Torque Converter v Gears

[cyclone03]

Several years ago one of the car mags did a test comparing different torque converter stalls over different gear ratios.They tested both small block and big block Chevys.
Of course I can't remember the results.

So my question is..........
Would a higher stall converter that still retained the full lock up of the stocker out perform in the 1/4mile a car with only a 4.10:1 gear?

My thinking is freeway performance (RPM) would be unchanged so drive train noise and vibes would not be an issue.Fuel mileage on the highway would be unchanged.

Am I over simplifing this or am I on the right track?

[mensrea]

Your hypothetical is interesting, I would love to see a head to head with a 4.10 and a converter, since I have both I can't tell you.

ALl I know is that the converter added poines, increased gas mileage and looks really cool. IT aint cheap though, although I think Dennis may be able to get a group rate.

[SergntMac]

IMHO, regardless of other mods, you're not going to see a decent launch without 4:10 gears.

You pose an interesting question, just how much HP/TQ does a custom torque converter add to the program? I've not found any hard facts on it myself, yet, and I'd like to know too. However, if it's power to the wheels you want in the long run, why not both?

[mensrea]

I saw thirty some horses to the rear wheels on my car, I don't know what it will do with a stock one, gotta be close to that. Obviously, the converter doesn't increase power, it just transfers it that much more efficiently. I wouldn't be surprised to see gains in the area of 2/10 in the 60 foot and 3/4 in the full quarter mile. The torque multiplication on the 9 1/2-inch series is 2.53 to 1 compared to stock at 1.93 to 1. The torque multiplication of the converter will deliver an increase of up to 50 horsepower to the rear wheels (I saw around 30ish)

[RancorKeeper]

I'm gonna go with SergntMac on this one. A converter won't do much for the stock motor, considering the power band hasn't changed. But steeper gears will always multiply the available torque at the wheels, and the effect is more pronounced in a heavier car. I'd imagine a decrease in 60' time of at least 3/10s with a swap from 3.55 to 4.10.

[mensrea]

Well all I can tell you is my experience, and the experience of others, the PI converter DOES benefit a stock motor, more ponies and reduction in 1/4 time are hard to beat.

Some of the SS guys here suggested az converter from the start, and they love it as well. Do a search for converter on here and you can see the results.

Again, the change to a new converter is a definite help, better gas mileage, better horses, etc.

If you had to pick one, pick the 4.10s cause they're cheaper, if you've got the cash to do it, swap the converter. I promise you will notice a difference. I have it in mine, and love it.

[cyclone03]

What I was looking for was the same or better 1/4mile performance as the gear change WITHOUT the highway mileage loss the gear change would give.

I contacted PI asking about the the lock up function and they say there clutch is more durable than the stocker.

OH to have the money to test for myself.

[mensrea]

Well I don't have 1/4 mile times, but I have the dyno that shows increased HP.

I would be curious to see if anyone did a before and after with the 4/10s in the 1/4.

If you have the money do it, you won't be disappointed.

Here's a link to a thread discussing the converter - converter thread (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=512&highlight=torque+converter)

[RancorKeeper]

Originally posted by mensrea
Well all I can tell you is my experience, and the experience of others, the PI converter DOES benefit a stock motor, more ponies and reduction in 1/4 time are hard to beat.
Well, my experience is quite different, so here's my two cents on the subject. I've been in literally dozens of 5.0s with the old FRPP 3,200 stall converter and can't say there was any noticeable difference off-the-line unless the motor had an upgrade to the E-303 cam (or something similar, like an intake or head swap). Also, when I was on the fence about whether to put the S-10 converter in my Caprice or buy a 3.73 ring & pinion, I drove several club member's Impalas that had a high stall converter & none of them felt any quicker out of the hole, but every car that had steeper gears put me back in the seat. I just don't see how upgrading to a higher stall is going be a better performance mod when the engine's torque curve hasn't changed - not that the factory stall is perfectly suited for the Marauder - but a few hundred rpm difference won't make do much for better 1/4 times, IMO. At least, not as much as a gear swap. Obviously, taller gears will affect gas mileage, where a torque converter probably won't, unless you go so high with the stall that it is actually higher than the rpm the engine starts it's power climb. Interesting discussion though, and I'll look at your dyno plots, but they don't tell the whole story without before & after results from the track, as you know.

[mensrea]

This is getting annyoing...

I did not say you should do the converter instead of the 4.10s, I said if you had the money do both.

What we need is someone to buy and install the converter, take it to the track, then take the converter out, put in 4.10s and then go to the track, etc.

