Thoughts on a 200 4r

[Orange67]

I have a line on a 200 4r and am really considering it for my 67 C20. Anyone have experience good or bad with this transmission? My truck currently has a late 70's 350, RV cam, with the factory th400.

[61_FL_Apache]

Some early 90's 700r4's can also fit the bill too..

The youtube video might help with the decision. Mad Dog Lou from Mad Dog Transmissions talks about the difference between a 200R4 and 700R4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_n6Jw0CH00

[Orange67]

Cool! Thank you

[61_FL_Apache]

There is a tranny guy on the forum and hopefully he will chime in.

[volksworld]

what you currently have isnt high tech but its pretty bulletproof...the advantage to the 200 4r is the overdrive 4th gear...depending on your rear gear you may get better mileage....disadvantages?....its a smaller and weaker unit (of course it can be modified with performance stuff but thats more money)....its a computer controlled trans from a fuel injected car....it has a lockup converter controlled by the computer...so you need a conversion setup with a controller that basically works off engine vacuum and the brake lights to lock and unlock it at the right times ....100 to 200 bucks and i see a lot of mixed reveiws...again a performance trans shop can modify the unit to put in a conventional converter but also not cheap....it uses a throttle valve cable which controlls the trannies shift points based on throttle position...of the fuel injection throttle body....so you need conversion brackets and linkage to hook this cable up to the carb essentially the same distance it was from the throttle shaft on the injection throttle body....of course you need a different yoke and driveshaft length....same conversion stuff applies to a 700r4 but i think its at least stronger

[HO455]

Early 2004r's came in early 80's non computer Quadrajet carbureted vehicles so getting factory brackets and cables for a Q-jet is possible. They like the early 700r4's are weaker than the later models. The overdrive and lockup converter will make a difference if you drive enough highway miles. If you spend $2000 on a tranny upgrade to go from 12 mpg to 16 mpg it will take about 35k miles to break even at $2.75 fuel cost.

[LockDoc]

-
I put one in my '69 Suburban with a crate 350 and it worked out good. The first 2004r was a freebie and had problems, so I went to the salvage yard and picked one up and it was a good one..... I used the BowTie Overdrives components to make everything work correctly and it was pretty straight forward. The only thing that gave me any problem with the install was setting the pressures correctly. They are critical. The only reason I had trouble with that was because of my inexperience.

I originally had a 3.07 rear gear and it was too tall for the setup I had. The trans overheated and blew the trans fluid past the front seal. I switched it to a 3.73 I had on hand and had no more problems.

LockDoc

[Orange67]

Thanks for the replies. I would mainly be doing it for the convenience of the OD gear, I love to drive this, but 60 miles round trip some areas a 70 mph speed limit to work and back.... The increase in mileage would just be an added bonus. This one needs a rebuild, the friend I'm snagging it from is taking it out of his 79 Vette. Looking into an aluminum one piece shaft if I pull the trigger on this trans.

It was years ago, but I seem to remember counting the driveshaft revs as I spun the wheels and I think this old girl has 4:11 rears. SPID was gone long ago.

[LockDoc]

-
There are some good threads on the subject. Here is one I found with a quick search....

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=731215

LockDoc

[Orange67]

Thanks LockDoc! The friend I'm getting this from is going the BO route. I will probably do the same for the accessories. Thank you for the thread suggestions, I got some reading to do!

[LockDoc]

Originally Posted by Orange67

Thanks LockDoc! The friend I'm getting this from is going the BO route. I will probably do the same for the accessories. Thank you for the thread suggestions, I got some reading to do!

You bet! I did a lot of reading when I converted mine too....

LockDoc

[71cheyennesuperlongb]

I always thought the200r was thesamelength asa 350 turbo. no driveshaft change needed. came in buick turbo gnx andcorvete .tuff trans from the builder.

[LockDoc]

Originally Posted by 71cheyennesuperlongb

I always thought the200r was thesamelength asa 350 turbo. no driveshaft change needed. came in buick turbo gnx andcorvete .tuff trans from the builder.

That is true but the OP has a TH400....

LockDoc

[jbarron]

The 200-4R is smaller than the TH400, but the rear mount lines up with the TH400 crossmember. I had a TH350 I replaced with one of these and just had to slide the crossmember back to the TH400 frame holes.

[LockDoc]

-
Here is a really good thread on transmissions....

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=390542

LockDoc

[WIDESIDE72]

I have a 200 4r in a 79 Malibu with 3.73 gesrs and 275/60 15 rear tires and prefer the first gear ratio over the 700r4. (I had a 700r4 in a 72 stepside with same rear gear ratio and tire size.) I felt the 700r4 first gear was too low for my use (no towing). I shifted out of first in just a few seconds. My brother also had a 72 stepside years ago and he had swapped a 200 4r into it and it seemed to be a perfect combo. He also had 3.73 gears but not as large resr tires.

[Tkmadone]

I installed one in my '67 C20 and I love it. I have 4.10 rear gears and at 65 I'm at 2200 rpm. So far it has been a great transmission.

I also had the T400 previously and this was basically a bolt in, except for changing the front yoke of the drive shaft.

[Orange67]

Tkmadone, thanks for the input. Curious, have you towed anything with it? Nothing like a 43 ft toy hauler, but like a 16 ft boat, maybe 20+ft trailer?

[Tkmadone]

I towed a small car on a uhaul car hauler, so maybe 7000 lbs. No problem, I just kept it in drive, not overdrive.

