68383GTS
Well-Known Member
What does a factory 1968 904 converter stall at? Ordering a Hughes converter either a 2000 or 2500 stall.318 Low comp ,small cam headers, 4 bbl ,904 ,373 gear,71 Dart
What does a 904 stall at?
- Thread starter 68383GTS
- Start date
-
diymirage
HP@idle > hondaHP@redline
at a traffic light?
or a 4 way stop?
my point is, call whoever your ordering it from and have them tell you what you need
(since it sounds like your not considering a stocker anyway, right?)
or a 4 way stop?
my point is, call whoever your ordering it from and have them tell you what you need
(since it sounds like your not considering a stocker anyway, right?)
many 904 factory converters would "brake stall" over 2000 rpm's with a 318 2bbl. Your motor's low end torque will have a lot to do with what rpm the converter will "flash" stall or "brake" stall up to.
dibbons
Well-Known Member
From '72 FSM:
Charrlie_S
Well-Known Member
It depends. Example of converter stall. Granted it is an aftermarket race unit, but it pertains to any converter.
Engine 170 slant six, stall speed 3200 rpm. Same converter behind 225 slant six, stall speed about 4,000 rpm. More input torque higher stall from the same converter.
What torque does your motor have?
1969reddart
or is it Copper...
My stock '69 318 - 904 converter brake stalled at 1800 RPM. Same converter with a mild 360 brake stalled at 2100 RPM.
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 24,870
- Reaction score
- 12,217
Did anyone notice that the stall range in that chart is 300 freaking rpm, on every single application.So tell me, if they build 1,000,000 SBMs and they have a 300 rpm stall range, why is that?
It's like they are saying "our Mopar engines can be dogs, not quite so doggy and sorta normal. And the way you can tell which one you are stuck with,is by how hi it stalls at",lol. Or
are they saying "our TCs are junk, we don't know what they stall at, but we'd like to believe we do"? Ok, so I'm just blowing off steam........
you need a 2800;
300 for the cam/compression-induced, low-end loss, and 300more to get you where the torque starts,and 300 more for the we don't know factor.
Ok honestly, for a fun time, you need; a minimum 2800 for a low-C teener for the stock cam and 3.55s. Your 3.73s are good for 5% and the cam will lose at least 5%, so you're back to 2800. You won't be disappointed with at least a 2800.I guarantee you will be disappointed with a 2000. The 2500 is a compromise with maybe a nod to hi-way useage, but the 3.73s already are that; as 65=3100 no slip with 26.5s. If you are a sharp tuner, that 318 will really come alive with the 2800. If you cylinder pressure ends up in the basement, that 2800 might only be a 2500,(2800 less the 300 fudge factor,lol), so you can't lose with it.
Yeah 2800 minimum.
and just maybe, the A999 with a 2.74 low gear.I did that one winter with 2.76s; first gear was good to over50 mph, and the trip there with the TQ-moan was very satisfying.
The A999 ratios would be dynomite with 3.73s; 30mph would be 2200 in second at zero-slip,like when just cruising. But on the downshift, the Rs will climb to maybe a tic over 4000, and you can take that gear to over 60 mph at maybe 4600.Say with a bit of a cam and matching springs, you could get 72 mph @5500rpm.
For comparison; the A904 will get you 2064@30 in second,3660@30 mph in first, and 76@5500 in second.
But the real story is on the start-line. The 2.74s are 11.8% stronger on take off, allowing probably 200 rpm less stall for the same blast off power; if a lower stall is somehow important to you. If it's not, then the extra 11.8% just means an extra 11.8% take-off smiles,lol.You can think of that extra 11.8TM in the transmission as equal to, plus 11.8% in the rear gear, making your 3.73s equal to 4.17s. Or you could take out 11.8% from your 3.73s to get 3.29s
If that's confusing; try this ; you currently have 3.73s and a 2.45 low in the trans. Together that makes a starter gear of 9.14. If your engine musters 140 ftlbs at 2200stall, then you will be blasting off at 140 x 3.73 x 2.45=1279 ftlbs.
If you changed to a 2.74 low trans,you will be blasting off with 140 x 2.74 x 3.73 =1431#(plus 11.8%)
If you then swapped the rear out to a 3.23, you would be blasting off with 140 x 3.23 x 2.74 =1239#, close to what you started out at (1279#), but are now cruising 65=2671 compared to 3075 with the 3.73s.
Ok now how about that 2800TC
well suppose that TC gets your engine up to where she makes 160ftlbs. Suppose.
So now you will be blasting off with 160 x 2.45 x 3.73=1462#. Compare that to the previous numbers from the old TC, which were 1279/1431.
