200 vs 700

[oregontopcat]

I am going to install a overdrive trans, either a 2004r or 700r4 in my 70 442 convertible. I can see that the 200 can be built to handle the job but why not the 700. I am not a trans guy but the parts in the 700 look to be so much beefier, larger input shaft, drums, planetaries, sprags ect. Obviously I am missing something here? Thanks Dave E

 

[jarredsoon]

I think both can be built very tough and that both are good to use. I think either one is fine and it is more important WHO builds your transmission and how. Just be sure whoever you buy from is reputable and offers warranty.

Jarred

 

[chopped39]

I always wondered that myself. I fiquired the 700 would be a lot better than the 200. But the gear ratio's I guess are better. the best trans guys are on this site. so Im sure they will chime in.

 

[Nick Micale]

One thing you are missing is that the 200 will bolt RIGHT up to your Olds engine, and the 700 will not without some kind of adapter?

Since many 200 transmissions built properly will hold up in a GN with 5-600 HP, it should be fine in your OLDS.

 

[CreepinDeth]

I am going to install a overdrive trans, either a 2004r or 700r4 in my 70 442 convertible.

Cool, I'm building a 200-4R right now for my 1970 442 Tribute.
This 2004R vs 700R4 topic has been beat to death all over the web over the past decade.
You can google a ton of threads about it. Best bet is to call one of the trans leaders and
talk to them firsthand. I'm using a CK performance rebuild kit and billet input shaft forward drum.

I bought a Stage II 700-R4 from Chris back in 2004.
That was for my 1978 Camaro's SBC 350 though.
Great guy, great support. So I'm a loyal return customer.

From everything I've read, the 200-4R is the better trans with upgrades.
Jakeshoe is also a transmission guy who helps on alot of forums and his opinion is also the 200-4R > 700R4.

Chevelle Tech - View Single Post - 2004R vs 700R4

One thing you are missing is that the 200 will bolt RIGHT up to your Olds engine

Only if it has the BOP bolt pattern. Not all do.
There's 3 types of 200-4R's

 

[oregontopcat]

Transmisssion

Thanks guys, I appreciate the input, if I go with the 200 is there a better year or model??

 

[bison]

Under 400hp it won't matter. IMO the 700 is more fragile than the 200-4r.

 

[CreepinDeth]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the input, if I go with the 200 is there a better year or model??

Read this thread. http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/transmission-talk/325896-rebuilding-th2004r-possible.html

One of the posts shows every possible asset you can get for rebuilding one yourself.
Chris has a book that is allegedly the bible for performance upgrades, and Michelle (his wife)
just called me to confirm it's in the mail today. So CALL NOW if you want one.

Post #25 Jakeshoe tells you that you can build up any 2004R to get what you
want out of it. My valvebody is a CH2 which he said is possibly an 82 Caprice
but my trans has alot of updated components so apparently it was rebuilt
recently.

Kinda pissed because it really looked perfect tearing it apart and I probably
could have just stuck it in and used it for the $50 I paid for the core.
Who knew though right ??

 

[overkillphil]

Looks can be deceiving. Take the 700's input shaft for example. With all the holes through it there is the higher probability of breakage.

I like the nice, neat package of the 200-4R, gear spacing and ability to do full throttle shifts to "4th" right out of the factory.

Add the great aftermarket parts available these days, and it is a superb trans. for a street driven car.

 

[quickt]

200 is much stronger than the 700. Bottom line they cost more money but you get much more in return.

 

[jarredsoon]

Lonnies 200-4r stage 3 is a great trans. I had my original rebuilt four times and then bought his 200 and his 200 has since outlasted my motor. Great transmission on the track and the street

 

[overkillphil]

How did this happen??

Just to revive this thread for a moment: I have been playing around with these 200-4R's since the late 80's when most people thought I was nuts for even considering using them in older musclecars.

Ever since that time I have always wondered how the heck GM ended up with two 4 speed OD RWD transmissions which were completely different, yet as strength goes they were in the same ballpark. Disputing aside, it's not like one was for 1 ton trucks and the other for econo boxes.

The 200-4R was put in quite a variety of vehicles, including heavy station wagons with towing packages, Caprices (Taxi's) etc. yet the 700 was in Camaro's, little trucks, full size Pickups, Blazers etc. Then there's our Buick GN's. But another standout to me are the 1500 Turbo T/A's in 89 which were specifically fitted with the 200-4R, yet they never came in those cars otherwise.

The 700 was a Chevy only bellhousing while the Lionshare of the 200-4R was BOPC-C or "unifit". This leads me to think Chevy had alot to do with the 700 behind the scenes at the Hydramatic Division.

The current offerings from GM seem to have more of a logical and intended purpose, depending on the job required.

 

[vacuum 6]

Not sure if anyone said this but I believe the 700 will not down shift into 1st once you're rolling.

 

[SSedan64]

2004r vs 700r4

I ran across this Article a while back on Pheonix Tran's site, link is to WebRodder.com. Pretty interesting article. You can tell which Trans they prefer.
2004R VS 700R4:
http://www.webrodder.com/article.php?AID=426&SID=6

Lots of other good Tech Info/Links also.
Webrodder.com - Hot Rod Tech Articles & Forum

 

[overkillphil]

Thanks for posting that link. It was an interesting read. And I agree with you regarding their favorite of the two.

A few observations:

1) Despite their own photo evidence of substantially beefier parts in the 700, its failure rate does not mirror their preception which is based solely on size and construction. That could lead one to conclude that the 200-4R just plain works better and more efficiently for its size (better engineering?)

2) The input shaft "clear proof" of the 700 shaft being so much stronger is based strictly on the size difference in the picture. Yet, they don't mention the internal construction and multiple "ports" in the larger shaft which may explain why my local performance tranny shop has seen so many broken 700 input shafts vs. 200-4R's.

3) The claim of the 700-R4 "problems" being short and practially bulletproof in a few years (4 years?) after introduction is grossly incorrect. While there were significant improvements in or around 1986, I personally saw 700's failing miserable in Corvettes and 350 IROC-Z's (the latter of which didn't even come out until 87), while Buick GN's were rairly experiencing that degree of failures. This was while the GN's were cleaning the clocks of the Chevy's both on the street and at my local track (Englishtown N.J.).

4) One would expect that if the author had truly studied the material required for a fair comparison, one the first things he would get right is that the 200-4R is not a "200R4" as referenced throughout the data.

4) While I don't doubt some of the claims, it certainly is biased and with an agenda for the 700-R4 and against the 200-4R . To me, the proof is in actual performance and durability. What I see is, for example lets assume the "strength" of the 700-R4 parts were twice as strong as the 200-4R parts. That doesn't translate to real world performance because 200-4R's don't fail at twice the rate of 700-R4's. And if they did, we'd all know about it because no one would build a 200-4R.