Why doesn't anyone run a glide instead of a 400?

[Blazer406]

I have been wanting to know whay no one runs a glide with these cars.

From my limited knowledge of why people tend to "want" to run a 3 speed is because they need the lower 1st gear for the extra torque to get the car moving....especially on a heavier car.

While our cars are heavy... they don't lack torque....as a matter of fact... 10 sec cars and faster.... usually have too much torque and spin the tires....

It would make sense to me... that a glide would be a great choice for our cars.....

1.) They are much lighter.
2.) The draw less horsepower than the 200 or 400.
3.) The higher 1st gear softens up the bottom end allowing you to leave on potentially even more boost than with the TH400 without spinning.
4.) They are every bit as strong if not stronger when built properly and there is a ton less parts inside one.
5.) They have the same high gear ratio as the 400 (1:1) so they shouldn't get any worse mileage riding around than the 400.

IMHO the perfect setup would be a glide with a GV OD for cruising.....

I figured I'd get a bunch of opinions on this.... so bring 'em.

I myself am staying with the 2004R for now... as mine is 95% street... 5% strip... and is relatively slow....:redface:

I'd just like to see why people aren't running the glides......

 

[Hacksaw]

But how loose a torque converter do you need with a Glide? And I wonder if a full roller bearing 200-4R really saps that much more power than a Glide.

 

[bison]

For a lightweight race car the Glide is definitely the way to go. There are many planetary options out here for different 1st gear ratios. The torque converter is the key to getting the performance out of a 2 speed trans while reaping the benefits of the lighter rotating assembly and lighter unit. The 200 C trans would also be a very good choice for limited street use if there were some hard parts made for it and a good vb was available. Its a very light and efficient unit and i wouldnt be suprised if it was worth 3% or more hp at the rear wheels vs. a 200-4R.

 

[Blazer406]

I ran across this quote:

".......a Powerglide absorbs 18 hp, and a TH350 absorbs 38 hp"

I'm sure the 2004R is at least as heavy of rotating mass as a TH350 and less than a TH400 by a fair margin.....

From an engineering perspective it is likely proportional to the amount of weight spinning at the time you measure the HP. Higher weight spinning.... means more HP loss.....

Seeing the TH400 weighs about 1 ton eek: ).... and a glide is super light.... there has got to be a tremendous difference in hp loss through the tranny when the converter slippage (or efficiency) is the same.

IMHO.... is the HP you can benefit from with the glide worth the penalty you wil pay in a 3500+ lb car... if you compared it to the lower 1st gear of the 400? I think it would be an interesting comparison for really quick cars.... like 9 sec or faster...

 

[jakeshoe]

I ran across this quote:

".......a Powerglide absorbs 18 hp, and a TH350 absorbs 38 hp"

I'm sure the 2004R is at least as heavy of rotating mass as a TH350 and less than a TH400 by a fair margin.....

From an engineering perspective it is likely proportional to the amount of weight spinning at the time you measure the HP. Higher weight spinning.... means more HP loss.....

Seeing the TH400 weighs about 1 ton eek: ).... and a glide is super light.... there has got to be a tremendous difference in hp loss through the tranny when the converter slippage (or efficiency) is the same.

IMHO.... is the HP you can benefit from with the glide worth the penalty you wil pay in a 3500+ lb car... if you compared it to the lower 1st gear of the 400? I think it would be an interesting comparison for really quick cars.... like 9 sec or faster...

That quote is BS. There isn't a set amount of HP consumed by the transmission, there would be much more involved in the amount consumed, and it would be more dependent on the rate of acceleration in any case.

What do you think the rotating mass of a TH350, TH400, and 200-4R are? Have you weighed them?
How heavy do you think a TH400 is? Have you weighed one?

Please explain to me how "higher weight spinning...means more HP loss".

 

[Blazer406]

What do you think the rotating mass of a TH350, TH400, and 200-4R are? Have you weighed them?
How heavy do you think a TH400 is? Have you weighed one?

Please explain to me how "higher weight spinning...means more HP loss".

I will try and find the exact formulas... but the concept is exactly what you said.... the rate of acceleration.... If a transmission has a heavier rotating mass.... spinning at a constant speed... say high gear 3000 RPM's.... and you floor it.... it will take more HP to accelerate at the same rate as a lower rotating mass would....

