When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Would any of you happen to own a stock G body equipped with (a well sorted) 307 (with later 7A heads), 200R4 transmission and a 3.08 rear axle?
I have looked many times on YouTube as well, to see whether that combination is available.
I want to get an idea of how it works on a street-able car (in a G body preferably) as I am not really convinced that higher axle ratios (such as 3.36 or higher) is better as 307 has peak torque at low revs. I think higher axle ratios suit higher revving engines. But then again, 200R4 has a OD as well, so not quite sure how to take that to account.
I would like to know the experience in that particular combination please.
Would any of you happen to own a stock G body equipped with (a well sorted) 307 (with later 7A heads), 200R4 transmission and a 3.08 rear axle?
I have looked many times on YouTube as well, to see whether that combination is available.
I want to get an idea of how it works on a street-able car (in a G body preferably) as I am not really convinced that higher axle ratios (such as 3.36 or higher) is better as 307 has peak torque at low revs. I think higher axle ratios suit higher revving engines. But then again, 200R4 has a OD as well, so not quite sure how to take that to account.
I would like to know the experience in that particular combination please.
Thank you
Hi, I had a 84 H/O 2004R 8.5 rear with 3.73 gears. Lots of fun. Fast off the line for a 307 anyway. Great at highway.speed. And great gas mileage for a V8. I would tink an 3.36 slow off the line and engine very low rpms at highway speed. Hope that helps
Long answer: You're not going to find much experience in that particular combo because it isn't done. The 3.08 is a highway gear for non-overdrive cars. The OD is 0.67 to 1. This means, to find your effective rear end ratio in overdrive, you multiply the two. 3.08 times .67 is 2.06. Oldsmobile did not put such a rear end ratio behind anything, especially not a small v8 like a 307. Even the Turnpike Cruiser of 67 was a 2.41, and the E block 400 was twice the engine of the 307.
Recommend you go with a 200R4 and a 3.73 to 1 rear end like the 84 Hurst/Olds. This will give you an OD drive ratio with that rear end of 2.5 to 1, which is around the lowest (numerically) Olds went.
Why do we keep having this discussion? Olds put 2.39, 2.41, 2.73, and 2.93 gears behind the 200-4R with the VIN Y 307 and the V6. The trans shifts fine. The engine does not lug. No, it's not a top fuel car, but it's perfectly fine as a driver. I've owned five 1980s cars with VIN Y motors, 200-4R, and 2-something axles. They drove just fine. The trans downshifts when you need it to. This is not the problem that everyone makes it out to be.
1984 and 85 Dealer information book- ironically, doesn't show you could even order anything other than an MX1 (MV9 200C) transmission with a VIN Y. Hurst and 442 was the only way to get the MX0 for 1984 and 85 G-body respectively according to those books.
For 1984, 3.08s were not availalbe on any G-body with MX0 (V6 and V8 diesels came with 2.93 and 2.73 rear gears with MX0) and VIN Y in the brougham had 2.56 only.
Not even dealing with the Hurst or 442 option, I believe it depends on the year and model of the car on what gear ratios and power teams were available. And then when you bought one option, it could affect the requirements of having to buy another.
What I can tell you is that in the July 1986 edition of the 1987 Dealer information book, the Cutlass Salon, Supreme or Supreme Brougham G-body with Y 307 and MX0 (MW9 200-4R), the GU4 (3.08 final drive ratio) was the only available final drive upgrade as long as you got the V08 (HD cooling) along with it as they were married options on the G-body. And then Oops! With V08 you were required to have air conditioning (C60).
For 1986 and 1987, GM8 (2.56) was standard with VIN Y and MX0. Also, if California emissions, C60 (air conditioning) was required. If they changed those ratios after the fact, I'm not aware.
I do not have an 86 dealer info book, but I'm guessing it would fall closer in line with the 87 than 85. Again, just a guess. I do have a photo of an 86 Supreme with LV2 and MX0 and it shows 2.56s as included option for ".00" cost on the window sticker so I know the 2.56 was standard for 86 LV2 with MX0, too. Still not 100% sure on the availability of 3.08s on 86 models.
MX0 was required on Salon with VIN Y, and also required on California emission (YF5) R69 (4-door sedan Supreme and Supreme Brougham) models with Y 307 with AG1 (6-way power 55/45 driver bench seat, AM6 required with AG1, which is stupid because it's power passenger divided seat) or AT6 (reclining passenger seat back). Plus you had to have lower body side moldings on the sedan as well (BX2). Weird.
LD5 (V6) was not available with MX0 on Cutlass Supreme/Brougham/Salon.
