Yellow Bullet Forums banner

Powerglide 1.80 vs 1.69 first

199K views 549 replies 106 participants last post by  fofo 
#1 ·
I have a bbf with two foggers @3200lbs. I was thinking about going with the 1.69 but my trans Guy said my car is too heavy and makes too much power for the 1.69. He said I'd better off with the 1.80 and less gear in the rear. I'm really curious who's running the 1.69 and what their setup and weight is.
 
#3 · (Edited)
3067 lbs, 427 SBC, SB2 headed motor on one Fogger. Run a best so far of 5.16 @ 135.79

1.69 (Hughes) planetaries and a 3.89 out back on a 275

Your car is not too heavy for them.
 
#4 ·
I ran a 1.69 with with my small block for 3 Years and had no problem. but now am switching to a th400 just because of those kind of stories. went a best of 4.88 at 3000.lbs
 
#8 ·
put the lowest trans gear you can get in it (1.69- not 1.80) and the most rear gear you can (assuming you can make the finish line without over revving it). Closer (lower drop on the shift) ratio setups are faster in practically every application. You are correct in your assumption of putting in the 1.69.

This swap is actually so popular that their will soon be even lower ratios available. 1.57 and 1.54 in the very near future.
 
#9 ·
put the lowest trans gear you can get in it (1.69- not 1.80) and the most rear gear you can (assuming you can make the finish line without over revving it). Closer (lower drop on the shift) ratio setups are faster in practically every application. You are correct in your assumption of putting in the 1.69.

This swap is actually so popular that their will soon be even lower ratios available. 1.57 and 1.54 in the very near future.
The man has spoken,if it were me and you dont have a trans yet 1.48 and 4.30 in the back.
 
#10 ·
Shit I had a feeling that's what everyone was going to say. He just got the planetary this morning but said he would send it back and put the 1.69 in there but he strongly discourages it. He said that the 1.69 is weak when compared to the 1.80 and told me to consider the total first gear ratio, 1st gear ratio x rear gear. I'm more concerned with the drop on the 1-2 shift with a 1.8 and a lower gear ratio.
 
#16 ·
Forgot to mention, I'm about to start my third season on my 1.69's. Trans is apart right now and planet set still looks brand new.
 
#19 ·
We had the 1.80 first then switch to the 1.69 first alone with a little more gear in the rear. Car liked it all the way around. I'm another one that would put a higher first gear in the trans and more out back if we could get a gear set for the glide. Good luck...
 
#26 ·
How much have you guys picked up going from the 1.80 to 1.69? Have you picked up out of the hole becuase you have been able to hit it harder? I would think with a heavier car, the 1.80 ratio would help it accelerate on the launch, but hurt on the 1-2 shift, since it would be dropping so much from the 1.8 to 1.
Right now I have a 4.30 in the back and with the 1.76 and the baby pills in it, and it left good and I never had any traction issues. I'm not saying that I couldn't have come out harder, because I didn't try, but it came out real nice..and I really don't want to change that. I was thinking of reducing the gear in the back (3.55 or 3.73) so I can run some 1/4 races that we have around here, but I don't know how that will all work out with either gear set in the trans and big block. I am used to running a SBF with 1.80 and 3.50 rear gear.
 
#27 ·
Here is my experience this year with planitary gears and converters....

1.96 first gear in tranny, 355 rear gear, tight converter that would see 1800 drop on shift....5.32 @ 135 1.31-1.35 60
1.96 first gear in tranny, 355 rear gear, loose conveter that would drop 800 on shift...5.39 @ 131 1.35-1.40 60
1.80 first gear in trany, 355 rear gear, tight converter back in....5.30 @ 136 1.31 ft

All where in same car..3400 pounds..stock suspension..275 radial..bbc making over 1000 @ rear tire.
 