Imagine you had an engine on a dyno.... and you were going to compare the hp output using the exact same engine except changing the weight of the flywheel.... 1st pull had a 5 lb flywheel.... 2nd pull had a 25 lb flywheel. Which one do you think would make the most HP? The actual HP output would be less with the heavier flywheel. It takes more to accelerate the heavier rotating mass.

Make sense?

As far as weighing the rotating components.... I have not... Someone on here that knows what spins inside when a trans is in high gear.... ought to weigh the components from at least the 2004R, TH400, and a glide. I am interested to see what the findings are....

 

[jakeshoe]

OK,
You are at least one of the few people who actually understand that the greater weight does NOT consume HP under steady RPM.

A TH400 is NOT that heavy. It is almost exactly 10 lbs heavier than a TH350. ALL of that 10 lbs difference is rotating weight.

A TH400 is right at 135 lbs, a TH350 is right at 125. Both dry, short shaft units, without converter.

I don't have the weights for the Glide or 200-4R, but I will try to remember to weigh the 200-4R parts today. Sometime I will actually weigh what parts are spinning in each gear for each unit, but in high gear, the entire rotating mass is locked together on a TH350/TH400, and the rear section of a 200-4R.

I wrote this on another forum some time ago:
"A little comparison for those worried about losing hp to the weight of a TH400 vs. a TH350.

Comparison is based off short output shaft versions of each. Comparison ONLY uses rotating weight, does not include non-rotating weights such as center supports.

Total rotating weight of a fully loaded TH350 is 44.8 lbs.
This includes the forward and direct drums, input ring gear, sun gear and shell, complete planetary set with short output shaft.
Direct drum completely assembled (drum, piston, return springs, clutches, pressure plate, snap ring, sprag and race) consists of 12.6 lbs.
Forward drum and input shaft complete is 12.0

TH400 complete rotating weight is 55.2 lbs.
Direct drum loaded is 14.0 lbs
Forward drum is 15.0


10.4 lbs total difference in rotating weight between the two transmissions."

My experience is that even with 10 lbs difference in weight, and the TH400's ever so slightly less gear ratios in 1st and 2nd, there isn't any real difference in ET in back to back swaps using the same converter.

I have seen differences in the HUNDREDTHS on low-mid 10 second cars that I thought were likely contributable to the trans swap, BUT in a low 10 second car that is relatively heavy, you would usually sacrifice the few hundredths ET for the reliability of the TH400.

I don't do many Glides at this time, so I don't keep cores or have one handy to measure the weight of the parts.

The Glide has advantages in big HP cars, especially fairly light ones. It is lighter but not hugely so. I "believe" it is about 15 lbs lighter than a TH350 in stock form. I would also believe that most of this 15 or so lbs is a reduction rotating mass. I do have some literature on the Glides that is probably accurate for weight, so I will look at that if I remember.

 

[Luke]

Converter Weight?

What about torque converter weight?

I know the TH200-4R's stock D5 or the popular billet 9"x11" (about 35-37 lbs. If I'm not mistaken) have to be a lot heavier than a good 9" for TH400 Right? Is the difference around 10lbs? I'd think you might be pretty close to breaking even when it comes to rotating mass...

The TH350 with a 9" sounds like the best bet for low rotating mass but doesn't hold up like a TH400. If you've busted a "built up" TH200-4R and had to get it rebuilt 3 times, you might find youself saying F*** THE BULL S*** and end up with a TH400.

I don't have any experience with a powerglide but from what I've heard they work best on cars less than 3000 lbs. I think they rely heavily on high RPMs and high stall but I could be wrong. I'd find it difficult to believe nobody's tried one... I'm sure someone will speak up.

 

[blown okie]

NHRA stockers like to use the 200 metrics, just thought id throw that in there.

 

[V6RACER]

There are some super light 400's out there too.. I have weighed the internals on a stock 400 and a lightweight 400 and have seen at least a 25lbs weight reduction in rotating assemblies. There are some that are even lighter. If someone wants to loan me a PG I'll gladly put it in my car to test.