[no1udknow]

I had a rebuilt 200r4 in my last build, my engine was making about 420hp at the crank, never had an issue with slippage. the advantage of a 200r4 is that it is litterally a direct swap for a th350. same driveline ,speedo cable, linkage etc. the only thing you have to do is move the crossmember back to the th400 holes on the frame. If you have a th400 already, the 700r4 is the direct swap. I swapped my 200r4 in about 3 hours and that included installing the $70 kickdown kit from summit. And yes it did increase my fuel mileage to about 14mpg from about 8-10

[Orange67]

Originally Posted by Tkmadone

I towed a small car on a uhaul car hauler, so maybe 7000 lbs. No problem, I just kept it in drive, not overdrive.

Awesome! That's what i was hoping for. Got to make sure I can still go pick up more trucks! Just don't tell the wife....

[Orange67]

Originally Posted by no1udknow

I had a rebuilt 200r4 in my last build, my engine was making about 420hp at the crank, never had an issue with slippage. the advantage of a 200r4 is that it is litterally a direct swap for a th350. same driveline ,speedo cable, linkage etc. the only thing you have to do is move the crossmember back to the th400 holes on the frame. If you have a th400 already, the 700r4 is the direct swap. I swapped my 200r4 in about 3 hours and that included installing the $70 kickdown kit from summit. And yes it did increase my fuel mileage to about 14mpg from about 8-10

Dang! That's good news AND good mileage for an engine with that kind of power. I'd be lucky if this tired ole 350 was 150 hp... Actually considering going through it when I do the 200 swap.

I would consider the 700, because I already have the 400, but this 200 is free, and kind of a deal I don't want to pass up.

Thanks for the reply!

[MARKDTN]

I'm not anti-200R4 but I think there may be a general misunderstanding that just because they bolt in place of a TH350 that they are always the best choice.

You have to ask yourself why GM never used a 200R4 behind anything bigger than a 307 Olds. No Corvettes, no big blocks, not even a 305 IROC. 200R4 was used in the Turbo Regals and GNs, but they don't last long there after engine mods. True, the GN was the highest performance application stock but in truth the 200R4 in stock form is not all that strong. They do require a rebuild to use much power or you will shatter the insides. If you are going to build the 200R4 first then fine, just don't yank a used one out and expect it to last in a truck. They were never used in a Corvette with the CrossFire (205HP/290 Torque) or TPI IROC (195HP/295 torque) which was about the same power as a stock GN (200HP/300 torque)-much less a 250HP TPI Corvette.

I'm not saying don't use a 200R4. I am saying that it might not last long if you take a used one out of a tired V6 or 305 A-Body and put it in a heavy truck with a 350/350 and trounce on it. I would do a 700R4. They got a bad reputation from early on, but if you get an '88 up core with the improved guts they last a long time. They also get a bad rap for swaps for people that didn't adjust the TV cable and burn them up fast. You should not start the engine until the TV cable is properly adjusted!! It is that important. The 4L60E that is still used today is a derivative of the 700R4 and they last a long time. I had one in my '01 Tahoe with 299K miles before it died. The 200R4 can be built to handle the power for sure, but a 700R4 can do it with a lot less mods. The current 4L60E shares some internals with some of the last 700R4 (4L60) transmissions.

[Orange67]

Thanks for the info. This 200 is out of a Monte, iirc. My buddy picked the trans up, rebuilt and put it in his Vette. He's going a different route now, and offered it to me. I will still go through it before I swap it into my C20. I figure that will allow me to enjoy it on freeway drives while I save for the future drivetrain.

[WIDESIDE72]

Originally Posted by MARKDTN

I'm not anti-200R4 but I think there may be a general misunderstanding that just because they bolt in place of a TH350 that they are always the best choice.

You have to ask yourself why GM never used a 200R4 behind anything bigger than a 307 Olds. No Corvettes, no big blocks, not even a 305 IROC. 200R4 was used in the Turbo Regals and GNs, but they don't last long there after engine mods. True, the GN was the highest performance application stock but in truth the 200R4 in stock form is not all that strong. They do require a rebuild to use much power or you will shatter the insides. If you are going to build the 200R4 first then fine, just don't yank a used one out and expect it to last in a truck. They were never used in a Corvette with the CrossFire (205HP/290 Torque) or TPI IROC (195HP/295 torque) which was about the same power as a stock GN (200HP/300 torque)-much less a 250HP TPI Corvette.

I'm not saying don't use a 200R4. I am saying that it might not last long if you take a used one out of a tired V6 or 305 A-Body and put it in a heavy truck with a 350/350 and trounce on it. I would do a 700R4. They got a bad reputation from early on, but if you get an '88 up core with the improved guts they last a long time. They also get a bad rap for swaps for people that didn't adjust the TV cable and burn them up fast. You should not start the engine until the TV cable is properly adjusted!! It is that important. The 4L60E that is still used today is a derivative of the 700R4 and they last a long time. I had one in my '01 Tahoe with 299K miles before it died. The 200R4 can be built to handle the power for sure, but a 700R4 can do it with a lot less mods. The current 4L60E shares some internals with some of the last 700R4 (4L60) transmissions.

Sorry, but what you say about the 200 4r can also be said about a 700R4. You cant pull one out of a junyardand think it will last. It seems to me that GM came up with two different transmissions for two different applications, with the truck needing the lower first gear. The engines they put the 700r4 behind werent exactly torque monsters either. Dont get me started on 4L60/ 4L60e. One of the worst transmissions ever, imo.