Whats the easiest trans swap for 67 C/S S.B ?
June 22nd, 2012, 07:11 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fl
Posts: 188
Whats the easiest trans swap for 67 C/S S.B ?
I may be wrong but ive done some reading on my question as i dont want to be a pain. My 67 C/S has a 330/320 100% stock & is nothing but a Sunday cruiser at best, my racing days are over. That being said, what is the easiest least aggrevating trans to install behind my motor ? ( Closest to bolt right up ) The 2 speed jetaway just wont cut it even just being a sunday driver. I have the switch pitch set up but dont want the hassle of yanking it & trying to find someone to go through it & hopefully know how to fix it. Id rather keep the stock trans in storage & find a trans to swap out as easy as possible. My limited research looks like the 200-4R, am I correct ? Is it 100% exact bolt up or are there a few hurdles ? Thank you. 
June 22nd, 2012, 08:22 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Frisco Texas
Posts: 164
Your car probably has a 3.07 differential ratio, which is too high of a speed for an overdrive transmission. You need at least a 3.42-3.73 for an overdrive to operate correctly. The car has worked great for 45 years with the 3.07 and a non overdrive transmission and that is what I would stay with. It will still cruise at 70 mph with no problems. The easiest transmission to install would be a TH350 or TH400. Either one will work great with your 330. A TH400 doesn't need any cable connected to your carburetor, whereas a TH350 really needs a kickdown cable connected to the bottom of the carburetor lever. this increases pressure to the transmission on moderate throttle and also enables "passing gear". Both use a vacuum modulator and the TH400 uses vacuum for moderate kickdown, and an electric switch for full throttle kickdown. I have a 67 442 with 3.07 diff ratio, and a 63 Impala with a 3.08 ratio, and they both cruise just fine. I am not interested in going 80-120 mph in an old car anymore, Been There, Done That
June 22nd, 2012, 09:14 PM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fl
Posts: 188
Your car probably has a 3.07 differential ratio, which is too high of a speed for an overdrive transmission. You need at least a 3.42-3.73 for an overdrive to operate correctly. The car has worked great for 45 years with the 3.07 and a non overdrive transmission and that is what I would stay with. It will still cruise at 70 mph with no problems. The easiest transmission to install would be a TH350 or TH400. Either one will work great with your 330. A TH400 doesn't need any cable connected to your carburetor, whereas a TH350 really needs a kickdown cable connected to the bottom of the carburetor lever. this increases pressure to the transmission on moderate throttle and also enables "passing gear". Both use a vacuum modulator and the TH400 uses vacuum for moderate kickdown, and an electric switch for full throttle kickdown. I have a 67 442 with 3.07 diff ratio, and a 63 Impala with a 3.08 ratio, and they both cruise just fine. I am not interested in going 80-120 mph in an old car anymore, Been There, Done That
June 23rd, 2012, 06:38 PM
#4
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,472
Sorry, gotta disagree. My 84 Custom Cruiser came from the factory with a 200-4r, 2.78 rear gears, a pavement ripping 140 HP 307, and probably an extra 700 lbs on that 67. Never a problem in OD. I'll also point out that the 2.74:1 first gear in the 200-4R will really wake up the car as compared to the 1.76:1 first gear in the Junkaway.
June 23rd, 2012, 08:17 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Frisco Texas
Posts: 164
Sorry, gotta disagree. My 84 Custom Cruiser came from the factory with a 200-4r, 2.78 rear gears, a pavement ripping 140 HP 307, and probably an extra 700 lbs on that 67. Never a problem in OD. I'll also point out that the 2.74:1 first gear in the 200-4R will really wake up the car as compared to the 1.76:1 first gear in the Junkaway.
Charles
June 24th, 2012, 05:25 AM
#6
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fl
Posts: 188
Sorry, gotta disagree. My 84 Custom Cruiser came from the factory with a 200-4r, 2.78 rear gears, a pavement ripping 140 HP 307, and probably an extra 700 lbs on that 67. Never a problem in OD. I'll also point out that the 2.74:1 first gear in the 200-4R will really wake up the car as compared to the 1.76:1 first gear in the Junkaway.
That being said & knowing the knowledge u have in this field it just may be the way im gonna go... At this present time i just removed the right side exhaust manifold as the gaskets are shot & making old Rosie sound horrible. What a difference removing these with the wider bank angle compared to my Chebby's, these manifolds are almost looking at the ground. Todays job is to scrape it & clean it up, put it back on & strat on the left side...Thank u again.
June 24th, 2012, 05:28 AM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fl
Posts: 188
Joe, I know that your 84 did ok with the tall gears, but I believe that was because the engine was tuned (cam, compression, carb, valves etc) from the factory to do that. IMO, the older cars don't work as well due to the fact that were tuned to run at higher RPMs on the hiway and with a 3.07 ratio and overdrive, the net ratio would be 2.15. If I was contracted to repair his transmission, I would put in a 350, which has a 2.48 first gear and he would love driving it without spending a great deal of money. This is just my opinion.
