Turbo 250 or 350

VORTECPRO · 03-26-2010, 09:18 PM

In the process of building a 68 chevelle 396/325 for G/SA. My first question is how much quicker is a metric 200 than a light weight turbo 350. Has anyone kept records on 8 inch torque converter weights minus fluids? Is there anyone out there that has raced this combination or has been next to one of these cars and can recall 60 ft times, any information would be helpful, thanks Mark

Alan Roehrich · 03-26-2010, 09:50 PM

A 250 is the same basic transmission as a 350, except the 250 uses a band for second gear, instead of clutches and a sprag. I don't think the second gear band in a 250 will hold. And besides, it wouldn't be any quicker.

Are you sure you don't want to compare a 200 Metric to a 350?

VORTECPRO · 03-27-2010, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

A 250 is the same basic transmission as a 350, except the 250 uses a band for second gear, instead of clutches and a sprag. I don't think the second gear band in a 250 will hold. And besides, it wouldn't be any quicker.

Are you sure you don't want to compare a 200 Metric to a 350?

Thanks for the correction, the metric 200 is the trans I was thinking about. The thread has been edited.

Robert Swartz · 03-27-2010, 06:44 AM

This is just a "FWIT" answer. I really thought I wanted a Metric 200 for my project. There are a lot them in stockers now.

Someone might sway my opinion on this but, from talking with a couple different racers, they may not be as great as they seem. They have been described to me as being "fragile". As in requiring the transmission to need to be freshend between 50-150 passes. Here again, take it as a comment, I'm passing along second hand information.

I'm going with the t-350 on my crate motor project. Down the road, once I get the car running and established. I may look at a metric-200 again.

Alan Roehrich · 03-27-2010, 07:51 AM

If you want to run a 200, there are only a few people who build them well enough. Two of them I am familiar with are Scott McClay and Thomas Arnett. There are others, but those two guys build a 200 that will hold up to MOST Stock Eliminator cars. And yes, they are a little faster than a 350, even a really light 350.

FED 387 · 03-27-2010, 09:01 AM

It is my understanding that a 350 has almost the same external dimensions as the Glide, uses 15-17 more HP just to turn the transmission than a Glide and a 350 weighs a little bit more than a glide(maybe 15-20 pounds) and you cannot use a 350 with an engine that revs over like 7000 rpm( they want to self destruct). BUT you do get that extra gear in there!!!
Now a Metric 200 has the lite weight of a Glide, you can spin the engine well over 7000 RPM like a glide , it takes about the same amount of HP to turn the trans as a Glide AND you get the benefit of the extra gear. Its weak point is UNLESS it is really beefed up it will self destruct on its own at low RPM , in a heavy vehicle, in normal everyday street use that's why GM stopped using them.
Unless you are looking to extract the last thousandth out of your car--you do not either want the hassle of the maintainence or have the ability to do trans work you might be better to go with a 350 til you hit that plateau in your level of performance where you feel you could use the extra gear that both transmissions over---Comp 387

Bill Grubbs · 03-27-2010, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FED 387

you cannot use a 350 with an engine that revs over like 7000 rpm( they want to self destruct).

We routinely hit 7800-8200 with a TuboAction T-350, and have not had any problems in 8+ years of using them. We do however freshen them up every 200-300 runs.

FED 387 · 03-27-2010, 09:29 AM

Bill---every one has their success story---yours is one of them---I'm by no means any kind of an expert on 200 vs 350 transmissions---Only that not very many if any of the Comp guys are using a 350----lotsa proflites /glides and some 200 but only ony guy I know of is/has been using a 350 and he is doing the R&D as a test vehicle for a racing trans company we all know---Comp 387

Kenny Wigington · 03-27-2010, 10:40 AM

I have been very pleased with my TurboAction 200. Paul, in my opinion, is the man for those !

Alan Roehrich · 03-27-2010, 12:04 PM

Nope, a 350 will not explode at RPM in excess of 7000. I've built them since 1984, and never seen one explode, and that includes a lot of race transmissions.

Nothing explodes like a TorqueFlite!!!!!!!

03-26-2010, 09:18 PM	#1
VORTECPRO Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Colorado/California Posts: 8 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Turbo 250 or 350 In the process of building a 68 chevelle 396/325 for G/SA. My first question is how much quicker is a metric 200 than a light weight turbo 350. Has anyone kept records on 8 inch torque converter weights minus fluids? Is there anyone out there that has raced this combination or has been next to one of these cars and can recall 60 ft times, any information would be helpful, thanks Mark Last edited by VORTECPRO; 03-27-2010 at 06:06 AM.

