Discussion in 'The "Juice Box"' started by 67SPCL, Jun 6, 2020.
Yes. Don't know the implications of the short tail shaft (is that normal length)? Why don't you put that money towards a 200R4?
From what I've been reading, the short tail shaft
makes it exactly the same length as an ST300.
As you pointed out in my other post, the car would be
shifting in and out of overdrive constantly with a 700R4.
Would it be any different with the 2004R?
I do not want to change out the rear end.
And another question:
I've found a virtually new trans that is the same as the one linked above, but for for half the price.
It includes this TC:
Wondering if that combo will be practical for my stock '67 Special with 300-2 V8?
I don't know what "virtually new" means. Sounds like "used" to me, so I guess it comes down to whether you trust the person you are going to buy this from. I'm guessing no warranty applies, so you have to weigh that. As far as the torque converter goes, I see no reason why you need anything more than a stock converter behind a stock 300-2bbl. There is no such thing as a converter that will stall at 2000 RPM no matter what you put it behind. Stall speed varies with engine power, car weight, and gearing. That makes the converter a crap shoot IMHO.
Hey, might be a great deal. Very difficult for us to make that determination. As long as it has the BOP bolt pattern, it will bolt up to your engine.
My question was, "will it be practical"?
The trans I'm considering doesn't include a
stock TC, it includes the one linked to above.
If I'm buying a virtually new trans for half of
retail, and it includes that TC, which has a
stall RANGE of 1600-2200, would it
be practical behind my stock 300-2?
Why wouldn't it be practical? As long as the transmission is in good shape, it will be just as good as any other THM350. The variable is the converter. It will probably stall at the lower end of that range behind the small V8, so yes, it should be OK. I can't guarantee that though.
I think I'm abandoning the 700R4,
which I already have, and going for a TH350,
whether or not it's that particular one,
which does in fact have the BOP bell housing
The seller claims he bought it new, installed it,
drove it two miles, parked it to do body work,
then decided to put in a 700R4.
Sounds suspicious, but if I can get it for $500 delivered,
it's not the crime of the century if I get ripped off.
Maybe he's been unable to find a buyer since it's
BOP and just needs to recoup some of his money.
The 700R4 is a "Chevy" bolt pattern transmission. It is longer than traditional transmissions. (PG, T-350, Saginaw, Muncie, Borg-Warner). It has same output spline count, 27, as older traditional transmissions. Driveshaft shortening necessary.
The 2004R is a BOPC direct bolt on transmission, although some had a "dual" bolt pattern - Chev & BOPC. For some reason Cadillac gets left out. It also is the same length w/ same spline count 27, as the older traditional transmissions. Rear trans mount is farther back, due to longer pan. No driveshaft mods, for most part.
Thanks for the reply.
No new information there, I already knew all that.
It's been pointed out in another thread that an overdrive gear
would be pretty much useless with my stock 2.78:1 rear end,
so that's why I'm abandoning the 700R4 and not focused on a 2004R.
Plus TH350s are cheaper and more plentiful,
even if I had to get a Chevy one and use an adapter.
Plus I don't think I'd even have to move my cross
member with a TH350, but I would with a 2004R.
Th350 just seems like the right trans for this car.
TH350 bolts in and driveshaft works too. The problem I have is getting the kickdown operational. The st-300 is electrical and TH350 is mechanical. There isn't enough room for the linkage between the carb and intake for Chevy style TH350 set up. I haven't got real serious yet figuring out a solution. Buick used a cable type linkage to the gas pedal, but '64-'67 has a completely different accelerator assembly.
Your shifter will work, but it might not read correctly on the column because of the extra gear. You can adjust it to read close. I always count 3 notches to drive to be sure.
It might be possible to switch over to the later gas pedal and cable assembly.
Thanks, I considered that too.
Gotta be a way to mod/fab something for the kickdown cable.
Maybe even swapping out an accelerator pedal from a compatible car.
Like I said, use a 68-72 gas pedal assembly. Here's one restored,
(scroll to the top of the thread)
You just have to find the right spot to bolt it to the firewall.
Yep all good points, moving the cross member back on a pre 81 car would likely result in drilling of holes and frame modifications. With the turbo 350 none of that will be necessary.
I would hold out for a "BOP" one before messing with an adapter.
Larry, I've been considering trying to do the gas pedal change from the newer cars. But that looks like it might take some considerable engineering too, at least for me without having welding skills. Still haven't ruled it out though.
My pedal simply bolts to the firewall with 2 bolts. Not knowing what your firewall looks like (on the inside), I can't say what is involved. Didn't think welding was necessary. It's probably harder than I think.
Are the accelerator and stock type kickdown cables that go to the pedal still available? I have the accelerator pedal, but I think there must be some sort of pocket for the firewall the pedal sits in. I need to find a 70-72 Skylark that I can look at real close and figure out how it works. I remember you posting a pic of yours one time, but hands on and some measuring etc. would probably help too.
You might be right about the pocket. It's not something you take apart often.
Here's the gas pedal ToddsGS has for sale.
Here's a Chevelle pedal. The only difference is the single eyelet for the accelerator cable. The 350 cars got the double eyelet for the kickdown cable