3spd vs. 2spd auto...

[SLOWZ]

Any of the race guys running a 2spd auto(powerglide?) figure most would be running a powerglide if running a 2spd, but don't know if ford has an equivalent. anyways, at what point did you decide to go to that setup? anyone ever just drove one on the street? any comparisons to how a 3spd setup drives besides just "one less shift"?

Chris

[NO CHANCE]

Well from a racing standpoint, the premier Ford 3-speed, the C4 can/does go deep into the 8's, I cant offer much in the way of theory here, but I have driven powerglide cars :rockon:

[Greg@GLD]

I had one back when I was younger. The gear ratios aren't as favorable for torque as a TH400 is. There's a drop-off when you go from low to high that's not favorable versus having three gears.

[Nick 1]

I have a friend with a 460 in a Capri. He had a C-6 & switched to a powerglide. In his case the car ran about the same @ the track. It was a little quicker with the glide. Also seemed a little better on the street with the glide. Maybe the converter was a little off in the C-6. Full throttle on the street produced tire smoke in all 3 gears till it hit the rev limiter. The glide made it a little more drivable in his case. Hope that helps.

[RSNovi]

One nice thing about the Powerglide is that it typically takes considerably less power to turn then other types of transmissions inherently by design. Although, as Greg mentioned, only having 2 gears can be a disadvantage.

When it comes to huge horsepower applications that the C4 can't handle, then the Powerglide is the way to go.

[Cobrawife]

My experience with this topic goes back to the days of turbo 400's, when I was a GM weenie. At the level of power most of us were at, the T400 was the hot ticket. If your car came with a 'glide (like say in a Tempest) going to a Turbo 400 was big step up, the spreadout of the gears was desireable. It was the same thing with 3-speed manuals. Everybody wanted a 4-speed for the gear spacing... One could argue that the less shifting you have to do in a 1/4 mile, the better though. :D

:greg: posting on wifey's laptop!

[SLOWZ]

Thanks for the info guys. There are arguments that go both ways in this situation. Read so much on both aspects that it's hard to go one way or the other in terms of my own thinking. The biggest plus like what was mentioned was the less power to turn the trans. Read somewhere like 8-10hp to turn the trans compared to maybe 20-25 with the TH400 setup. Thanks guys. any other info/theory/fact is greatly appreciated. haha ;)

[NO CHANCE]

Not sure why you might consider this though, there have been a ton of Late model/Electronic trans advancements for the GM camp.

TH400/Powerglide application in late models are for high HP/drag applications. If you are sub-600 rwhp, I wouldn't even consider either of these trans for a 99 Z.

[SLOWZ]

if i was sub 600rwhp

Built TH400 that i know will last a long time - $900

BUILT 4L60E that MIGHT take the nitrous hit - $2500

I've seen sub 500rwhp cars blow up 4L60e's. Also, no transbrake is an issue with what i want to do.

BUT then there is the 200R4 swaps, built to handle everything, have a transbrake, blah blah blah - $3500+ for the swap

gas mileage has never been a concern for me. and it would be over 600RWHP with the juice anyways.

Chris

[dave bandt]

This is my experience......a C4 can be built to handle 1000HP but reliability becomes an issue once you get around 700. I ran C4's for close to 10 years. At the end I never had reliability issues in a 2900 pound car running 10.30's n/a. I did have to freshen it every year at that level, though. I made the switch to a glide when i started spraying my motors because i knew a C4 wouldn't last long. As far as maintenance goes, a C4 gets spendy whereas a glide will easily handle the HP and be cheaper to build/maintain. The drawback to the glide is that you need lots of torque an/or a light car because of the tall low gear.....1.76/1.82 low in a glide versus 2.76 in a C4. I had a glide in my first hot rod street car.....a 68 Camaro. It was a turd out of the hole. I don't think a glide in a street car would be fun unless you were making HUGE power.....and then you wouldn't drive it much on the street anyway. But this is just my opinion.....

[Greg@GLD]

The drawback to the glide is that you need lots of torque an/or a light car because of the tall low gear.....1.76/1.82 low in a glide versus 2.76 in a C4. I had a glide in my first hot rod street car.....a 68 Camaro. It was a turd out of the hole. I don't think a glide in a street car would be fun unless you were making HUGE power.....and then you wouldn't drive it much on the street anyway. But this is just my opinion.....


Dave, you seem to be validating what I was trying to say about the gear ratios in the 'Glide. My experience was the same, but this was years and years ago..

[1slo5.0]

2.76 in a C4


2.46 buddy

2.46/1.46/1.00

:flg:

[dave bandt]

2.46 buddy

2.46/1.46/1.00

:flg:


Yeah....you're right. It's been 4 years since i ran one and i'm a litlle rusty! My bad.

[1slo5.0]

Yeah....you're right. It's been 4 years since i ran one and i'm a litlle rusty! My bad.



old age attacks the memory first........... :p

[Greg@GLD]

old age attacks the memory first........... :p



I'll vouch for that statement!!!

[dave bandt]

old age attacks the memory first........... :p

Not according to the Viagara commercials!!!!! :D

[bod89lx]

I would say from that in a big power small tire car go with a glide, but for smaller power (700 RWHP or less) the C4 would be your best bet.

[DRK]

I would say from that in a big power small tire car go with a glide, but for smaller power (700 RWHP or less) the C4 would be your best bet.

:worshippy :worshippy :worshippy :worshippy :worshippy :worshippy