All of the following data comes directly from GM Powertrain, unless otherwise stated.

Hydra-Matic 4T65-E Transaxle http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/transmissions/hydra/apps/4t65.htm
Weight: 195 lbs¹
Gear Ratios:
First: 2.921
Second: 1.568
Third: 1.000
Fourth: 0.705
Reverse: 2.385
Maximum Engine Torque: 280 lb-ft
Maximum Gearbox Torque: 400 lb-ft

Hydra-Matic 4T80-E Transaxle http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/transmissions/hydra/apps/4t80.htm
Weight: 292 lbs¹
Gear Ratios:
First: 2.960
Second: 1.626
Third: 1.000
Fourth: 0.681
Reverse: 2.130
Maximum Engine Torque: 305 lb-ft
Maximum Gearbox Torque: 461 lb-ft

M282 Muncie/Getrag Transaxle (5TM40)²
Weight: 88 lbs.
Maximum Engine Torque: 200 lb-ft.
7000 RPM Maximum input speed
Muncie 282 5 Speed (FWD) Manual Transmission Parts

Footnote:
¹Weight data taken from GM High-Tech Performance Magazine, May 2003, pg. 73.
²Getrag data is gathered from: http://archive.classicoldsmobile.com/html/67.html http://www.americancustomeng.com/which.htm

------------------
--------------Forever In My Heart----------------
Jack Daniel Miller --- Dec. 29, 1925 - Oct. 14, 2002
Ruby Cantrell Miller - Jan. 20, 1932 - Aug. 31, 2002
It won't rain all the time. The Sky won't fall forever,
And tho' the night seems long, Your tears won't fall forever.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-17-2003).]

Just a bump to keep this on the front page for people considering engine swaps. I'll add info on other transmissions as I find it.

Just letting you know that I am rating you because of this. All I have ever asked Archie for was facts that could be backed up with proof and I got so much flack..even name calling.. hopefully you will be able to get the straight facts on the Isuzu and the 4 speed. ( I have searched, but have found nothing conclusive) And that still leaves the problems with the Clutch... This Forum Rocks.. ( of couse it was a + ) ...

[This message has been edited by SanBerdueFiero (edited 03-14-2003).]
"2Getrag data is gathered from various posts on Pennock's and is unverified at this time"
..this part still bothers me a little...what is GM's rating?

[This message has been edited by SanBerdueFiero (edited 03-14-2003).]

quote Originally posted by SanBerdueFiero: Type: Getrag F23 (M86/M94/MG3)

I didn't post info on this transmission because it has nothing to do with any transmission used in a Fiero. It's most likely weaker than both the M282 and M284. It also uses a different bellhousing, I believe. Not to mention having Metric ratings instead of SAE!

quote Originally posted by Formula88: ....... It's most likely weaker than both the M282 and M284. ...... Not to mention having Metric ratings instead of SAE!

Why would it be weaker??? It is used for the DOHC 4 ( Quad 4 replacement...) but it still has more HP than the 2.8 did...
And metric ratings are numerically larger than equal FT lbs. ( read that in FT Lbs this tranny will not be much more than 180 ft lbs.. (If my memory serves me right..) if anyone can convert this figure to Ft Lbs please do! )

To convert Nm to lb-ft, multiply by 0.7375622.

210Nm * 0.7375622 = 155 lb-ft, so that's substantially weaker than the Getrag.

Also, the 4L60 and T56 6-speed you list are longitudinal front engine/rear drive tranmissions and not compatible with the Fiero.

Conversion factor found at: http://cent-21.com/automath/

(You can find ANYTHING on Google )

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-14-2003).]

quote Originally posted by SanBerdueFiero: Why would it be weaker??? It is used for the DOHC 4 ( Quad 4 replacement...) but it still has more HP than the 2.8 did... )

Because you're talking about TQ, not HP. What was the TQ rating for the Quad 4?

quote Originally posted by Rainman: Because you're talking about TQ, not HP. What was the TQ rating for the Quad 4?

