4L60E vs. 200R4
01-02-2008, 03:42 PM
#1
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Montgomery, AL.
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4L60E vs. 200R4 Having run both turbo and N2O cars for many years I have had a wide varity of transmissions. I have owned a couple of 10 second Turbo Buicks and know that the 200R4 trannys can be built to take allot of abuse. As such my question is why and what is it about the 4L60E that causes it to fail at a power rating much lower than say a good built 200R4? I know of many mid to low 9 second GNs that still use 200R4s. One would think that with the technology available today that the 4L60E and 4L65E would be able to be built to take the same amount of abuse and not leave one having to decide between a 4L80E, 200R4 or a TH400. Do any of the experts here foresee the 4L60E being able to take the abuse of its older cousin anytime in the near future if properly built. I have a 4L65E SSF from TCI but am now leary of putting it in behind my turbo motor. I may just stick the TH400 that I have in it and be done. I sure hate to do that though.
Jim C.
Jim C.
01-03-2008, 10:54 AM
#4
I'm interested to know about your experience with the 200r4's. Point being any 200 taking serious hits and running strong that I am aware of is an awfully expensive unit. Meaning, there were no significant factory upgrades but many aftermarket components available. The 200 is no punk, by any means! But, after they are built to take severe punishment they are basically a hybrid unit that vaguely resembles the original assy.
The 60 and 65 have come a long ways in the last few years. Aftermarket shafts are available, they have a larger sungear and input sprag than the 200 which uses a small diameter spring and roller clutch setup. The input shaft is physically a larger diameter in the 60 seriews vs the 200. It has a deeper launch gear as well. Personally, I would not have a problem running a well built 65 behind a turbo setup.
The v6 turbos are not know for massive torque on the low end, rather they make their power on the top end. Today's LSx combinations make gobs of torque down low, comparitively speaking, and that gets the hard parts into trouble. The high rpm combinations make for soft parts issues... there are centrifugal issues that need to be addressed.
This is a very good subject... and one that could prove to be highly debatable! Good question.
At the end of the day, knowing what I know about both units, I would not hesitate to run a very well built 4L65E behind my turbo application.
Hope that helps.
g
The 60 and 65 have come a long ways in the last few years. Aftermarket shafts are available, they have a larger sungear and input sprag than the 200 which uses a small diameter spring and roller clutch setup. The input shaft is physically a larger diameter in the 60 seriews vs the 200. It has a deeper launch gear as well. Personally, I would not have a problem running a well built 65 behind a turbo setup.
The v6 turbos are not know for massive torque on the low end, rather they make their power on the top end. Today's LSx combinations make gobs of torque down low, comparitively speaking, and that gets the hard parts into trouble. The high rpm combinations make for soft parts issues... there are centrifugal issues that need to be addressed.
This is a very good subject... and one that could prove to be highly debatable! Good question.
At the end of the day, knowing what I know about both units, I would not hesitate to run a very well built 4L65E behind my turbo application.
Hope that helps.
g
01-03-2008, 02:57 PM
#6
"The v6 turbos are not know for massive torque on the low end, rather they make their power on the top end." If you are having 60 foot times in the 1.4's and lower, you are making torque. I had a few shops in the 1990's that made comparison tests between the 700R4 and the 2004R units. To make the tests fair they both used the same torque converter with 27 splines, that way you would see what difference the transmission change made in terms of ET and MPH. Three shops with basically the same results, the 2004R was quicker by a tenth and faster by one mile per hour on the average. These were high eleven to mid twelve vehicles. It did not take much for them to go in the mid nines in GN's, but they were good for only 125-150 runs before they twisted the shaft in the input drum, or other weaknesses that showed up that needed to be addressed. The advantages were a closer gear ratio spread, and a lighter gear train. Disadvantages, they were discontinued long ago, and with the available parts sometimes hard to find and expensive. By time you get done with the 2004R, you have spent a lot.... With the 700R4/4L60E everything that is needed to make these units hold up is available, and with no signs of it being discontinued in the near future.
01-03-2008, 03:32 PM
#7
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Montgomery, AL.