And I believe all 88 CSCs were VIN Y 307 with MX0, but I don't have dealer info for those either.
GM p/n 14089176 was the p/n for the 3.08 ring and pinion gear kit on 86-88 G-body 7.5. So although V6s also could be had with 3.08 gears, I'm thinking 86-88 VIN Y engines could be had with MX0 and 3.08s in the G-bodies.
Here's 1987 dealer information book page with G-body powertrains for Supreme, and Brougham and Salon are similar- There are boxes in the right column top and bottom with engine/transmission availabilities. Sorry, bad picture, but it does show VIN Y with 3.08 and MX0 availability. If they changed that later, I can't say.
Why do we keep having this discussion? Olds put 2.39, 2.41, 2.73, and 2.93 gears behind the 200-4R with the VIN Y 307 and the V6. The trans shifts fine. The engine does not lug. No, it's not a top fuel car, but it's perfectly fine as a driver. I've owned five 1980s cars with VIN Y motors, 200-4R, and 2-something axles. They drove just fine. The trans downshifts when you need it to. This is not the problem that everyone makes it out to be.
Really? You could have an OD drive ratio in the 1.7s or so? Did it downshift when you even thought about accelerating?
I found a engine rom calculator. A overdrive trans with a 2.29 ratio, 27 inch tires at 70 mph will be spinning 1350 rpm. I can’t imagine a 307 having enough torque at that speed to push a car.
My 1988 Cutlass came factory with a Vin Y 307, 2004R and 2.56 gears! The 3.08 was the only opinional ratio that year. Off the line will be better with a 3.08, than say the TH250C and 2.41 gears that came behind the 307 in my 81 Delta 88. Many a Cutlass came with the 307/200C and 2.14 gears, talk about exhilarating.
1984 and 85 Dealer information book- ironically, doesn't show you could even order anything other than an MX1 (MV9 200C) transmission with a VIN Y. Hurst and 442 was the only way to get the MX0 for 1984 and 85 G-body respectively according to those books.
For 1984, 3.08s were not availalbe on any G-body with MX0 (V6 and V8 diesels came with 2.93 and 2.73 rear gears with MX0) and VIN Y in the brougham had 2.56 only.
Not even dealing with the Hurst or 442 option, I believe it depends on the year and model of the car on what gear ratios and power teams were available. And then when you bought one option, it could affect the requirements of having to buy another.
What I can tell you is that in the July 1986 edition of the 1987 Dealer information book, the Cutlass Salon, Supreme or Supreme Brougham G-body with Y 307 and MX0 (MW9 200-4R), the GU4 (3.08 final drive ratio) was the only available final drive upgrade as long as you got the V08 (HD cooling) along with it as they were married options on the G-body. And then Oops! With V08 you were required to have air conditioning (C60).
For 1986 and 1987, GM8 (2.56) was standard with VIN Y and MX0. Also, if California emissions, C60 (air conditioning) was required. If they changed those ratios after the fact, I'm not aware.
I do not have an 86 dealer info book, but I'm guessing it would fall closer in line with the 87 than 85. Again, just a guess. I do have a photo of an 86 Supreme with LV2 and MX0 and it shows 2.56s as included option for ".00" cost on the window sticker so I know the 2.56 was standard for 86 LV2 with MX0, too. Still not 100% sure on the availability of 3.08s on 86 models.
MX0 was required on Salon with VIN Y, and also required on California emission (YF5) R69 (4-door sedan Supreme and Supreme Brougham) models with Y 307 with AG1 (6-way power 55/45 driver bench seat, AM6 required with AG1, which is stupid because it's power passenger divided seat) or AT6 (reclining passenger seat back). Plus you had to have lower body side moldings on the sedan as well (BX2). Weird.
LD5 (V6) was not available with MX0 on Cutlass Supreme/Brougham/Salon.
And I believe all 88 CSCs were VIN Y 307 with MX0, but I don't have dealer info for those either.
GM p/n 14089176 was the p/n for the 3.08 ring and pinion gear kit on 86-88 G-body 7.5. So although V6s also could be had with 3.08 gears, I'm thinking 86-88 VIN Y engines could be had with MX0 and 3.08s in the G-bodies.
Here's 1987 dealer information book page with G-body powertrains for Supreme, and Brougham and Salon are similar- There are boxes in the right column top and bottom with engine/transmission availabilities. Sorry, bad picture, but it does show VIN Y with 3.08 and MX0 availability. If they changed that later, I can't say.
Wow, that's interesting.
From the table, the V6 got 2.41, 3.08 and 3.23 and the LV2 V8 got 2.14, 2.56 and 3.08. [LG8 is the performance option so that's a different case altogether].