03-26-2010, 09:50 PM	#2
Alan Roehrich Veteran Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Murfreesboro TN Posts: 5,097 Likes: 1,542 Liked 1,775 Times in 404 Posts	Re: Turbo 250 or 350 A 250 is the same basic transmission as a 350, except the 250 uses a band for second gear, instead of clutches and a sprag. I don't think the second gear band in a 250 will hold. And besides, it wouldn't be any quicker. Are you sure you don't want to compare a 200 Metric to a 350? __________________ Alan Roehrich 212A G/S

03-27-2010, 06:44 AM	#4
Robert Swartz Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Nineveh, Indiana Posts: 512 Likes: 0 Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Turbo 250 or 350 This is just a "FWIT" answer. I really thought I wanted a Metric 200 for my project. There are a lot them in stockers now. Someone might sway my opinion on this but, from talking with a couple different racers, they may not be as great as they seem. They have been described to me as being "fragile". As in requiring the transmission to need to be freshend between 50-150 passes. Here again, take it as a comment, I'm passing along second hand information. I'm going with the t-350 on my crate motor project. Down the road, once I get the car running and established. I may look at a metric-200 again. __________________ Robert Swartz - Swartz & Lane 66 Chevy II Pro 95 Achieva EF/SA, 78 Mustang II U/SA (work in progress) #354 stock

03-27-2010, 07:51 AM	#5
Alan Roehrich Veteran Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Murfreesboro TN Posts: 5,097 Likes: 1,542 Liked 1,775 Times in 404 Posts	Re: Turbo 250 or 350 If you want to run a 200, there are only a few people who build them well enough. Two of them I am familiar with are Scott McClay and Thomas Arnett. There are others, but those two guys build a 200 that will hold up to MOST Stock Eliminator cars. And yes, they are a little faster than a 350, even a really light 350. __________________ Alan Roehrich 212A G/S

03-27-2010, 09:01 AM	#6
FED 387 VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,410 Likes: 507 Liked 329 Times in 177 Posts	Re: Turbo 250 or 350 It is my understanding that a 350 has almost the same external dimensions as the Glide, uses 15-17 more HP just to turn the transmission than a Glide and a 350 weighs a little bit more than a glide(maybe 15-20 pounds) and you cannot use a 350 with an engine that revs over like 7000 rpm( they want to self destruct). BUT you do get that extra gear in there!!! Now a Metric 200 has the lite weight of a Glide, you can spin the engine well over 7000 RPM like a glide , it takes about the same amount of HP to turn the trans as a Glide AND you get the benefit of the extra gear. Its weak point is UNLESS it is really beefed up it will self destruct on its own at low RPM , in a heavy vehicle, in normal everyday street use that's why GM stopped using them. Unless you are looking to extract the last thousandth out of your car--you do not either want the hassle of the maintainence or have the ability to do trans work you might be better to go with a 350 til you hit that plateau in your level of performance where you feel you could use the extra gear that both transmissions over---Comp 387

03-27-2010, 09:29 AM	#8
FED 387 VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,410 Likes: 507 Liked 329 Times in 177 Posts	Re: Turbo 250 or 350 Bill---every one has their success story---yours is one of them---I'm by no means any kind of an expert on 200 vs 350 transmissions---Only that not very many if any of the Comp guys are using a 350----lotsa proflites /glides and some 200 but only ony guy I know of is/has been using a 350 and he is doing the R&D as a test vehicle for a racing trans company we all know---Comp 387

03-27-2010, 10:40 AM	#9
Kenny Wigington Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Cumming,Ga. USA Posts: 967 Likes: 36 Liked 60 Times in 12 Posts	Re: Turbo 250 or 350 I have been very pleased with my TurboAction 200. Paul, in my opinion, is the man for those ! __________________ 2894 STK

03-27-2010, 12:04 PM	#10
Alan Roehrich Veteran Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Murfreesboro TN Posts: 5,097 Likes: 1,542 Liked 1,775 Times in 404 Posts	Re: Turbo 250 or 350 Nope, a 350 will not explode at RPM in excess of 7000. I've built them since 1984, and never seen one explode, and that includes a lot of race transmissions. Nothing explodes like a TorqueFlite!!!!!!! __________________ Alan Roehrich 212A G/S