the drop down at the trans mount with a flat tab to mount the rear trans mount, but I don't have the technology for that at home. I guess if I found a race care fab shop in my area the could make me up one, but this isn't LA.

Which rear mount did you use? I was a bit confused when I started looking at the Chevy parts on Summit. They didn't list a 200R4 mount, but just about every other one.

You know that's something I totally forgot to post. I had to do a little research but as it turns out the trans mounts (GM) are a dime a dozen and available at any parts store. Just don't screw up like me and accidently grab the wrong nut and strip the threads on the bottom stud. The whole tranny is METRIC and so are the 2 bolts that hold the mount to the tranny and the one nut on the bottom that holds the mount to the cross member. I had so many nuts and bolts laying all over the car lift that I accidently grabbed the wrong one (SAE) and since I had bought a lock nut for the mount so I didn't think much about it when it went on a little tight. Well I was wrong again (that's the second time in my life I've been wrong!!!!LOL). Anyway, it stripped the threads off once it hit bottom and I had to buy another mount. But they are cheap and plentiful so no big deal.


Please ignore the "China" reference on the box top and remember....METRIC, METRIC, METRIC!!!


As for the triangular brace, I've read that other members do exactly that on the front and back of the cross member. helps to stiffen the sub frame.


Treblig