The main two observations are that,
1. the highest ratio option for LV2 V8 was the 3.08 (the highest the factory offered with the 307 and 200R4) - very useful to know
2. the less powerful engine (V6) received higher axle ratios, in comparison.
I think it is a bit safe to settle with factory options than specifying anything beyond.
My kid’s car (red) has a 3.08 with 200-4R, can’t remember whether it’s got 14’s or 15’s but either way it’s roughly a 26.5 diameter, iirc it turns appx 1800 @ 70mph, locked up. Great all around package, especially at highway cruise but it’s got a 9:1, warmed over 350 in it.
My kid’s car (red) has a 3.08 with 200-4R, can’t remember whether it’s got 14’s or 15’s but either way it’s roughly a 26.5 diameter, iirc it turns appx 1800 @ 70mph, locked up. Great all around package, especially at highway cruise but it’s got a 9:1, warmed over 350 in it.
….
Yup, this is the problem, I am yet to discuss with a person who has this combination in a G body. Theoretical possibilities and discussions are non-conclusive most of the time.
Sure, but will take about a year as the resto project is still in progress.
The car will be fun to drive. The 3.08 won't rip any slicks off the rims, but they'll be more fun that 2.56s. That deep first gear on the 200-4R will help out a bit. But don't expect miracles. All my G-bodies but one had/have 3.73 gears with 307/200-4R. I had an 87 Salon with 307/200-4R but it had, you guessed it, 2.56 rear gears. I had no issues driving the car around as it was because it was just a cruiser. I put a VIN 9 dual exhaust system on it, but other than that, it remained all stock.
ONE of the issues of the old days, was the dealership ordering stock for their lots. Many a time, "select-a-unit" methods were used where you just pick a "level" of option packages when ordering cars for the lot. I look at it like the precursor to what they're doing now with option "grouping". The dealer would just pick a car with sparse options up to a level of lots of options with ease. However, not a single package offered G80 (posi). Dealer had to request that separate. Additionally, they would have to request any rear gear upgrades separate as well. Probably one of the reasons you don't see a bunch of 1987 3.08 Cutlasses running around with the 307/200-4R.
Dealership desk jockeys ordering cars for the dealership is the reason I suspect a lot of G-body 442s and Hurst/Oldses didn't come with G80. Either a customer order or a savvy dealership guy would understand on a car like that, you should get the G80 option. It wasn't expensive at all. Less than most of the radio options. Only the GNX was the only G-body to have G80 as standard equipment.
My 84 H/O I ordered the G80-limited slip differential. That and 3.73's help them feel pretty quick, again off the line.(For a 307) Vin 9 had a little more HP.
I drove it in the snowy winters of upstate NY. With no problem with the limited slip differential. Other than fighting rust, from the salt on the roads.
Mid 20 mile per gallon on the highway. Depending how I drove. Somewhere around 2,000 + rpm depending on highway speed. 3.73 was a lot of fun. Just saying.
For the same cost, why not go to a 3.23 or 3.73. That is the best way to "wake up" these cars. My heavier Custom Cruiser with the same 307 and a 3.23 might surprise. Also adjusting the transmission TV cable to hold onto lower gears longer helps too. Just don't expect EPA mileage numbers.
The G-body, Buick turbo GNs came with a 200-4r and 3.42 gears. I built an '84 BQ trans out of a Buick GN for my '72 442 convertible project. I stayed with 3.42 gears as the valve body and governor in the trans were tuned for this combination.
Rodney
I've got the Olds 260 in my 1979 Blue Calais now equipped with the 3:08 limited slip with the 200R4 transmission (this was the car I showed in the modified class at the Nationals this year). I think its fine for a driver. Yes it's quite slow for sure, but I do keep it in 3rd around town so it's not quite so sluggish. I've had this combo in the car since 2003 and as mentioned previously in other posts, as long as I'm using the OD at highway speeds it does fine.
I've got the Olds 260 in my 1979 Blue Calais now equipped with the 3:08 limited slip with the 200R4 transmission (this was the car I showed in the modified class at the Nationals this year). I think its fine for a driver. Yes it's quite slow for sure, but I do keep it in 3rd around town so it's not quite so sluggish. I've had this combo in the car since 2003 and as mentioned previously in other posts, as long as I'm using the OD at highway speeds it does fine.
While being on the subject, did read a few things and did a calculation from data taken from the web, There should be more factors involved like weight and tyre diameter and so on. Wheel torque isn't everything but your point seems valid. It isn't far too off from other makes.
August 27th, 2022, 09:13 AM