#30 ·
Can anyone explain how you can "hit the tire harder" with the 1.69 vs the 1.80? I guess I don't understand, if you take the trans ratio and multiply it by the rear gear you get the total first gear ratio... for example - 1.69x4.30 = 7.267 and 1.80x3.73=6.714, so wouldn't I be able to come out with more power with the 1.80x3.73 on a smaller tire? I understand it wont recover as fast on the 1-2 shift as having the 1.69, but with all the torque of a bb and nitrous, I don't think it would have a problem with the 1.80 and 3.55....any logic to my thoughts?
 
#33 ·
Very interesting thread. Thanks. We run a Glide & 1.80 first gear, with 4.10 rear gear in both cars, and yes, the RPMs drop a ton on 1-2 shift....like 1700. I know this cannot be ideal for ET performance. Getting consistently off the starting line is also an issue for us, especially given the condition of most of the tracks we run on...

Reading with interest...
 
#34 ·
[/QUOTE]
^^^^^^^^^^
Brian , I told you this same thing yesterday when you called. Now it's posted on the internet so it must be true :smt082
give me a call when you are ready for the cam shaft. as far as the hit goes, it changes how your converter works early into the run.
PK[/QUOTE]


LOL..I dont know what you are talking about! :cool::p
I wanted to see how everyone else has done with the swap, and if they think it was worth it based on data and logevity of the 1.69 gearset.... my buddy just put a 1.69 set in (against trans guys recommendation), but the track temps were in the upper 30-40's, so the testing was pretty useless, and we got no data. Like I mentioned on the phone, the 1.80 is sitting on the trans bench waiting to be put in the trans, I feel bad making him send it back, AND I am second guessing my decision again!
 
#36 ·
^^^^^^^^^^
Brian , I told you this same thing yesterday when you called. Now it's posted on the internet so it must be true :smt082
give me a call when you are ready for the cam shaft. as far as the hit goes, it changes how your converter works early into the run.
PK[/QUOTE]


LOL..I dont know what you are talking about! :cool::p
I wanted to see how everyone else has done with the swap, and if they think it was worth it based on data and logevity of the 1.69 gearset.... my buddy just put a 1.69 set in (against trans guys recommendation), but the track temps were in the upper 30-40's, so the testing was pretty useless, and we got no data. Like I mentioned on the phone, the 1.80 is sitting on the trans bench waiting to be put in the trans, I feel bad making him send it back, AND I am second guessing my decision again![/QUOTE]


I hear you, Its good to get all the info you can. This stuff costs money and being as educated as best you can is always good. Give Lane a shout at PTC and talk with him about it . He can give you a good idea on just how long the gear set will hang in there.
PK
 
#38 ·
If you can consistently get the car down the track with 1.80s, yes, they will last longer...........but..........I doubt that is going to happen with your combination. The 1.69, will be more forgiving, more consistent AND faster.

As far as radials vs slicks...........NOTHING is as hard on parts as radials and it has nothing to do with the sidewalls. It is the nature of HOW the tire works. You can "blacktrack" or spin a slick down the entire length of the track, more or less and the car still go fast. You spin a radial, it is done and you are dead in the water. A radial is "dead hooked" all the time, or you are not going anywhere. THAT is hard on parts.

Monte
 
#56 ·
Think we must have atleast "dead hooked" slicks twice over the past 10yrs, because I have broken two 1.69 planetaries, dont get me wrong, we still run them, they have lasted me about 4 to 5yrs each time. once did try the 1.65 planetary, lasted about 3/4 of one season
 
#42 ·
I just went and talked to Dave Klaput, owner of Proformance Transmissions, and he said he would not recommend going with the 1.69 gear set in any combo anymore. He said he used to all the time, and he still has a couple of customers that have the 1.69 in their car that havent broke yet, but the majority are breaking them every year. The only ones he has had luck with are the gear sets built in 08-09, he's not sure why those are lasting, but they are. He also mentioned a couple local x275 cars have gone back to the 1.80, due to the 1.69 breaking so often. - Just figured I would relay the info I was given today.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top