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right off the top of my head I can think of several people running mid to low 9's with the 200R4 unit without it being a hybrid. Among them are Red Armstrong's GN, Jane Armstrong's Turbo T (10.0's), Bob Hinson's GN and several others within the TSE and TSL classes. How much do I know about transmissions; not much but I do know several of my friends that have Lonnie Diers and or Bruce Toelle build their 200R4 as they are both fellow GN guys and these unit take a buttload of abuse. They also make a good bit of torque down low, I know several of them that are making more than 700-ft.lbs at or around 4000-rpm including the ones listed above. My point is that I have run a 200R4 behind a N2O powered small block ford that ran 9.90's and it held up very well but I don't feel as comfortable doing the same with the 4L65E considering how many of them are being swapped in favor of other transmissions. A GN and LS1 are very close in weight and if the 200R4's can hold up in a 3600-lb GN running mid nines why can't a properly built 4L60 or 65E? They would appear to be like unicorns in that you always hear about them but never see one. Don't get me wrong I love the 4L60 series trans I am just wondering what it is about them that doesn't allow them to take the same amount of abuse. If they do then why aren't more folks running em? I would love to know that the one in the box at my shop is going to allow me to make many 9 second passes in my 3600-lb LS1 but I don't want to end up spending over $1000.00 just to have it rebuilt on top of the $2600.00 purchase price when I find out I was wrong. On top of that having to stick the TH400 and ATI convertor in the car to replace it. Hence my original question. Please don't think me a smartazz but more-so asking direct questions because I would rather have the 4L65E TCI SSF in my car than sitting in the shop.
As a side note we just dynoed Bob Hinson's GN (TSE Class) and the RWHP was in the low 700 range and the RWTQ was in the mid 700 range with a non L/U convertor. The car with him in it weighs a little over 3700-lbs and runs 9.40's. Red's car weighs very close to the same and it runs 9.30's@150. Red's car runs a L/U convertor and a non hybrid 200R4. I am very interested in why they are able to do so with their trans but we are not with ours. Thanks again.
Jim C.
As a side note we just dynoed Bob Hinson's GN (TSE Class) and the RWHP was in the low 700 range and the RWTQ was in the mid 700 range with a non L/U convertor. The car with him in it weighs a little over 3700-lbs and runs 9.40's. Red's car weighs very close to the same and it runs 9.30's@150. Red's car runs a L/U convertor and a non hybrid 200R4. I am very interested in why they are able to do so with their trans but we are not with ours. Thanks again.
Jim C.
Last edited by Big Geek; 01-03-2008 at 03:59 PM.
Trending Topics
01-03-2008, 03:42 PM
#8
Well the weakest links I see in the 4l60e Is the limited 3-4 clutch area. Restricted by the way it was engineered and the aluminum input drum it self. The 2004r has stamped steel drums and rather large 3rd clutch area. But at the same time you have to look a sheer numbers and I think thats really where the 4l60e gets bad rap .
The 2004R only had a relativly short and limited run it was in some early impalas and other luxury cars the monte carlo ss no power house and the GN (sweet car in its day) but there were only so many of them built,
Where the 700r4/4l60e series has been used in virtually every GM car and light to mid duty truck since 1982 to present. So you get into a numbers game are there 4L60E cars runnng in the low tens and nines? certainly and holding up well. In fact there are many mnay more of these in cars runnig that fast then there are 2004Rs. Now simply by this logic you are certainly going to hear about more failures of the 700R4/4L60E than you will the 2004R . I have built and raced both. Both can be built to be very capable. The 2004R with billet parts at great expense can indeed exceed the 4L60E. From my experince with each using the stock drums etc, They can be built pretty equally I would say. And I imagine If you could set up a test feild with equal numbers of cars the failure rates would likley be very close to the same. I personally like building the 2004R its interesting the way its laid out. but I also remember back when it too had a bad name it was the low dog beside the 700r4 in the early days when they were both new and pretty much equally out there. As for the 4L60E I think its definatley superior in that its a tunable system.