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/gm_future.htm

The sporty compact/boulevard racer market is really taking off, and with relatively little effort, GM could add this performance option package to the current Sunfire. The Pontiac Sunfire concept car has a supercharged 2.4 litre DOHC 16 valve four cylinder powerplant that develops 190 horsepower at 5800 rpm and 205 lb-ft. of torque at 4000 rpm. That compares to the current non-supercharged motor which offers 150 horsepower at 5000 rpm and 155 lb-ft at 4400 rpm. The supercharger is an Eaton Series 45 with a maximum boost of 5 psi.

All very interesting, and I'm not trying to flame, but the Sunfire comparison has nothing to do with the Fiero. If it uses the same bellhousing as the Quad4, then it won't work in a Fiero. It's rated weaker than the Getrag (155 lb-ft vs 250 lb-ft), and if the supercharger is used, then that's beyond the specs of the transmission. But again, none of this has anything to do with transmissions used in Fieros. Let's try to stay on topic, please. Perhaps a separate thread if you wish to discuss supercharged Ecotech's in the new Sunfire?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: ... = 155 lb-ft, so that's substantially weaker than the Getrag. Also, the 4L60 and T56 6-speed you list are longitudinal front engine/rear drive tranmissions and not compatible with the Fiero.

Based on who's figures for the Fiero Getrag. and were they accurate?

..And I know the difference between a Camaro/Vette and a Fiero... The point is that a SBC was not, will never be able to be put into a factory FWD type car because the transaxles will not pass GM's warranty division. ...something that Archie does not have to worry about.
If your transaxle breaks due to too much torque...you have no recourse but to put in another one.. AND if YOU are ok with that fact...great... BUT just read the requirements that GM wants for this engine's transmissions. The Getrag is far from it.

quote Originally posted by SanBerdueFiero: Get real...this DOHC four is a good choice for an engine swap...and with the supercharger is even better...

Flame bait. If you want to swap in an Ecotech and it's transmission, go right ahead. It's transmission won't fit a Fiero engine, nor with a Fiero engine (or 3800SC or SBC) fit it.

If you read my footnote, you'll notice that the Fiero Getrag data is what I have gleened from the Forum, but I haven't seen any GM data on it. You seemed happy to accept the 250 lb-ft figure until it didn't stack up they way you wanted against the automatics or the Sunfire's transmission.

The Sunfire transaxle is rated at 155 lb-ft, but add the supercharger GM sells and you're over that limit, but I don't see you claiming it will fail.

As for a factory FWD SBC car - what does that have to do with anything?

Now that you're trying to drag this into a flame war - I'm letting this thread, hopefully, die. Go ahead and spout all the crap you want, and you can take the + rating you made a big deal of giving me. I simply tried to offer unbiased engineering data for people to use. I won't make that mistake again.

Any info of the MK7 ???

Thanx
DreX

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I didn't post info on this transmission because it has nothing to do with any transmission used in a Fiero. It's most likely weaker than both the M282 and M284. It also uses a different bellhousing, I believe. Not to mention having Metric ratings instead of SAE!

Back to name calling I see... And when the discussion doesn't go your way...you resort to the same tactics... oh well....

"The [Getrag] transmission was actually designed and used in Germany then built by GM in their Muncie, Indiana, plant for use in the GM V6 cars, hence the occasional reference to Muncie/Getrag. The case was redesigned to fit GM V-6's. GM decided it was more economical to buy the Getrag design than start from scratch to design their own transmission for the 2.8. All late 86's, 87 & 88 V6 manual transmission Fieros had the 5-speed Getrag. A little calculation (no hard #'s are available to my knowledge) would indicate about 20,000 5-speed Getrags were built in late 86, + 87, + 88.