So now, you're cooking right? Hang on we're not finished. With all that take off torque, it would be possible to go back to BOTH the 3.23s and the A999, and then you would get; 160 x 3.23 x 2.74 =1416# and you're back to cruising at 65=2671.
Or
I better quit, the post-length-police might get on me again,lol.
Ok one more; 1200ish will spin both 245s, 1400 will spin both 275s. 1600 will spin any street tires you can stuff in the stock tubs.
So you don't need to chase big numbers for take off, on the street. I once had a 6600ftlb potential,lol but had to slip out the clutch at just off idle to not spin 295s ......
But it's not for free; the A998 gives away a bit on the 1-2 shift . And for a streeter who cares about the 2-3.(which would also give away a bit compared to the A904).
It's like they are saying "our Mopar engines can be dogs, not quite so doggy and sorta normal. And the way you can tell which one you are stuck with,is by how hi it stalls at",lol. Or
are they saying "our TCs are junk, we don't know what they stall at, but we'd like to believe we do"? Ok, so I'm just blowing off steam........
you need a 2800;
300 for the cam/compression-induced, low-end loss, and 300more to get you where the torque starts,and 300 more for the we don't know factor.
Ok honestly, for a fun time, you need; a minimum 2800 for a low-C teener for the stock cam and 3.55s. Your 3.73s are good for 5% and the cam will lose at least 5%, so you're back to 2800. You won't be disappointed with at least a 2800.I guarantee you will be disappointed with a 2000. The 2500 is a compromise with maybe a nod to hi-way useage, but the 3.73s already are that; as 65=3100 no slip with 26.5s. If you are a sharp tuner, that 318 will really come alive with the 2800. If you cylinder pressure ends up in the basement, that 2800 might only be a 2500,(2800 less the 300 fudge factor,lol), so you can't lose with it.
Yeah 2800 minimum.
and just maybe, the A999 with a 2.74 low gear.I did that one winter with 2.76s; first gear was good to over50 mph, and the trip there with the TQ-moan was very satisfying.
The A999 ratios would be dynomite with 3.73s; 30mph would be 2200 in second at zero-slip,like when just cruising. But on the downshift, the Rs will climb to maybe a tic over 4000, and you can take that gear to over 60 mph at maybe 4600.Say with a bit of a cam and matching springs, you could get 72 mph @5500rpm.
For comparison; the A904 will get you 2064@30 in second,3660@30 mph in first, and 76@5500 in second.
But the real story is on the start-line. The 2.74s are 11.8% stronger on take off, allowing probably 200 rpm less stall for the same blast off power; if a lower stall is somehow important to you. If it's not, then the extra 11.8% just means an extra 11.8% take-off smiles,lol.You can think of that extra 11.8TM in the transmission as equal to, plus 11.8% in the rear gear, making your 3.73s equal to 4.17s. Or you could take out 11.8% from your 3.73s to get 3.29s
If that's confusing; try this ; you currently have 3.73s and a 2.45 low in the trans. Together that makes a starter gear of 9.14. If your engine musters 140 ftlbs at 2200stall, then you will be blasting off at 140 x 3.73 x 2.45=1279 ftlbs.
If you changed to a 2.74 low trans,you will be blasting off with 140 x 2.74 x 3.73 =1431#(plus 11.8%)
If you then swapped the rear out to a 3.23, you would be blasting off with 140 x 3.23 x 2.74 =1239#, close to what you started out at (1279#), but are now cruising 65=2671 compared to 3075 with the 3.73s.
Ok now how about that 2800TC
well suppose that TC gets your engine up to where she makes 160ftlbs. Suppose.
So now you will be blasting off with 160 x 2.45 x 3.73=1462#. Compare that to the previous numbers from the old TC, which were 1279/1431.
So now, you're cooking right? Hang on we're not finished. With all that take off torque, it would be possible to go back to BOTH the 3.23s and the A999, and then you would get; 160 x 3.23 x 2.74 =1416# and you're back to cruising at 65=2671.
Or
I better quit, the post-length-police might get on me again,lol.
Ok one more; 1200ish will spin both 245s, 1400 will spin both 275s. 1600 will spin any street tires you can stuff in the stock tubs.
So you don't need to chase big numbers for take off, on the street. I once had a 6600ftlb potential,lol but had to slip out the clutch at just off idle to not spin 295s ......
But it's not for free; the A998 gives away a bit on the 1-2 shift . And for a streeter who cares about the 2-3.(which would also give away a bit compared to the A904).
Last edited:
csheehy
^Yup, that's me
So unless you put in a 3000-3500 it's a waste. With no rumpety rump cam, it's a waste anyway.
-