Charles
Charles
June 24th, 2012, 06:35 AM
#8
Administrator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Poteau, Ok
Posts: 40,630
Joe, I know that your 84 did ok with the tall gears, but I believe that was because the engine was tuned (cam, compression, carb, valves etc) from the factory to do that. IMO, the older cars don't work as well due to the fact that were tuned to run at higher RPMs on the hiway and with a 3.07 ratio and overdrive, the net ratio would be 2.15. If I was contracted to repair his transmission, I would put in a 350, which has a 2.48 first gear and he would love driving it without spending a great deal of money. This is just my opinion.
Charles
Charles
June 24th, 2012, 08:57 AM
#9
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,472
Joe, I know that your 84 did ok with the tall gears, but I believe that was because the engine was tuned (cam, compression, carb, valves etc) from the factory to do that. IMO, the older cars don't work as well due to the fact that were tuned to run at higher RPMs on the hiway and with a 3.07 ratio and overdrive, the net ratio would be 2.15. If I was contracted to repair his transmission, I would put in a 350, which has a 2.48 first gear and he would love driving it without spending a great deal of money. This is just my opinion.
Charles
Charles
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept that a stock VIN Y 307 is capable of outperforming a 330 at under ANY conditions.
Just sayin'...
June 24th, 2012, 09:02 AM
#10
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,472
The reason the Olds manifolds appear lower and wider is the design of the heads. Olds used a more sharply curved exhaust port design that exits the heads lower than on a Chevy. This makes spark plug access much easier but is unfortunately the main reason why stock Olds heads flow more poorly than others. It's also why Edelbrock was able to improve exhaust flow in their aftermarket heads by making the ports SMALLER than stock - but straighter.
June 24th, 2012, 10:56 AM
#11
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fl
Posts: 188
Uh, the wider bank angle refers to the lifters and is totally inside the block. The cylinders are at the same 90 degree bank angle as any normal V8 (yes, I said "normal", lest someone point out the second-gen SHO motor as an example...).
The reason the Olds manifolds appear lower and wider is the design of the heads. Olds used a more sharply curved exhaust port design that exits the heads lower than on a Chevy. This makes spark plug access much easier but is unfortunately the main reason why stock Olds heads flow more poorly than others. It's also why Edelbrock was able to improve exhaust flow in their aftermarket heads by making the ports SMALLER than stock - but straighter.
The reason the Olds manifolds appear lower and wider is the design of the heads. Olds used a more sharply curved exhaust port design that exits the heads lower than on a Chevy. This makes spark plug access much easier but is unfortunately the main reason why stock Olds heads flow more poorly than others. It's also why Edelbrock was able to improve exhaust flow in their aftermarket heads by making the ports SMALLER than stock - but straighter.
July 29th, 2012, 01:01 PM
#12
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fl
Posts: 188
Uh, the wider bank angle refers to the lifters and is totally inside the block. The cylinders are at the same 90 degree bank angle as any normal V8 (yes, I said "normal", lest someone point out the second-gen SHO motor as an example...).
The reason the Olds manifolds appear lower and wider is the design of the heads. Olds used a more sharply curved exhaust port design that exits the heads lower than on a Chevy. This makes spark plug access much easier but is unfortunately the main reason why stock Olds heads flow more poorly than others. It's also why Edelbrock was able to improve exhaust flow in their aftermarket heads by making the ports SMALLER than stock - but straighter.
The reason the Olds manifolds appear lower and wider is the design of the heads. Olds used a more sharply curved exhaust port design that exits the heads lower than on a Chevy. This makes spark plug access much easier but is unfortunately the main reason why stock Olds heads flow more poorly than others. It's also why Edelbrock was able to improve exhaust flow in their aftermarket heads by making the ports SMALLER than stock - but straighter.
July 29th, 2012, 02:31 PM
#13
Kickin' It Oldschool
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
Posts: 422
I'm going to swap in a 3.23 or 3.42 in my 85, it's stock with a 2.78 atm. The 307 is for sure a low end power motor, so putting a shorter gear in it with the 2004R trans should get it off the line a bit faster. Go with a 3.08 if you want to keep decent MPG, really you could go up to 3.42 and stay decent on the MPG.
August 10th, 2012, 02:21 AM
#14
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fl
Posts: 188
I'm going to swap in a 3.23 or 3.42 in my 85, it's stock with a 2.78 atm. The 307 is for sure a low end power motor, so putting a shorter gear in it with the 2004R trans should get it off the line a bit faster. Go with a 3.08 if you want to keep decent MPG, really you could go up to 3.42 and stay decent on the MPG.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RandyS
Drivetrain/Differentials
9
October 3rd, 2014 04:21 AM
1Fastolds
Ninety-Eight
2
June 9th, 2014 09:12 PM