General Motors used the Getrag in all 5-speed V6 and Quad 4 applications and they are basically identical. They all have a final drive ratio of 3.61:1. In the Quad 4 Getrags,GM varied the ratios of the individual gears (1st - 5th). On the V-6 Getrags, 1st - 5th gear ratios are always the same.Quad 4 Getrags only fit Quad 4's and will not bolt up to a V6. A V6 Getrag will also bolt up to the Fiero 4 cylinder, 3.1 and 3.8. In addition, a 3.94 final drive was used in the 92-93 Quad 4 hi-performance with the W41 option. This final drive gear set can be installed into a Fiero Getrag (For about $900 in parts plus labor)!"

quoted from.. http://my.execpc.com/~rodney1/getraginfo.htm

I asked you why you thought that the 2003 DOHC 4 getrag in question was weaker...and you accused me of flamebaiting... ( instead of finding out the truth...)
I don't think that GM would take the time, trouble or expense to develop or buy a weaker transaxle for 2003. If anything.. I would think they would fix the known problems and make it more durable, (seeing as how they are adding superchargers for concept cars and aftermarket installations and are pursuing a racing image for the ecotec motor ( 1000 hp is stated ..)
So, I suspect that the torque rating is about the same for the Fiero Getrag.. not the 250 lbs that is being thrown out as fact...
Does anyone have info that would clear this up? ..Does everyone else want this thread to die?

edited for spelling

[This message has been edited by SanBerdueFiero (edited 03-16-2003).]

If you'll go back and read the thread - not just what was said, but WHEN it was said, I listed the specs showing the Getrag you were talking about. It is weaker than the Fiero Getrag according to GM specs. I showed you where I got the conversion factor for Nm to lbs-ft. You responded by telling me to "get real" That is the point when I felt your posts were becoming flame bait rather an a useful discussion. Was I wrong?

The Sunfire Getrag doesn't fit a Fiero engine, but if you want to swap in the Ecotech and tranny together, it works. It's the same issue with a Quad4 swap due to the Q4's different bolt pattern. You even quoted Rodney Dickman saying the same thing. But I'm name calling?

Yes, it appears to me you're arguing just for the sake of arguing at this point, which is why I'm willing to let the thread die.

You don't think GM would take the time, trouble and expense to develop or buy a weaker transaxle for 2003. Well, I'm not going by what people think or what makes sense, I'm going by GM specs. The Ecotech's Getrag is rated at 155 lb-ft of torque - which is weaker than the accepted 250 lb-ft the Getrag 282 is rated at. Does it make sense? Maybe not. That's not the point. The data is what I'm trying to present. The only real unknown is where the 250 lb-ft figure for the Getrag 282 came from. I am willing to accept that as valid until someone provides me evidence to the contrary. The 282 has been repeatedly reported to be rated at 250 lb-ft, and the 284 has been reported to be rated at about 275-285 lb-ft. Regardless, the 282 is the strongest Getrag made (with the 284 being the sole exception, and those are very rare) for the Fiero application.

Now if you have something to discuss, fine. If all you want to do is argue about why the Sunfire transaxle is better, then you're wasting my time and yours.

We seem to have reached an understanding of positions without much name calling.. AND I think that we are both looking for the same thing, INFORMATION... i.e. ..What are viable alternatives to allow each and every PFF member to make the Fiero into his /her car into the car that one wants it to be. ( seeing as how the Fiero is a 20 year old design.. and the drivetrain has been discontinued from GM's current offerings in manual form.)
I guess the part that you misunderstood was that I wonder, and still do, IF the 2003 Getrag is a weaker design, AND should it be ruled out as a possible swap choice. Knowing full well that one would have to use a different motor, the same motor that came with the 2003 Getrag, IF this (2003)transaxle was used. NOT that it is a better choice.
So, I hope that this thread continues, with good input, and we all end up knowing more than what we used to because of it..

