4T80E/Turbo-S/C... TIME FOR A NEW THREAD? - Page 4 - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning Talk about modifications, or anything else associated with performance enhancements. Have a new idea for performance/reliability? Post it here. No idea is stupid! (please use Detailing and Appearance for cosmetic ideas)

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-13-2006, 11:18 AM   #31
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 368
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
pontiacjeff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
thank heaven this 98 riv has such a large engine compartment, lol
that and the massive rear compartment of the 442...(the rear turbocharged 3800 would be the only one we'd use the 80e with, the front doesnt need it, but some hard launching with a fat A$$ 442 would def require the extra girth of the 80e!)
What'* that all about? Cutlass 442?

Quote:
i wanted to ask you this (sorry i didnt include it in the email) what if any problems have you come acrost regarding the rear manifold and/or downpipe clearance with the larger planetary section of the 80e?
i'm asking since eric wants to get the pacesetter headers, and i'm curious as to whether i may need to fire up my torch, when the 65hd goes and we drop the 80e in...
A custom rear manifold will be required. I plan to build a tubular log anyway since I am turbocharging. Worse than that is the shift linkage. The shift shaft on the -80 is right where the 3800 crossover pipe starts to turn toward the back of the engine.

Quote:
also which converter are you using? the 4.0l aurora or 4.6 N*? is it a kevlar or carbon fiber TCC material unit?
I haven't even thought of it yet. Whichever has the lower stall and stronger clutch. I hate the pwm converter lock-up. I'd rather just use a on-off switch or program the pcm to lock it up as such.
i'm thinking an 01 or newer 80e with the carbon TCC would be best for the riv since eric doesnt mind the tcc lockup and we really have no desire to PWM it like they are supposed to vs the older kevlar clutch material. I have heard that you can install the carbon TCC converter in a kevlar vehicle but not the other way around due to the difference in the PWM of the TCC solenoid.
pontiacjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2006, 03:11 PM   #32
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hanoverpark/palatine IL, wrenchin' and cursin'
Posts: 247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Turbocharged400sbc is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pontiacjeff
Quote:
thank heaven this 98 riv has such a large engine compartment, lol
that and the massive rear compartment of the 442...(the rear turbocharged 3800 would be the only one we'd use the 80e with, the front doesnt need it, but some hard launching with a fat A$$ 442 would def require the extra girth of the 80e!)
What'* that all about? Cutlass 442?
check the second link in my sig for the full details of the project, but in the simplest terms... 425 ci (soon to be 462ci) - 4 wheel drive - 2 (twin) engines
ran 13.8 at 98 mph at 4330lbs race weight, consistent 1.90s 60' times, and thats with two NA engines....
when my 3800 Hybrid (SI tall deck block/SII heads) is done we're gonna need a strong trans to handle the load, the rear engine of 442 will see, when launching off the line, thats alot of weight!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pontiacjeff
Quote:
i wanted to ask you this (sorry i didnt include it in the email) what if any problems have you come acrost regarding the rear manifold and/or downpipe clearance with the larger planetary section of the 80e?
i'm asking since eric wants to get the pacesetter headers, and i'm curious as to whether i may need to fire up my torch, when the 65hd goes and we drop the 80e in...
A custom rear manifold will be required. I plan to build a tubular log anyway since I am turbocharging. Worse than that is the shift linkage. The shift shaft on the -80 is right where the 3800 crossover pipe starts to turn toward the back of the engine.
nothing a little redneck engine-uity cant handle

Quote:
Originally Posted by pontiacjeff
Quote:
also which converter are you using? the 4.0l aurora or 4.6 N*? is it a kevlar or carbon fiber TCC material unit?
I haven't even thought of it yet. Whichever has the lower stall and stronger clutch. I hate the pwm converter lock-up. I'd rather just use a on-off switch or program the pcm to lock it up as such.
i dont believe that the aurora was offered with the carbon fiber clutch material. but i dont think any 4.0 or 4.6 converter will be low stall with a low rpm Tq monster like the 3800, you may endup getting a carbon 4.6 converter cutting it and having the fins tweaked to end up with a lower stall speed...may i ask why your going to a lower stall speed?
Turbocharged400sbc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2006, 03:39 PM   #33
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 368
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
pontiacjeff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
check the second link in my sig for the full details of the project, but in the simplest terms... 425 ci (soon to be 462ci) - 4 wheel drive - 2 (twin) engines
ran 13.8 at 98 mph at 4330lbs race weight, consistent 1.90s 60' times, and thats with two NA engines....
when my 3800 Hybrid (SI tall deck block/SII heads) is done we're gonna need a strong trans to handle the load, the rear engine of 442 will see, when launching off the line, thats alot of weight!
I'm still confused! I'll check the link

Quote:
may i ask why your going to a lower stall speed?
who needs alot of converter when you have a 3.71FDR and the engine is twin-charged? (turbo-supercharged)
pontiacjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2006, 03:43 PM   #34
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Holt, MI & Lima, OH
Posts: 3,022
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
dbtk2 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pontiacjeff

I'm still confused! I'll check the link
He took a 3.1L Cutlass Supreme and put a 3800 in the back of it. So it has the original 3.1 driving the front tires and a 3800 powering the rear.

