[Sandy]

In a 3000 pound car that has the power to run in the 10.80 range, will it run quicker with a powerglide or a turbo 400 ??

Anyone got any real world experience on this ??

Which one will 60 foot quicker ??

 

[Dave427]

A 400 Turbo will be quicker if you have got a car that can hook up. I Turbo 400 hasa 2.48 first gear and a glide has a 1.7 first gear.

Dave

 

[bracketchev1221]

For a 10.80 car the t-400 will help get the car out quicker with a 2.48 first gear. I still have a t-400 in mine at 3150 lbs. I tried a powerglide when I first built the car years ago, but by the time you put a good 1st gear in it the glide gets real expensive.

 

[Harold Sutton]

For a 10.80 car the t-400 will help get the car out quicker with a 2.48 first gear. I still have a t-400 in mine at 3150 lbs. I tried a powerglide when I first built the car years ago, but by the time you put a good 1st gear in it the glide gets real expensive.

Hi Ray, We could not get the T-400 to hold up (broke four or five). All the real good transmissions are real expensive. Down to the low nine second range, (9.20 @ 147), the T-350 worked real good but i got nervous about stressing that unit so hard. The ATI Superglide with all the good parts seems to be able to take anything we can throw at it. I saw some special items from Coan that looked promising but i don't know if that T-350 would live behind 1000 H.P. or not. I'd use a T-350 in a heartbeat in a high ten second car. That real high dollar Coan should weigh less than a hundred pounds plus it has many different internal gear ratios available.

 

[Sandy]

Seems like the glide is the way to go when you have "surplus" power and you can pull a really tall gear and still be on the verge of breaking the tires loose like with a big engine and light car.

But in a 3000 pound car (with driver) without unlimited power you are still pretty dependent on having a nice low first gear for the launch.

 

[sleeper]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your car will pick up a tenth with a glide, maybe more. They are more consistent, more durable, easier to work on, lighter, and more tolerant of poor track conditions.

I first put a glide in in 1982 behind a 427 that was running 11.15-11.25 consistently. The previous trans was a T350 that kept breaking 2nd gear sprages.The T350 was faster than a T400. The car weighed 3350 with a 4.88 gear and 14X31 slicks. First run off the trailer with the glide and the same converter that was in the T350 it went 11.04, next run was 10.96 and it stayed in the 10's.

Ever superstocker we put glides in went faster and they were small block cars. We ran 9.96 with a 350, Chev 292 heads, a 750 holley dp, and a glide with a 1.82 first gear in a 3280lb Camaro in 1988. The 1.96 first gear was .08 slower than the 1.82 contrary to what one would think. We spent a lot of money and tried a lot of thing for about 20 years, but we stayed with the glides.

That being said please note that a glide will not work well with a tight converter and an engine with little torque. Anyone that has ever driven a stock glide and converter will not be impressed. They need at least a 4000 converter to have a fair chance. I feel that a lot of the cars I read about on these forums could benefit from a glide. Who out there with an 11.50 car or faster ,regardless of the weight, has ever put a glide in and went slower that had at least a 4.10 gear and a 4000 converter? How many have put glides in and went faster?

 

[bracketchev1221]

My car went faster with the t-400. I had a 1.89 first gear $2000 powerglide with a 5500 converter at 3380 lbs. I put the t-400 in the car and the car went .08 quicker and .02 quicker in 60'. The t-400 cost $900 less and it's been in the car for 5 years.

 

[Sandy]

To me a tenth of a second difference is irrelevant for a bracket car. What you want is consistency and reliability.

 

[JUNK YARD DOG]

give me a glide and i will agree with sleeper

 

[Lonnie67]

My experience with it:

2600 race weight, 327+.030, 5.67 gears, 30 X 13 tires, 5500 converter, the actual same converter in both trans, transbrake.

Track 5200 ft.

Best ET with TH400- 11.40 @120 1.54 60ft.
Best ET with 1.76 PG- 11.02 @124 1.54 60ft.
Albuquerque's track calculates mph the "old" way, about 2mph higher than "new" way.

The rule of thumb is 3000lbs or lighter a PG will be quicker. I don't know who did this research.