Every bit of data that I have posted says the 2003 Getrag is substantially weaker than the M282 Getrag. If my conversion factor is accurate, and using GM's ratings, it's only good for 155 lb-ft. The M282 is reported to be good for 250 lb-ft, a figure that's even been reported by people trying to argue against the M282. If I can find offical GM data on the M282 Getrag, I will of course add it to my original post. But if you take the 250 lb-ft figure as accurate, it's obvious the 2003 Getrag is weaker, by a substanial amount.

I don't know why you're still wondering if it's weaker. The numbers say it is weaker. I've tried to present raw data as unbiased as possible. I don't know what else I can offer. It's up to the reader now to decide what to do with that information.

Ok...I am not arguing with you... trying to Flame you... or bait you here.... It is the fact that this forum is prone to exaggerating figures that I have a problem with... I totally disagree with the 250 ft lb rating that you are pushing. The facts that are undisputable are all pointing to the fact that the Fiero getrag is not rated much higher than the 2003 getrag.
This quote is from ...
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/34Performance/dohc.html

regarding the history of the 3.4 TDC motor, which DOES NOT use the Fiero Getrag 282... but a 284 Getrag ...that had issues keeping together behind the stock 3.4 TDC motor.
"....the BEST motor that GM engineers could build for its application. Emission certification verifed an honest 281HP on the sheets. Emission 7000RPM screamer. This was in early 1990, January I believe. Transmission? Anyone? Hydramatic had its own challenges to conquer. The THM125 3 speed was being redesigned every year, to combat the next weakest link in the unit. The THM 440T-4 four speed auto debuted a few years earlier, but was prone to valve body and erratic shifting problems. The 440T-4 also had this quirk of self-destructing if the owner happend to get stuck in snow. Not much to build from...Hydramatic had its hands full on this job. An all new FWD O/D trans was needed. Many prototypes were tested at GM proving grounds, in believe it or not, a V8 FWD Camaro. Each version had uncovered problems, aka "The next weakest link". Time was fast running out. When it came clear that the all-new trans wouldn't be ready for production by mid-1990, there was only one thing to do. Redesign the 440-T4 as best as they could. Hydramatic went to the market with their finished product just days before the deadline. Will it take 275HP? NO! Will it take 250HP? NO! How bout 225Hp? Maybe. GM engine ground was peeved! All this effort, just to be cut down at the flywheel....225HP? I want 275! Well, the rest is corporate decision making at its worst. Cut the horsepower of the 3.4L to 200 with an automatic. You can have 210 on a stick. Makes a guy want to cry, don't it? Well, warranty concerns led the list of "why" and there's no way around it. The redesigned THM 440-T4 was designated the THM 4T60E, with an early RPO code of MXO. Internals were beefed up, a heavier drive chain, a better pump, and best of all, Electronic shifting! "
............
My point is that the stock Manual 3.4 TDC engine has only 215 ft lbs of torque... and if the 284 getrag transaxle was rated at around 280 ft lbs... Why didn't GM offer the HP 280hp version as an option behind the 284 Getrag??
Why did GM even have to come out with the 284 getrag ..if the Fiero transaxle was rated at 250 ft lbs??
GM could have offered the 280 HP engine behind the manual transaxle, but keep the detuned engine behind the auto, UNLESS the 284 could not handle the power of the HP 3.4 TDC ...Furthermore, why was the turbo GTP 3.1 only offered with an Auto transaxle??

quote Originally posted by SanBerdueFiero: ...Furthermore, why was the turbo GTP 3.1 only offered with an Auto transaxle??

Probably because it would be slower with a stick, just like the TTA and GN.

The article you posted described the entire process as "corporate decision making at its worst"... Why are you asking questions that assume anything about the setup was dictated by common sense?

So True...one can hope..

Although it nowhere levels the playing field, the weight of the 4T80E includes the lock up torque converter. The weight of the manual does NOT include the weight of the clutch, flywheel, pressure plate, and associated items that it has to include.

The other thing you fail to mention is that the automatic overdrives are, in effect, 5 speed transmissions with the lock up torque converter and not really 4 speeds. With the 4T80E you're almost doubling your torque capacity.

