4T80E/Turbo-S/C... TIME FOR A NEW THREAD?
#21
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rogue
Originally Posted by pontiacjeff
Originally Posted by Hans
cool.
what other mods are in store for the motor? It seems you have the PCM taken care of...doing pulley/rockers/cam?
what other mods are in store for the motor? It seems you have the PCM taken care of...doing pulley/rockers/cam?
#22
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More pics comparing the -80 and the -65. Forget billet input shafts and hardened output shafts... who needs them when these parts are bigger, stronger, and stock!
Look at the ouput shaft!
and the input shaft!
more pics of the differential. I just finished building a limited slip for a customers 4T80. I plan one for this, too.
While I am machining gears tomorrow, I'll be fabricating a bracket/brace for the tailshaft housing. Also, the flywheel needs 4 holes instead of 3. And the gear selector lever needs to be relocated to clear the crossover pipe.
More pics as the work progresses.
Look at the ouput shaft!
and the input shaft!
more pics of the differential. I just finished building a limited slip for a customers 4T80. I plan one for this, too.
While I am machining gears tomorrow, I'll be fabricating a bracket/brace for the tailshaft housing. Also, the flywheel needs 4 holes instead of 3. And the gear selector lever needs to be relocated to clear the crossover pipe.
More pics as the work progresses.
#25
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I forgot...
The -65 weighs 195# with converter, the -80 weighs 245# with converter.
As for drive losses, I'm sure thee will be some... but the 3.71FDR will more than make up for any torque losses vs. the 2.97FDR of the -65. The forst thing I'll do is dyno it to see the difference. I have a good baseline to compare it to.
The -65 weighs 195# with converter, the -80 weighs 245# with converter.
As for drive losses, I'm sure thee will be some... but the 3.71FDR will more than make up for any torque losses vs. the 2.97FDR of the -65. The forst thing I'll do is dyno it to see the difference. I have a good baseline to compare it to.
#26
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry the project stalled (no pun intended!). I need to get the car running again before Oct. 1 as my current driver (the "race car") is going down for a beefier clutch and transmission mods. I will likely have some more info the week of 9-25. The trans is mounted to the engine, flywheel drilled for the Caddy converter. The hard part is going to be mocking it up. I have ot have it in the car due to the front engine mount in the Bonne. It will be the only locating mount I have to work with (unless I decide to go W-body mounts and fab-up a front engine mount pad and rear trans pad, then I can use all GM mounts. I will have to build a tubular rad support so I can run upper dog bones... still mulling that over).
#27
Senior Member
Posts like a Corvette
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montréal, QC
Posts: 1,374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting project, I'm looking forward to seeing how this all works out. Thanks for posting the details here, cool of you to share your project
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,
Originally Posted by pontiacjeff
As for drive losses, I'm sure thee will be some... but the 3.71FDR will more than make up for any torque losses vs. the 2.97FDR of the -65. The forst thing I'll do is dyno it to see the difference. I have a good baseline to compare it to.
Cheers,
#28
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,
#29
Senior Member
Posts like a Corvette
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montréal, QC
Posts: 1,374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pontiacjeff
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,
Cheers,
#30
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hanoverpark/palatine IL, wrenchin' and cursin'
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pontiacjeff
Sorry the project stalled (no pun intended!). I need to get the car running again before Oct. 1 as my current driver (the "race car") is going down for a beefier clutch and transmission mods. I will likely have some more info the week of 9-25......
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 *** 442 would def require the extra girth of the 80e!)
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...
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'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.
your thoughts?
Regards, James