2004r

[copteaser]

I heard so many good things about the Turbo 400 and so many horror stories about the 2004r, Why aren't the Turbo400 the best choice for our cars?
Can someone tell me the Pro's and Cons?

 

[VictoryTrans]

Well naturally, the loss of OD is a con for the 400, also some fabrication is needed in some cases to install the 400. But overall the 400 IS a stronger tranny, but unless your faster than 9's, you can get a 200 4R that'll last just fine

 

[copteaser]

I heard that the 2004R is a weak tranny, I was told that you need to change so many inner parts or else they will fail.
Is that true?
thanks

 

[SilverSleeper]

The 200 isnt a weak trans when built right.
They were intended as light duty trannys for average joe cars, and had soft shifts, lighter (and cheaper) internal parts.
The BRF code trans out of GNs were built better, but were still not bullet-proof.
Take one to someone who doesnt know squat, and it will fail. (i made that mistake a few times before I learned my lesson). I had a dealer build mine twice. Came apart after a month or 2 of just daily driving. I went and had a pro build it, and it has been a couple of years now, and no problems at all.
You would certainly miss the overdrive and the locking t/c on a street car by going to a 400.

 

[HOTTOGO]

Depends on what you want to do with it, if beating the snot out of your car on a consistant basis is what you want then 400 is good. If you prefer a daily driver to cruise around and punish occasionally and like better gas mileage then a 2004r. You most certainly can have a 2004r that will hold up to a 400 but you will have to see the "man" and pay for it.

 

[copteaser]

Thanks for all the input