Yellow Bullet Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I finally got a clean pass with the logger on and was able to get some info that has me puzzled.

Combo is 632 w/a small single stage fogger (28N/22F) with a Powerglide in a 3100lbs car; convertor is a 9" Continental. The car has gone 5.31 @ 132 on the motor at 3260lbs. Running on the unit above, the car went 5.21 @ 137, but here is the issue:
At peak engine RPM in 1st gear, the slippage was huge - 8106ERPM vs. 4218DSRPM; the RPM drop at the shift was only 1030RPM; at the end of the run the peak ERPM was 7934 and DSRPM was 7269. Something is way off.....

I am obviously blowing through the convertor. I have two questions for you guys before I call Continental:
1) How much should I tighten it up?
2) Is a 9" ineffective in this combo?

Also, any ideas as to what I am leaving on the table as far as ET and MPH are concerned????

Any feedback would be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Sounds about perfect. 1000 rpm drop is good. 8% slip is good. ET and MPH match.

As far as the first gear slip number, multiply the DS RPM by the trans first gear ratio...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,718 Posts
Do plan to run more than one kit? The drop on the gear change you want 800-1000 rpm and your right there. 8 percent slip is in the ball park, you could tighen it a little and make the slip a little less. But if it's like some of the Continental convertors tha we have run the more power you put to it the less drop you have on the shift and slip at the line get's better to a point. Look more at what it's doing down low off the brake thru to about .8 to 1.0, that's where you will see the most improvement most of the time!!
 

·
TRZ Rocks!
Joined
·
3,737 Posts
Your slippage at the top of first gear was only 6% assuming your glide has a 1.80 gearset in it.

8106 divided by 4218 equals 1.92 (engine was turning 1.92 times everytime the driveshaft turned once)

1.92 (ratio it was turning) divided by 1.80 (the gear set ratio) equals 1.06 or the engine was going 6% more than it would if it was perfectly coupled to a 1.80 gear set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
Something doesn't add up to me. You picked up a .10 and 5 mph on the unit and the car is 160 lbs lighter. If you go by the old for every 100lbs lost you gain a .10 theory and I'm understanding correctly that your slippage was only 6-8% I would think you would have picked up a lot more or your slippage would have been thru the roof. Does your data actually show the unit activated?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Something doesn't add up to me. You picked up a .10 and 5 mph on the unit and the car is 160 lbs lighter. If you go by the old for every 100lbs lost you gain a .10 theory and I'm understanding correctly that your slippage was only 6-8% I would think you would have picked up a lot more or your slippage would have been thru the roof. Does your data actually show the unit activated?
Yeah, I don't get it, I thought it would have picked-up a little more than that. With the weight change I hoped to run 5teens on the motor alone....I am getting disgusted.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top