Back to back comparison of Th350 and Metric 200???

[Ed Wright]

I would expect the only legit comparrison would be with the same gear ratios. You can get about any ratio you want for a T350 now.

[Bob Mulry]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

That's what I'm getting at Greg.

Compare the Metric 200 to a 350 with aluminum forward and direct drums, lightened front and rear planetaries, a 250C sun gear shell, a gun drilled output shaft, and all roller thrust bearings.

I've seen a lot of claims about ET reduction of various transmissions. I can tell you that I built a killer 350 for a well known and successful Stock Eliminator racer a few years back. A couple of years or so later, he was told that a certain high dollar transmission would be 0.07 to 0.12 faster. He spent a lot of money, and he may have knocked 0.03 or so off of his ET. It was a big block car with fairly high HP, about 3700 pounds or so.

And don't forget the extra $500 for the 2.75 low gear set for a TH-350, which comes as a 2.74 low gear as standard on a TH-200......

Aluminum direct & forward drums, a 2.75 low gear and the lightening of the gear sets make this a more expensive trans than the TH-200.

Just my thoughts,
Bob

[Alan Roehrich]

That assumes you want or need the 2.75 low, which is not always the case. And if you don't want the 2.75, you have to go with a custom gear set for the 200.

If the 200 is not substantially faster, then the only advantage would be cost, and with the added durability of the 350, it becomes a wash. We've got the same stuff on the 350 that has been in it since 2007, for a lot of passes.

The 200 is not that much cheaper if you need or want the bigger input shaft and stator shaft, so you can use the turbo converter and/or need the strength.

The 200 is not a tenth faster than a really good 350 in many cars, I talked to Scott McClay about it, and I'd say he knows as much or more about it than anyone. The more power the engine has, the smaller the ET reduction, and the heavier the car, the shorter the lifespan. For example, Scott told me that in our big block Camaro, he'd expect no more than 0.03 quicker with his best 200 vs my 350, at best. Thomas Arnett and I have talked about it for a while now, he's not sure he could get more than 0.03, either, he runs a 200 in his car, similar to ours. We've been meaning to try it.

[FLEMING]

I guess I need to see whats in the th350 then... it is a turbo action piece I know that much.. Its a low horsepower mid 70's 350 combo (i think 185hp)... I have a 4.88 in my car do I need to go 5.13? I have NEVER ran anything other than a powerglide so this is going to be interesting going from a 1.80 low gear to a 2.5+ first gear.. lol

[philbilly]

Not quite a tenth in the crate motor car Steve. That is using the same converter. Most can't switch the converters. It's about another grand to get the metric to take a turbo converter.
On a side note reverse is really week.

If your going to spend money on a really good T350, lightning, low pressure, pump and VB, aluminum drums throughout, you might as well buy a pro trans.
The 200 close to stock form, is at least a .10 faster than a 350, unless the 350 gets 4k worth of upgrades.

There are 200's in everything from comp cars to stockers these days. They are very reliable, and durable. For a lower power stocker it should be a win - win.

[j gardiner]

I went from a t350 with a 2.75 low gear and no lightweight parts to a t200 and saw only about a .02 difference after subtracting the weight difference. I also changed the convertor witch adds a variable. This was behind an olds engine.

[5389stk]

My experience, mcclay 200 w/turbo input vs 350 2.75 low, light drums 67 impala, 396/325 at 4270 pds . Same track ,same converter, same day, da with in 150 ft ,,t350 11.86..11.87 ..11.87 ..[.t200.]..11.73...11.74 ..11.73. . 200 .13 to.14 better . Trans was used in 427 b/sa chevelle for 5 years when i bought it. Replaced low gear clutches, updated pump in 08 . Been perfect till blew u-joint last year cracked case not trans fault.