But I think as with alotta things the shear numbers are deceiving , For instance in this forum one company might be the largest converter seller 10 to 1 over the smaller guy yet since the larger guy sells more naturally he will have more failures and it will be perceived that this product is inferior to the less sold product because you wont see so many failures. So its all about perception , I think they are both good trans, Would I like to see some improvments in hard parts like the input drum and 3-4 clutch space in the 60e certainly but still for every one that breaks there are literally 100s out there that dont. IMO
The 2004R only had a relativly short and limited run it was in some early impalas and other luxury cars the monte carlo ss no power house and the GN (sweet car in its day) but there were only so many of them built,
Where the 700r4/4l60e series has been used in virtually every GM car and light to mid duty truck since 1982 to present. So you get into a numbers game are there 4L60E cars runnng in the low tens and nines? certainly and holding up well. In fact there are many mnay more of these in cars runnig that fast then there are 2004Rs. Now simply by this logic you are certainly going to hear about more failures of the 700R4/4L60E than you will the 2004R . I have built and raced both. Both can be built to be very capable. The 2004R with billet parts at great expense can indeed exceed the 4L60E. From my experince with each using the stock drums etc, They can be built pretty equally I would say. And I imagine If you could set up a test feild with equal numbers of cars the failure rates would likley be very close to the same. I personally like building the 2004R its interesting the way its laid out. but I also remember back when it too had a bad name it was the low dog beside the 700r4 in the early days when they were both new and pretty much equally out there. As for the 4L60E I think its definatley superior in that its a tunable system.
But I think as with alotta things the shear numbers are deceiving , For instance in this forum one company might be the largest converter seller 10 to 1 over the smaller guy yet since the larger guy sells more naturally he will have more failures and it will be perceived that this product is inferior to the less sold product because you wont see so many failures. So its all about perception , I think they are both good trans, Would I like to see some improvments in hard parts like the input drum and 3-4 clutch space in the 60e certainly but still for every one that breaks there are literally 100s out there that dont. IMO
__________________
Last edited by performabuilt; 01-03-2008 at 04:40 PM.
01-03-2008, 04:28 PM
#9
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Montgomery, AL.
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the weakest links I see in the 4l60e Is the limited 3-4 clutch area. Restricted buy the way it was engineered and the aluminum input drum it self. The 2004r has stamped steel drums and rather large 3rd clutch area. But at the same time you have to look a sheer numbers and I think thats really where the 4l60e gets bad rap .
The 2004R only had a relativly short and limited run it was in some early impalas and other luxury cars the monte carlo ss no power house and the GN (sweet car in its day) but there were only so many of them built,
Where the 700r4/4l60e series has been used in virtually every GM car and light to mid duty truck since 1982 to present. So you get into a numbers game are there 4L60E cars runnng in the low tens and nines? certainly and holding up well. In fact there are many mnay more of these in cars runnig that fast then there are 2004Rs. Now simply by this logic you are certainly going to hear about more failures of the 700R4/4L60E than you will the 2004R . I have built and raced both. Both can be built to be very capable. The 2004R with billet parts at great expense can indeed exceed the 4L60E. From my experince with each using the stock drums etc, They can be built pretty equally I would say. And I imagine If you could set up a test feild with equal numbers of cars the failure rates would likley be very close to the same. I personally like building the 2004R its interesting the way its laid out. but I also remember back when it too had a bad name it was the low dog beside the 700r4 in the early days when they were both new and pretty much equally out there. As for the 4L60E I think its definatley superior in that its a tunable system.
But I think as with alotta things the shear numbers are deceiving , For instance in this forum one company might be the largest converter seller 10 to 1 over the smaller guy yet since the larger guy sells more naturally he will have more failures and it will be perceived that this product is inferior to the less sold product because you wont see so many failures. So its all about perception , I think they are both good trans, Would I like to see some improvments in hard parts like the input drum and 3-4 clutch space in the 60e certainly but still for every one that breaks there are literally 100s out there that dont. IMO
The 2004R only had a relativly short and limited run it was in some early impalas and other luxury cars the monte carlo ss no power house and the GN (sweet car in its day) but there were only so many of them built,
Where the 700r4/4l60e series has been used in virtually every GM car and light to mid duty truck since 1982 to present. So you get into a numbers game are there 4L60E cars runnng in the low tens and nines? certainly and holding up well. In fact there are many mnay more of these in cars runnig that fast then there are 2004Rs. Now simply by this logic you are certainly going to hear about more failures of the 700R4/4L60E than you will the 2004R . I have built and raced both. Both can be built to be very capable. The 2004R with billet parts at great expense can indeed exceed the 4L60E. From my experince with each using the stock drums etc, They can be built pretty equally I would say. And I imagine If you could set up a test feild with equal numbers of cars the failure rates would likley be very close to the same. I personally like building the 2004R its interesting the way its laid out. but I also remember back when it too had a bad name it was the low dog beside the 700r4 in the early days when they were both new and pretty much equally out there. As for the 4L60E I think its definatley superior in that its a tunable system.