Although with two engines combining the load, I don't really see the need for a really built tranny like he is talking about. Yes its a 4300 lb. car, but with two trannies to divide it by, thats only 2150 each....
dbtk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2006, 05:22 PM   #35
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 368
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
pontiacjeff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbtk2
Quote:
Originally Posted by pontiacjeff

I'm still confused! I'll check the link
He took a 3.1L Cutlass Supreme and put a 3800 in the back of it. So it has the original 3.1 driving the front tires and a 3800 powering the rear.

Although with two engines combining the load, I don't really see the need for a really built tranny like he is talking about. Yes its a 4300 lb. car, but with two trannies to divide it by, thats only 2150 each....
Dude, are those ALL your cars? (sig) You are almost as much a freak as I am! LOL!

New sig below:
pontiacjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2006, 04:50 AM   #36
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hanoverpark/palatine IL, wrenchin' and cursin'
Posts: 247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Turbocharged400sbc is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbtk2
...........Although with two engines combining the load, I don't really see the need for a really built tranny like he is talking about. Yes its a 4300 lb. car, but with two trannies to divide it by, thats only 2150 each....
yes thats very true...however during a hard launch...weight get transfer'd to the rear
(i cant tell you how many 10s and faster cars i've seen yank the front tires)
yes this means that the front engine has less to contribute but it sure helps after the launch, since the rear engine/trans will see the most load, it makes sense to use a heavy duty tans for reliability reasons, the front trans isnt as crucial since it wouldnt experience more than half the cars weight, unless we went in reverse WOT

if the 442 tells you anything about myself, it'* that i'm an overkill kinda guy...

besides if we wanted to we could fit two 80e'* in the rear engine compartment
so one will hardly fill the ample space.

Eric'* Riv on the other hand has constraints...one of the reasons i'm so interested in Jeff'* project...that and the twincharged coolness

Regards, James
Turbocharged400sbc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2006, 12:12 PM   #37
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 368
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
pontiacjeff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbocharged400sbc

if the 442 tells you anything about myself, it'* that i'm an overkill kinda guy...

Regards, James
Is the picture in your sig of the Hurst/Olds twin-engine '68 Toronado? That car was bad-***! I remember reading about a '70 Eldorado that had two 500'*, one in the front and one in the back. It was an 850hp and 1100lbs.ft. monster!

I had a '77 Pontiac Astre (Vega) back in the early '90s that I swapped a Buick 4.1V-6 into. It ran low-14s on a basic stock rebuild with a mild cam and 2.93 gears. I always wanted to do a rear engine swap into that car. I envisioned a Pontiac 400 turned longitudinally b/t the rear wheels with a TH325 or TH325-4L. I planned to use the stock 78-84 Riv/Eldo/Seville mounts on a custom rear tube chassis.
pontiacjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2006, 05:33 PM   #38
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Westerville, Ohio 2000 Black SSEi
Posts: 6,127
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rogue is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pontiacjeff
Quote:

Just wanted to point out a detail on the above. The Final Drive Ratio inherant in the 65 is 3.29, it'* the chain and gearset combination that determines the actual FDR. 3 sets are currently used offering 2.92, 3.29 and 3.69 ratios.

Cheers,
Since you brought it up, there are 9 possible FDRs for the -65E based on 3 differential planetary gear sets and 3 chain drive sets. The most common used FDRs are 2.86 (3400 N- and W-), 3.05 (3800 W-, H-, C-, and E-) and 3.29 (3400 U-vans and Grand Am GT), all of which use the 35/35 chain gear set. The 2.93 is only used in the -HD behind the 3800 */C and is derived from using a 3.29. A 3.42 was used in the '97 Z-34 (3400DOHC) Monte Carlo. The only GM factory use of the 3.69 is in Buicks destined for China with the 2.5L 60deg V-6.
Actually there are also 3.52 and 3.76 gear sets available as well as a 4.0FDR differential that would change all the ratios based on gear sizes.
Rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2006, 08:23 PM   #39
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 368
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
pontiacjeff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue

Actually there are also 3.52 and 3.76 gear sets available as well as a 4.0FDR differential that would change all the ratios based on gear sizes.
I don't know where you got your info, but I have to respectfully disagree. According to three aftermarket transmission ID books and the latest version of ATSG GM Techtran manual, there are three FDRs available, 2.86, 3.05, and 3.29. There are also three chain drive gearsets made by GM for the 4T65E, 33/37 (1.12 underdrive), 35/35 (1:1) and 37/33 (.89 overdrive). That means a total of nine possible combinations for us to play with (listed by base FDR): 2.54, 2.86, and 3.20...2.71, 3.05, and 3.42...2.93, 3.29, and 3.69. Unless GM has come up with some custom parts for the drag racing program, that is all there is.
pontiacjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2006, 10:23 PM   #40
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Westerville, Ohio 2000 Black SSEi
Posts: 6,127
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rogue is on a distinguished road
Default

They are available via GM Racing and come in 800hp and 1200hp chain sets. They were not a stock production item, but they are available for our transaxles. INTENSE will be offering them for sale soon.
Rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thread locker vs. Thread sealant eazhar 1992-1999 3 03-23-2013 04:43 AM
Turbo L67 Ciera International.....and Turbo L36 S10 Bonneville92V688 Lounge 10 10-05-2007 03:43 PM
Transmission tuner for 4t80e sahensley Bonneville GXP/ Northstar Powered Cars 10 05-25-2005 07:07 PM
4t80e pbj General GM Chat 3 07-28-2003 06:23 AM
911 Twin Turbo vs. me w/ only ONE turbo Burgundy_Boat General GM Chat 11 06-28-2003 09:34 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:22 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.