Member: Jetfire1












Member: 62oldsf85












Member: JetfireGuy











XTR Prototype
(courtesy of General Motors)












Member: JimNoel











Member: JimNoel
Custom 1962 Jetfire Wagon

Home Blog Blog Roto-5 Tranny ……… Your Out of There!!!!!

Roto-5 Tranny ……… Your Out of There!!!!!

Home Page Forums Discussion Topics – Ask the Experts Roto-5 Tranny ……… Your Out of There!!!!!

This topic contains 48 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  62cutlassconvert 3 weeks, 1 day ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 49 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12151

    jensenracing77
    Participant

    I think the correct term is 200-4R….

    Every 200-4R I have ever seen were the dual bolt pattern bell housing. I don’t think they make a Chevy only or BOP only 200-4R?

    #12152

    911pilot
    Participant

    What about my current 2-piece drive shaft? Whether I go with the 200-c or the 200-R4, will I keep, modify or have to replace my drive shaft? Are there changes to the differential that is also required?

    #12153

    62cutlassconvert
    Participant

    (There is a discussion on driveshaft shortening and 1pc vs. 2 pc shafts from July 4 2015 that may be of interest to you. The Post is titled 62 Cutlass Flywheel Lightening but it moves into driveshaft shortening and two different methods.)

    Currently we are going to keep the 2 pc shaft at this point. We have set the angle of the eng/transmission to form a straight line from trans tail shaft to the Center support bearing as recommended by the driveshaft shop and as the original is set up. This is typical of 2-piece shafts with a ujt at one end of the front shaft. No offset of angles is desired for the front shaft since it only has a ujoint at one end. Note that the Roto 5 has a fixed UJt yoke at the rear of the trans while the 200C or 200R4 has a splined shaft for the rear UJt which moves on the trans output shaft. We are leaving the rear shaft alone. We will be setting this up in the next couple of weeks so I’ll report on results.

    #12154

    joe_padavano
    Participant
    I think the correct term is 200-4R….

    Every 200-4R I have ever seen were the dual bolt pattern bell housing. I don’t think they make a Chevy only or BOP only 200-4R?

    Actually, the early 200-4R cases were BOP-only. Most, however, are unisex.

    Attachments:
    #12156

    911pilot
    Participant

    Your right, the only option is to stay with a BOP and go with the 200–4R AND the stock carb will not work with the cable linkages………I’ll have to update with an Eddlebrock .

    #12166

    62cutlassconvert
    Participant

    Here’s a pic of the TH200c attached to my eng. It’s almost ready to go in. Much smaller and shorter case than the 2004R. Was able to push out the tunnel to provide enough room. Top pic with eng and trans installed with the TV/kickdown bracket and cable mounted to an Edelbrock 1403.

    Attachments:
    #12169

    mikepoe59
    Participant

    That looks really good…can’t wait to hear how it performs with the TH200c.

    #12172

    911pilot
    Participant

    So given the choice between the 200R4 and the 200C you recommend the 200C for its size thus requiring less modifications to the tunnel?

    #12173

    911pilot
    Participant

    I decided however to go with the 60 degree 700R4 (4L60), using a 1986 or newer (prefer the 190/1991) model; the 200R4 and the 200C are excellent choices but again I feel for my application the 700R4 is best suited because of its smaller size; I don’t have to change the flywheel; mates nicely with the adapter from D&D fabricators and I can realize significant mileage benefits as well. I hope to see as much as a 30% drop in fuel consumption. I like that it will be a 4-speed with overdrive. I’ll let you know how things go in the process.

    #12174

    62cutlassconvert
    Participant

    Whichever of these trans you go with I think you’ll enjoy the change.

    When compared with the 700R4,4L60, and 2004R we went with the 200C as it is much lighter, smaller, takes less horsepower, has all the interfacing benefits you describe above, requires significantly less tunnel mods(which we heavily weighted), and will work with the stock linkage and console with miinor mods..

    Good luck with your mod, look forward to some pics.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 49 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

New Posts in the Forum

Recently Active

Profile picture of jensenracing77
Profile picture of Ken Dennison
Profile picture of Felix j garcia
Profile picture of perkinsrk1963
Profile picture of john-sage
Profile picture of ray arnold
Profile picture of 62 Cutlass Convert
Profile picture of Clint
Profile picture of ron
Profile picture of DeucePhaeton
Profile picture of Kelsey
Profile picture of matt zischkau
Profile picture of scott
Profile picture of mikepoe59
Profile picture of TheOtherDave

Who’s Online

There are no users currently online