that 2.3 was on the quickest pass (12.6) and its that high as i said because a 3.71 fdr 80 and the aurora converter are way too much for the instant tq.

you have no clue how uncontrollable the whipple was. hitting 10+psi at rpm's that even your relativly small turbo cant. id also hazard a guess that your turbo car didnt have subs, amps and even the spare tire in the trunk.
3.71fdr was the wrong gear, the FASTEST pass was with the 3.48fdr and aurora converter but the converter always came on too strong and broke the tires free so i dont think we got much below 2.0.

put that setup into a fiero and it'd rock your socks off...on the front end of a giant buick it was a recipe for smokeshows or slow easy starts till past the 60-100ft

the latest 3.48 trans and N* converter launched craploads better, the motor didnt flash as hard and it was far easier to feather the throttle without dealing with in and out of stall transitions on the looser aurora converter. id bet he coulda pushed that setup much harder

nope, seen far more 65e one legger's... admittedly since you dont see fwd caddy's at the dragstrip...

what you didnt think the rear trans was gonna carry most of the weight?
until the front can pull as hard as the rear off the line your rear is gonna handle the load till the front can claw its way back up to 50%. of course there's gonna be a load spike. the only way you can fix this is with the chassis to keep the nose down (where we are now)

no mater what you do your not gonna fix that problem with the tranny's, thankfully your turbo so you can get a few staged levels of boost to keep the front in check until it has the grip to pull its own weight. probably your only hope with the 65e would be to limit boost/power out back as well.

you want proof it will handle the power? well **** get in line.

i have plenty of proof its craploads stronger than the 65e...unless that 65e is like the TR's and has taken countless years and over 8k$ to get it to handle a measly 600whp in a lightweight fwd regal...

ive seen the same caddy haule an 18ft trailer from chicago to wisconsin 4 times a year for 5+ years, we replaced the motor and the 80e had 170k on it when he traded it in on a new caddy.

when was the last time you saw a GP towing a boat. look at the caddy and gp tow ratings...the caddy trans is made to handle twice the weight....if you dont think its got a better chance than the 65e, then id suggest you start saving cause that 65e build is gonna rape you like it did us (not to mention the trans has been in and outa dozen times now...)

i know you have a shop and a buncha guys you can put on this, but im sure with your low buck build you dont want a trans worth more than the car is....

your also running a 3.29 of 2.93 FDR in the rear....imagine how much easier on the parts it'll be with a 3.71 or even the 3.48...since youll be able to pare back the power while still getting moving.

plenty of pro cars dont use anything near full power off the line, what good is power if all it does is break **** or lose traction....you can often go faster with less.

im just trying to pass on what ive learned from all my work so far. as i said, you get to share the headache now.

HAHAHAHAAH

really though, teardown the transmissions and take pics (i never got around to the pic taking part)

tell me you dont think its stronger...yeah you may still be dealing with breakage and slippage, but at least it cheap...getting harder and harder to find good 65e's nowadays....maybe thats why the prices on good used 65's seem to be almost twice that of the 80e. break one, swap it out, run a 3.48, swap in a 3.11 diff and retest, etc etc

at that point limit the power and keep having fun/sorting **** out...or start dumping money in.

the 4t80e aint no magic cure but it is better.

besides, no more of that pesky line pressure drop on turns/hard accel with the 80e (dry sump trans)