Did they stuff 200s in Chevettes? I knew the 200 was a more efficient design, but its still a sizeable transmission to stick behind anything less than 2 litres. Good ole GM.
For the sake of the argument it'd have merit. Nearly every daily driver I've had I've often put a minimum of 800-1200 miles a week on it. And even if it won't be a daily driver I don't build anything that can't be used as one. So if it took you ten years to do what I do in a year.....
Point is if you're going to bash people for the parts they use and claim you drive your car mebbe explain how we don't ***ume you only drive I 5k a year.....ie what many people do in a month. Only reason my 54 will be getting an engine machined at a machine shop is ill already have the same engine in it running to drive it with. And don't really have crate engine $. And it won't get driven as much as my 53.....that will likely get a crate engine at some point that won't look any different than the 350 in it nor the 283 I had in it before that. In fact with the way it fits in the car no one will ever know unless I tell them. You were bashing the guy for swapping in a crate 350 instead of rebuilding the 327 in it that likely has tiny valve 283 style heads, may have already been bored a bunch of times, may have had the crank turned multiple times, and to top it off may have previously undiscovered cracks. Basically he could end up needing to replace everything under hood anyway. Only now he'd have wasted time and money just to turn around and have to replace it anyway. And people like me with limited time time is money
The B cars with the SBC have 700R4. The ones with an Old 307 have a 200-4R. I would ***ume the D cars followed suit since they're essentially just a longer B ch***is.
The ‘31 in my avatar had Cad with a hydramatic in ‘64. Having a manual trans was not a requirement to be a hot rodder in that era. As far as this conversation, I would go with an overdrive automatic to optimize overall performance.
You must be kidding? There were plenty of guys I knew back in the 60's who swapped in GM hydramatic 4 speeds in their street and race cars. And plenty of trans companies sprang up all over to build them up to handle high HP engines. B&M, Cal Hydro, Hydromotive, C&O Hydro. Some of the fastest cars around back in the 60's ran automatics.
The differences between the 2004R and 700R4 in OD are miniscule. The 200 is .67:1 and the 700 is .70:1 The big difference is 1st gear which is 2.74 on the 200, and 3.06 on the 700. This means if you've got a car that's maybe heavier, or not as much power the 700R4 will give you a better launch ratio out of the hole, but it will also need to shift to 2nd earlier. I have a 700R4 behind a well built SBC in my '39 Chev and love the lower first gear. My engine winds high enough to let me stay in first gear longer than a lower rpm engine might.
If you do, you'll regret losing the 327...had a few of each, the 327 always was the best. A few well chosen bolt on's and its still a bad *** on the street.
There were plenty here on the West Coast on the street and even more on the strip. If there hadn't been I doubt so many companies would have sprung up building up hydros in such a short time.
You can always build up a 327 using a 1968-69 327 crank in a 350. Those last years they shared a main and rod bearing size so easy to swap cranks to get the higher rpm motor. I've had a lot of 327 engines, and as many 350's, and honestly what a 350 gives up in rpm's it makes up for in low end torque. I don't mind the 350 at all.
327 is the best small block Chevy ever made, I think you should have kept it personally. Good luck with your project though bro
The Jalopy Journal