 

[bison]

There are many other things that will affect acceleration and hp losses throughout the trans. Thrust from loading helical cut gears and clutch drag are a couple. Theres no exact formula and it should probably be expressed as a percentage anyway.

 

[Black Car]

You guys should talk to the TurboKid aka Richie Kibler. He had a th350 with his stage setup at Bristal (many years ago)and was breaking traction when shifting into high. Getting loose at 130+mph isn't fun. 158mph more or less in the 1/4
He went to a PG and it took several months to get things sorted out ie converters, gears etc.
Long story short, he wound up going faster and had quicker 60 ft based on my memory. Contact him for details because I have CRS problems.

Gary

 

[Jack Armstrong]

Kibler & Wang --- TR Experimenters & Innovators

You guys should talk to the TurboKid aka Richie Kibler. He had a th350 with his stage setup at Bristal (many years ago)and was breaking traction when shifting into high.

Getting loose at 130+mph isn't fun. 158mph more or less in the 1/4

He went to a PG and it took several months to get things sorted out ie converters, gears etc.

Long story short, he wound up going faster and had quicker 60 ft based on my memory. Contact him for details because I have CRS problems.

Gary

Richie has always thought "outside of the box", to great results..

Don Wang & Richie Kibler would make one heckuva race team,
because of both being willing to try fresh "what if..." scenarios.

Both broke out & went beyond the static and
monolithic "standardized" ways of doing things.

 

[GNVYUS 1]

This sounds like you are just curious so here is my stab at the 200 vs 400 vs Glide.

1) I recently sold a 400 to a board member for $50, they are easy and cheap to find.

2) GN's don't get the 400 mainly because of the gearing in 1st, it's because we are sick of putting thousands into the 200 to survive. The 400 can take a beating and be rebuilt for dirt in comparison.

3) Who the hell would want to drive around in a Glide on the street, you have 8 second cars with 400's that drive around town and lay the smack down on the public and at the track.

4) Not only are there lighter internal weighted 400's out there but you have shops like CK with stronger internals to go with your $50 TH400 which will take more abuse than you can throw at it.

The 200 vs 400 weight issue has come up before, it's nothing to be concerned with IMO. 200 has been weighed at 125 no converter and the 400 around 140 no converter. The extra weight might be one GOOD reason they don't explode like the 200's do.
2nd Gen Camaro Component Weight Database

I've seen people talking about internal tranny weight and then they have a stock restall etc at 41lbs vs a non locker Precision at 29lbs. This is an easy place to start.

 

[Alky V6]

These are the weights I've recorded in the past:
PG 97 lbs.
200C 96 lbs.
350 122 lbs.
400 130 lbs.
200-4R 132 lbs.

When I switched from the 200C I was experimenting with, to the 400 I'm now using, the difference in ET was a tenth or just under. I was glad to make that trade for the durability factor.

 

[Dusty Bradford]

There is a twin turbo Stage 2 Buick in the works now and it has a glide behind it. It's a drag radial car. I just sent him a converter so we'll see how it pans out very soon I hope.

Richies car ran great with the glide at near 3000# raceweight. I'm not sure though that a TSM type car will run faster with a glide but I'd like to see it tried.

One common misconception about the glide is the cruise rpms. High gear (2nd) is the same ratio as 3rd in the T400. I can drive my car at 60mph with the glide and rpms are not high at all. 30 inch tire with 3.70 gear.

 

[Blazer406]

One common misconception about the glide is the cruise rpms. High gear (2nd) is the same ratio as 3rd in the T400. I can drive my car at 60mph with the glide and rpms are not high at all. 30 inch tire with 3.70 gear.

ding ding ding........we have a winner.......

I also think alot of people think that the glide will raise cruise rpms..........not.....all else equal....they will be the same.....

Good point Dusty.

 

["Turbo-T"]

1.) They are much lighter.
2.) The draw less horsepower than the 200 or 400.
3.) The higher 1st gear softens up the bottom end allowing you to leave on potentially even more boost than with the TH400 without spinning.
4.) They are every bit as strong if not stronger when built properly and there is a ton less parts inside one.
5.) They have the same high gear ratio as the 400 (1:1) so they shouldn't get any worse mileage riding around than the 400.

You forgot one....it's only 1 shift going down the track, I've heard this can be for more consistency.