FWIW, I'm talking to TCI right now. You see, they have this really slick valve body for the 4L80E that makes it a 6 speed (7 with the lock up) and we're trying to see if it might adapt to the 4T80E.

The problem with most of the swaps that use the manuals is not the transmission, but the clutch. A stock clutch, if subjected to strong V8 HP, just won't cut it. Aftermarket clutches that mostly will hack it are serious money.

I don't fault anyone that wants to drive a manual, heck, they're fun to drive especially if you're young. I prefer an automatic, but whatever floats your boat. Just don't load the dice by posting what is somewhat misleading figures.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Formula88: All of the following data comes directly from GM Powertrain, unless otherwise stated. Hydra-Matic 4T65-E Transaxle http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/transmissions/hydra/apps/4t65.htm Weight: 195 lbs1 Gear Ratios: First: 2.921 Second: 1.568 Third: 1.000 Fourth: 0.705 Reverse: 2.385 Maximum Engine Torque: 280 lb-ft Maximum Gearbox Torque: 400 lb-ft Hydra-Matic 4T80-E Transaxle http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/transmissions/hydra/apps/4t80.htm Weight: 292 lbs1 Gear Ratios: First: 2.960 Second: 1.626 Third: 1.000 Fourth: 0.681 Reverse: 2.130 Maximum Engine Torque: 305 lb-ft Maximum Gearbox Torque: 461 lb-ft M282 Muncie/Getrag Transaxle2 Weight: 90 lbs. Maximum Engine Torque: 250 lb-ft. Footnote: 1Weight data taken from GM High-Tech Performance Magazine, May 2003, pg. 73. 2Getrag data is gathered from various posts on Pennock's and is unverified at this time.

quote Originally posted by SanBerdueFiero: My point is that the stock Manual 3.4 TDC engine has only 215 ft lbs of torque... and if the 284 getrag transaxle was rated at around 280 ft lbs... Why didn't GM offer the HP 280hp version as an option behind the 284 Getrag??

You keep making the fundamental error of equating torque with horsepower. Why didn't they offer the 280HP engine if the tranny is rated at 280 lb-ft. Torque and horsepower are different things. I know you know this, but you keep quoting HP figures in reference to torque ratings. That does not correlate. That could be where your confusion is coming in.

Also, the article you quote is anecdotal and may or may not be true.

quote The Getrag 5 Speed: The preferred transmission for the performance driver is known as the Getrag 282 in the Fiero, the 282, 5TM40 & NVT550 on the Quad-4 and later uses. The unit is designed for use up to 200 Ft. Lbs. of Torque, but if cared for and not abused will work with engines up to about 275 Ft. Lbs. of Torque. Available with standard transverse bellhousing or Quad-4 Bellhousing. If converting to a Quad-4 you will need the matching transmission. A close brother of this is the Getrag 284 that came with the 3.4 TDC Engine. It has a non-standard clutch that will need to be adapted to whatever you are upgrading to. It has a designed limit of about 250 ft lb. of Torque and with a lot of care can be used to about 300 Ft. Lbs. of torque . The 282 transmissions are built by Muncie Transmission Plant of G/M but are called Getrags because the design work on them was done by the Getrag Company of Germany...

This came from the ACE website, didn't it? Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda...

quote Originally posted by Will: This came from the ACE website, didn't it? Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda...

You are correct. It may be propaganda, or not. I quoted it becasue it was a second site that also listed the same 200 lb-ft figure for the HM282 Getrag. It's more for corroborating evidence, than anything else. Until I can find the official GM specs, this type of verification will have to do.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You keep making the fundamental error of equating torque with horsepower. Why didn't they offer the 280HP engine if the tranny is rated at 280 lb-ft. Torque and horsepower are different things. I know you know this, but you keep quoting HP figures in reference to torque ratings. That does not correlate. That could be where your confusion is coming in. Also, the article you quote is anecdotal and may or may not be true.