1st pass ever with the PG was an 11.40. I was furious before I got my timeslip, I swore I just took a 12 sec pass. Being in high gear for most of the track makes it seem slower. Here's the car: http://www.geocities.com/lonnie67_1966/vega.html

My first car was a 68 El Camino. 327 PG. I swapped to a th350. I don't have any before and after ET's but the smoke coming from the tires with the th350 told the story. Both converters were stock.

To answer your original question, IMO- if stall speed is optimal PG will be quicker in a 10.80 3000lb car.

 

[BillsCamino]

Seems to me, all other things equal, a PG would be quicker if only because it simply has to shift once.
Not to mention a PG consumes less HP...

 

[kjett]

Bill's right. Assuming a dead hooking car (e.g., taking traction out of the equation), 60' time is related to availble power (torque) vs. weight that needs to be accelerated. This includes the rotating weigh inside the transmission. The glide has fewer internals than a 400, and therefore requires slightly less power to turn. Torque is a function of engine torque AND gearing/multiplication. As previously mentioned, the glide has a lower (numerically) first gear than a 400, and therefore will result in less torque multiplication. For both types of transmissions to work for a given combination the gearing (transmission and rear) will need to be optimized to the engines power curve. In most cases this would mean you will need more rear gear with a glide than a 400 to have comparable 60' times. A deeper rear gear will affect the trap RPM, so this should be a consideration. Lastly, a good race converter can provide 1.5-2 times torque multiplication up to stall speed. This shoudl also be factored into the equation.

IMO, I can't see how a switch to between a glide and a 400 would drastically effect performance assuming the overall gearing/torque multiplication was similar. If you see .3 gain switching from a 400 to a glide then I would be inclined to say the overall gearing/torque package of the 400 setup was mismatched to begin with.

 

[Mike Feudo]

At 3000# use a glide just get the best convertor you can afford. I'v run both in the same car 2900#(10.30 133) it was far more consistant with the glide and a brake. The biggest problem I had was on bad tracks you would pick up second gear wheel spin when it shifted with the 400 and that is death to a bracket car.

 

[struggler]

I picked up 2 tenths and 2 MPH swapping from a T400 to a PG. 60' was slower by 1 tenth, 1/8 was even.

Low 12 sec SBC, 3200lb, 4.11, 28", 4000rpm conv. Converter was the same unit (PG had turbo input shaft) and this was the only change.

The PG is not 200lb lighter than the T400 so it definately uses less HP to operate.

Yes it did feel slower.

 

[Harold Sutton]

Frankly, three gears will accelerate quicker than two. However the 'glide weighes way less than the T-400, over 30 lbs. less. I think the special T-350 that Coan offers might be faster and quicker than either a T-400 or a Powerglide but costs $6000. It also might come in at under 100 lbs. total weight too, not counting converter.

 

[JOHN WILSON]

I think the special T-350 that Coan offers might be faster and quicker than either a T-400 or a Powerglide but costs $6000. It also might come in at under 100 lbs. total weight too, not counting converter.

Harold, depends on what options you spec it with. If you select everything off the menu (straight cut custom gear, spragless, t-brake, low vol pump, billet tail housing w/roller bearing, etc...) it will certainly run $6k+.

 

[Cam]

I concure that the 'glide consumes less h.p. and is simple and durable. Where you lose potentially is with the tall 1st and the wide ratio spread and associated big rpm drop on the 1-2 shift.

I still run a Powerglide on the street, a place where extra gears are appreciated. The funny thing is that the Powerglide doesn't seem to affect performance as much as it should. That is testimony to the wide torque band of the engine in front of it. In a light car with a powerfull engine they can save 100ths by eliminating extra shifts, but in a Chevelle it is a bit of a toss-up. You really need lots of torque and to shave off weight to make them the best alternative.

 

[BlackBetty]

A 400 Turbo will be quicker if you have got a car that can hook up. I Turbo 400 hasa 2.48 first gear and a glide has a 1.7 first gear.

Dave

What about the 1:94????

 

[bracketchev1221]

That starts to make the powerglide real expensive. I had a 1.89 1st gear in mine and if I remember correctly it added $700 to the price 12 years ago.

 

[BlackBetty]

How about the performance??? I'm told that gear will pull the 60 REAL well. Is that true? I'm toying with the idea with a 3:56 gear. Btw mine is air cooled. A racing buddy RAVES about his.