My dad always said there is an ass for every seat so I take what I hear from other people with a grain of salt. There is no requirement that anyone on this board or any board know what the heck they are talking about, so let me say it again... the converter improved my gas mileage, made a noticeble difference not only in off the line, but passing as well, and the dyno numbers sure helped.

If you don't want a converter, don't buy one.

[tetsu]

Originally posted by SergntMac
IMHO, regardless of other mods, you're not going to see a decent launch without 4:10 gears.



I disagree strongly with this statement. You realize that a high stall t/c (I'd go with around a 3500) would eliminate the bogging on launch. Straight to the band and bust them wheels loose.

Plus our ****zitty t/c is giving away power for no good reason 95% of the time besides having too low a stall.

However, gears are alot cheaper.

I say for best go-go do what Mensrea did (if you have them deep pockets) do it all.

If I was in Mensrea's enviable position, I'd go right off for a bullet-proof tranny with some rethinking on the gears (rather than waiting for the stocker to puke during a pull.)

Johnny (who can't wait for Spring so we can have a meet at da Grove and see Mensrea's wheels freak out!) (Maybe we can pool our milkmoney and chip in for some drag radials for him!)

Party on!
Johnny

[cyclone03]

Mensrea,
I hope its not me being annoying.

To keep this going..........
I'm not looking at "bang for the buck".
For those who have done gears,does anybody have before and after 1/4 times?I know most go with a chip to correct the speedo and improve performance.

I emailed PI and there converter has a 2.5:1 torque multiplying factor over the stock 1.97:1 of the stock converter.I didn't ask about stall speed.

[mensrea]

Cyclone,
Not you being annoying, just all the people with opinions and thoughts... I know from experience that the tc will help you out, how much who can say.

[Billatpro]

mensrea is giving you good advice, you have to take the advice of a guy who is using it and getting results. Do the gears first, it's cheapest and then do the converter when you can afford it, unless you afford both now. As for myself, I'm going with Reinhart triple, 4:10's and the converter this spring and then I'll start thinking about "Blower"

[SergntMac]

Johnny, you disagree with everything I say, and I kind of enjoy that. But I still disagree with your strong disagreement, because it's just not logical from where I sit in slower Illinois.

Let's not "what if" this stuff, it's simple engineering and doesn't need to get complicated with opinions. A rear gear reproduces what it's fed, and as the ratio numbers grow, so does the reproduction. 4:10 spin faster than 3:55, all the time, from creep to top end, period.

A high performance TQ reduces drive-line power loss, it does not produce more power on it's own. Our customary 20-25% drive line loss from flywheel to tiires, is reduced to maybe 15-20%, (who knows what the numbers really are?). Point is, all it will do, is push more engine power to the rear gear, period.

Improving the efficiency of a TQ as it is discussed here, is surely a worth while mod. However, it comes with a price tag, and I doubt any of us would get the full "bang for the buck" payback if we retain the stock 3:55 gearing. It will show improvement, yes, but not all it could with 4:10 gears. You don't need a 1/4 mile time slip to figure this out, it's simple engineering, and a touch of math.

I'm sold...new TQ for me by spring, let the dyno tell the truth.

[BigMerc]

Gotta go with the Sarge on this one too (not just because hes the Sarge either).
Common sense is hard to beat and Mensrea has the stuff, he would know what makes a difference. makes sense at least when I read it, Mensrea has had to say the same basic statement 3- 4 times and it still didnt get through to all.

where you from WISCONSIN!!!! (<------cheap shot at wisconsin, made for the sarge... hey had to, we're paison!!!!)

[RancorKeeper]

Originally posted by SergntMac
A rear gear reproduces what it's fed, and as the ratio numbers grow, so does the reproduction. 4:10 spin faster than 3:55, all the time, from creep to top end, period.

A high performance TC reduces drive-line power loss, it does not produce more power on it's own. Point is, all it will do, is push more engine power to the rear gear, period.
Very well put, nice & succinct.

[mensrea]

Sarge,
I'll trade you my TC for your air freshner....

[LincMercLover]

Sarge is dead on with his statements...

Mensrea, I'll give ya a CD for your TC! :D

[tetsu]

Sarge,

I basically disaggree with your statement that gears are the only way to launch. Really I think mensrea already has more torque than street tires can apply to the pavement from 0. If you want to talk about MMs with slicks then I start to aggree that both gears and TC are needed.. In fact maybe 4.33s or 4.56s will be best with slicks and extreme output motors.

The launch benefit of a higher gear ratio and a higher stall on the TC are very similar. Both are designed to more quickly get the motor into
the power band (high torque section) of the rpm curve.