.... ) Nice try... I am not confused..and I did not "keep quoting HP figures in reference to torque ratings."
HP rating (280hp) were to reference a paticular engine.. Congrats everyone on getting more factual info posted.. I am impressed..

....
Maybe add this transaxle to the list??
"The Muncie 4 Speed: The original Fiero Transmission is a tough unit that can be used with both V6 and high power 4 cylinder engines. Offered in the Fiero from 1984 to 1986 on the 2.8L-V6 and on the Iron Duke in 1984 only.. Designed for about 200 Ft. Lb. of Torque. If cared for about 250 Ft Lbs. (Ace site)
It sounds like a reasonable rating.
Stock fiero 2.8 1985 .."The net result is 140 hp at 5200 rpm – from five to fifteen more horsepower than any other GM division is squeezing from this power plant – and 170 pounds-feet of torque at 3600 rpm....The 2.8-liter is handicapped somewhat by having to work through the same old four-speed manual transaxle that as introduced on the X-cars nearly six years ago. Unfortunately, GM still doesn't have a five-speed gearbox stout enough to handle the torque of this V-6." ( Refering to the Isuzu 5 speed)http://www2.trifocus.net:8000/~fws/magazines/cd-rt85fgt.html

[

[This message has been edited by SanBerdueFiero (edited 03-18-2003).]

quote Originally posted by SanBerdueFiero: .... ) Nice try... I am not confused..and I did not "keep quoting HP figures in reference to torque ratings." HP rating (280hp) were to reference a paticular engine.. Congrats everyone on getting more factual info posted.. I am impressed.. \

Try this:

quote ]Originally posted by SanBerdueFiero: My point is that the stock Manual 3.4 TDC engine has only 215 ft lbs of torque... and if the 284 getrag transaxle was rated at around 280 ft lbs... Why didn't GM offer the HP 280hp version as an option behind the 284 Getrag??

Rating of transmission 280 lb-ft, Engine 280 HP. This tells us nothing about the torque output of the engine, so you're confusing HP and torque.

quote ]Originally posted by SanBerdueFiero: Why did GM even have to come out with the 284 getrag ..if the Fiero transaxle was rated at 250 ft lbs?? GM could have offered the 280 HP engine behind the manual transaxle, but keep the detuned engine behind the auto, UNLESS the 284 could not handle the power of the HP 3.4 TDC ...

Now, maybe you know what you mean, but you keep saying you can offer an engine with X Horsepower because it has Y Torque rating. And that just isn't the case. You can have high horsepower and very low torque, and you can have high torque and low horsepower. Either way, you have to know the torque rating of the tranny, and the torque output of the engine. Discussing HP when you're concerned with torque is erroneous and innacurate.

Now, either you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you, in which case I'm wasting my time, or I can't understand what you mean, in which case I'm wasting my time.

I'm done wasting my time. Draw you own conclusions. No flame intended, I'm just tired of trying to explain what appears to be self-evident to me.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You are correct. It may be propaganda, or not. I quoted it becasue it was a second site that also listed the same 200 lb-ft figure for the HM282 Getrag. It's more for corroborating evidence, than anything else. Until I can find the official GM specs, this type of verification will have to do.

Take a look at what's on the rest of ACE's website: claims of cooling and emission problems with SBC's, claims of transmissions not suited to SBC's, claims of the chassis not suited to SBC's; all of these claims designed to scare people away from SBC's and choose a conversion that ACE offers.... I definitely don't go there for worthwhile info!
All of that information is obviously prejudiced toward what ACE wants you to think.

I for one am not concerned with how GM rated the transmission. It has proven its reliability with significantly more than stock power ratings. I've been beating on my Getrag with my Northstar on a daily basis for the last 15,000 miles. It needed new synchros when I got it, but nothing else has broken, and since I've overhauled it, it has never skipped a beat.