But I think as with alotta things the shear numbers are deceiving , For instance in this forum one company might be the largest converter seller 10 to 1 over the smaller guy yet since the larger guy sells more naturally he will have more failures and it will be perceived that this product is inferior to the less sold product because you wont see so many failures. So its all about perception , I think they are both good trans, Would I like to see some improvments in hard parts like the input drum and 3-4 clutch space in the 60e certainly but still for every one that breaks there are literally 100s out there that dont. IMO
Jim C.
Last edited by Big Geek; 01-03-2008 at 04:34 PM.
01-03-2008, 04:33 PM
#10
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Montgomery, AL.
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm interested to know about your experience with the 200r4's. Point being any 200 taking serious hits and running strong that I am aware of is an awfully expensive unit. Meaning, there were no significant factory upgrades but many aftermarket components available. The 200 is no punk, by any means! But, after they are built to take severe punishment they are basically a hybrid unit that vaguely resembles the original assy.
The 60 and 65 have come a long ways in the last few years. Aftermarket shafts are available, they have a larger sungear and input sprag than the 200 which uses a small diameter spring and roller clutch setup. The input shaft is physically a larger diameter in the 60 seriews vs the 200. It has a deeper launch gear as well. Personally, I would not have a problem running a well built 65 behind a turbo setup.
The v6 turbos are not know for massive torque on the low end, rather they make their power on the top end. Today's LSx combinations make gobs of torque down low, comparitively speaking, and that gets the hard parts into trouble. The high rpm combinations make for soft parts issues... there are centrifugal issues that need to be addressed.
This is a very good subject... and one that could prove to be highly debatable! Good question.
At the end of the day, knowing what I know about both units, I would not hesitate to run a very well built 4L65E behind my turbo application.
Hope that helps.
g
The 60 and 65 have come a long ways in the last few years. Aftermarket shafts are available, they have a larger sungear and input sprag than the 200 which uses a small diameter spring and roller clutch setup. The input shaft is physically a larger diameter in the 60 seriews vs the 200. It has a deeper launch gear as well. Personally, I would not have a problem running a well built 65 behind a turbo setup.
The v6 turbos are not know for massive torque on the low end, rather they make their power on the top end. Today's LSx combinations make gobs of torque down low, comparitively speaking, and that gets the hard parts into trouble. The high rpm combinations make for soft parts issues... there are centrifugal issues that need to be addressed.
This is a very good subject... and one that could prove to be highly debatable! Good question.
At the end of the day, knowing what I know about both units, I would not hesitate to run a very well built 4L65E behind my turbo application.
Hope that helps.
g
Jim C.
01-03-2008, 05:39 PM
#12
Jim it was nice speaking to you today, thanks for the call. It always is a pleasure visiting with other folks who enjoy hot rods as much as I do.
I like the idea of you sticking with what you have for the time being. I do hope it works out for you. And of course if it does not then just call me and we'll put that plan we spoke about into place.
Good luck and Happy New Year to you as well.
g
I like the idea of you sticking with what you have for the time being. I do hope it works out for you. And of course if it does not then just call me and we'll put that plan we spoke about into place.
Good luck and Happy New Year to you as well.
g
01-03-2008, 08:54 PM
#13
The only real way to know which is best, would be to come up with a real world percentage failure rate and that would be almost impossible. My car won't get close to a 9 second quarter, but the tranny has taken some abuse for 5 years and still works perfect. Of course it's not the type of abuse that a high hp car would be giving it.