The gears help by making it mechanically easier to get to higher rpm for the same amount of vehicle acceleration.

The TC helps by allowing the rotating assembly to spin up to a certain rpm before the TC actually locks up and starts transferring torque to the
tranny. (This is the so-called FLash Stall rpm) At this higher rpm the motor is outputting FAR more torque. Torque is what makes a car go.

Now, my current TC has a flash stall somewhere around 2400-2700 rpm. It does lock up on launch but then eases back very rapidly. 2400rpm is still not a real sweet spot in our torque curve. I personally feel that a higher stall TC like 3000-3500 would really wake up our launches in a BIG way even on stock motors. Once launched the 3.55 gears now are an asset rather than an impediment.

If 60 ft times are your primary interest, having both gears and high stall TC would be idea. I'd still really like to see a comparison on mensrea's rig comparing his setup with 4.10s vs 3.55s. I think that he might have too much twist to launch optimally with 4.10s. I also would love to see his rig compared with 4.33s and slicks.

Ideally, rather than changing the rear gear ratio, we'd change 1st gear
to a lower ratio. IMHO

Now, I'm not a Mechanical Engineer. However, I did study alot of Mechanics in Engineering school (Computer engineering.)

I'm not saying TC or better than gears or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that a TC could probably achieve the same 60ft time deltas as gears (though the TC would cost more.)

To really maximize the 1/4 mile ET you'd have to model the actual tire rotations from the tree to the 1/4 and do some moderately interesting analysis. Then when you have a hypothesis, you'd probably want to
make runs and see if your theory holds up under the actual radar beam.

One thing that I must say though. My own cars biggest obstacle on the 1/4 has noting to do with the ET it's the R/T that's killing me! :) I need a mod to help that!

Johnny

[MAD-3R]

Tetsu,
Very well put. I think I understand the mechanics (as well as a layman can) on gears and TC. I'm wondering if a good TC with 3.73's amd chip would be the "middle ground" that many of us have been hunting for.

BTW, you probebly have the fastest Stock Marauder out there by your numbers. I hope to break into the 14's this spring.

[SergntMac]

Thank you, Johnny, for presenting your thoughts clearly, however, you've not won me over. Two schools of thought that cannot be further examined without real world testing. I look forward to hooking up with you sometime over the summer at the Grove.

[RancorKeeper]

Originally posted by tetsu
One thing that I must say though. My own cars biggest obstacle on the 1/4 has noting to do with the ET it's the R/T that's killing me! :) I need a mod to help that!
Your Reaction Time has nothing to do with your Elapsed Time. Low reaction times are useful in heads up racing or bracket racing, but since the clock doesn't actually begin timing until the front of your car breaks the beam, you could sit at the line for 30 seconds (or longer) before hitting the gas & still get your best ET ever. Fast times are usually won & lost in the first 60' and high speeds are usually affected most by precise shifting and keeping the rpms in the powerband, but RT is just a good way to measure your reflexes.

[tetsu]

Originally posted by SergntMac
Thank you, Johnny, for presenting your thoughts clearly, however, you've not won me over. Two schools of thought that cannot be further examined without real world testing. I look forward to hooking up with you sometime over the summer at the Grove.

Definitely, Sarge. Hopefully we can get a nice group together and maybe slobber all over Mensrea's Vortech. ;)

Johnny

[MarauderBoy]

Quite frankly, I've had it with the MM's sloppy transmission. I can't help but think of all the wonderful HP & TQ lost while the tranny decides what to do.

What are the $$ numbers in terms of TC and installation?

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by MarauderBoy
Quite frankly, I've had it with the MM's sloppy transmission. I can't help but think of all the wonderful HP & TQ lost while the tranny decides what to do. What are the $$ numbers in terms of TC and installation?


"Sloppy" you say? Have you considered Reinhart's chip first? It does tighten things nicely, including shift points, both under normal cruise and WOT driving. That may be enough to please you, anticipate around 300. in parts, self installed.

Not enough, eh? I'm still looking at converters too, it's amazing what manfacturers want to tell you about their product, and what they don't. I'd like to hear some suggestions from anyone here whose "been here and done this." As for cost, I've seen a lot of different numbers, on a lot of different converters, so for now, I'm budgeting 700. for parts and 300. for labor.

Advice anyone?

links are herlpful...

[mensrea]

There are a lot of converters out there, I strongly believe that the PI Stallion is the way to go. I met the owners, and they have a real interest in making the converters for the Marauder. Even on a stock car I am sure it is worth it.