Marcus18 Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 What kind of transmission is in the (80's)RWD Grand prix? I know where one is sitting. are they any good? I think it's a v8 car though. Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPRACER Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Could be one of three TH350 3 speed TH700R4 4-speed TH2004R 4 speed I've even seen 3 speed manuals in some of the early '80s G-bodies. Chances are if it's a 3 speed it's the TH 350, If it's the 4 speed it's probably the 200 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaPaPooh Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Could be one of three TH350 3 speed TH700R4 4-speed TH2004R 4 speed I've even seen 3 speed manuals in some of the early '80s G-bodies. Chances are if it's a 3 speed it's the TH 350, If it's the 4 speed it's probably the 200 olds and pontiacs did not get chevy trans they cant be those i can't remember off the top of my head what they where but i know they are not chevy trans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob95CS Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Just like just about every other GM full size car of the day, I know the powertrain options were: 3.8L V6 5.0L V8 (305 or 307 cid... in this case, it would be a 305) 5.7L Diesel V8 (350 cid) As for the transmissions behind them, I haven't a clue, but maybe that'll help you narrow it down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaroonRegal Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Just like just about every other GM full size car of the day, I know the powertrain options were: 3.8L V6 5.0L V8 (305 or 307 cid... in this case, it would be a 305) 5.7L Diesel V8 (350 cid) As for the transmissions behind them, I haven't a clue, but maybe that'll help you narrow it down? 5.7L Diesel...in a G-Body? I'm sure they were available with a Gasoline 350, but I kinda doubt they put Diesels in them...it's not a Mercedes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99RegalGS Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Diesel=good fuel economy remember this was the 80's fuel economy was the thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaroonRegal Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 I'm still awfully skeptical. I know there is a GM 5.7L Diesel, but I don't see why they would use it in a passenger car. Also, the gasoline 350 is and always has been one of GMs best engines...are you sure they didn't use it? Even if they did use the Diesel, I bet they used the gasoline as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99RegalGS Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 I think the 350 diesel was an Olds engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob95CS Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 The 350 Diesel was an Olds engine, but GM optioned them into a lot of passenger cars. The Olds Cutlass Supreme, Buick LeSabre and Regal, and Pontiac GP all had the option for sure, and I'm sure GM's other full size cars did too. It was 3.8, 5.0, or 5.7 Diesel. No gasoline 350s in these cars. Look it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaroonRegal Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 I'll believe you. I wonder why they didn't put the 350 in them then? The Regal didn't need it, because of the GN, but I think they should have used it in the others. GMs 5.0 V8s leave something to be desired, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob95CS Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 The 5.0L engines leave A LOT to be desired. My last car was an '84 LeSabre, 307 V8. Also drove an '86 Cutlass w/ the same setup. My W-Body can drive circles around both of them! I'm sure they might've been better with better gearing. I think they both had 2.14 gears in the rear. Something close to that, at least. Talk about SLOW! Plus, I believe these engines were only rated at or around 140 HP stock. That's just sad for a V8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99RegalGS Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 The mid 80's 5.0 HO was a decent engine @ 190 hp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob95CS Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 I wonder why they didn't put the 350 in them then? Didn't see this before. Maybe GM didn't want these cars competing with their higher performance Caddilac sedans and coupes? Plus, I'm sure base cost and fuel consumption were an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1badtgp Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Actually, the GM trans's in that era had the same designations. The only difference in the trans is the bellhousing. They had a designationof standard(chevy) or BPO(buick pontiac oldsmobile). More than likely it's a 200-r4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaroonRegal Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Actually, the GM trans's in that era had the same designations. The only difference in the trans is the bellhousing. They had a designationof standard(chevy) or BPO(buick pontiac oldsmobile). More than likely it's a 200-r4 WooHoo!! Someone answered the initial question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaPaPooh Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 ok here is a cross reference guide ther was no 700r4 offered but the th350 was untill 83 on some some 80-83 got the th250 some 77-87 where the th200 http://www.drivetrain.com/autotranscrossref.html#PONTIAC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fast68 Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 yes, 2004r actually most of them didnt have straight up chevy pattern, most of them had 10 bolt hole pattern, in which was both chevy and also pont/olds/buick/caddy pattern whoever said above that 2004r and such are just chevy trannies doesnt know much about GM and yeah the diesel was 350 and was olds and compression was 22:1 and you could convert them over to gas engine with gas heads, were in the early 80s cars like caprices and delta88's theres probably alot of engines and trannies that most of you guys here dotn have a clue about, anyoen know of the 267 V-8 ? no, not the 4.3L, and not the 265 either. 267 was a smaller chevy 305 engine used for about three years late 70s to early 80s in the full size cars and monzas and such, junk smogger engine. heard of the thm375-B ? th425 ? th475 ? they all exist. theres more . 200r4 was with the 307 engine in the regal alot i know, thm200-c mainly in the 82 83 B and F bodies and a few later 80s B-bodies for a couple years for some wierd reason. the 2004r is a quick way to get overdrive into a 72-older truck because back then the (292 and larger engine) th350 and three speeds were short tail length, was a direct swap 73-up trucks all got longer trannies, 3" longer, some of the mid 70s B-body wagons got th350 with 12" tail shaft housing, its crazy. truck one is only 9" tail, car 6" tail. good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.