PT4000 2.7 vs. SS4000 2.6
02-03-2004, 07:22 AM
#22
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stone0fFire
are you saying that i should keep my midwest 3400/2.0???
If I had to choose between the PT4000 and the SS4000 I would go with the SS4000 unless you race a lot. The PT series will be very loose with 2.73 gears.
If I could choose any converter to replace your Midwest I would go with a TCI. I sure as hell would not go with a Yank product.
My PT4400 self destructed and in my conversations with Mike at Yank I was told that he would NOT HONOR the warranty on the PT series converters if you were not using 3..73s or numerically higher gear. Needless to say he did not HONOR the warranty on my PT4400 converter because I was running 3.23 gears.
Now I have a 34lb, $900 dollar door stop.
Bottom line is go with a company that will stand behind their product, provide good customer service, and will HONOR their warranty. I know first hand that Yank is not the company for that.
Good luck
John
02-03-2004, 07:38 AM
#23
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ragtop 99
John your explanation makes partial sense if you are measuring efficency only on the top end of the converter, not off the line. You said across the quarter mile. That means your calculation includes the launch, when the converter input shaft is at 4400 and the output shaft is at zero. However if you are looking at your rpm on the top end of the track, then yes that is a measure of efficency.
3rd gear was even worse with a 71.4% efficiency. Looks very inefficient to me.
Looking at only 2nd and 3rd gear eliminates any possibility that the launch numbers offset the final results.
LINK TO PT4400 DATA
John
02-03-2004, 05:13 PM
#24
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
i dont care about efficiency *too much* if it is compensated with a hard launch and very high shift extention. i mean, enough to where this verter is king of the 1/4. is that the case?
about the gear issue,
i will be running 3.73 when i install the verter.
what i would like to know is,
was Yank forthcoming about their reasons for voiding the warranty?
did they tell you ahead of time you must run 3.73 or higher?
or did they spring it on you AFTER?
if after,
it make me wonder how many other hidden excuses there are for voiding the warranty.
does anyone know the 1/4 difference between SS4000 and PT4000?
even more info would be nice, i.e. 60ft, ending mph..
i got till tomorrow to get in on the GP
about the gear issue,
i will be running 3.73 when i install the verter.
what i would like to know is,
was Yank forthcoming about their reasons for voiding the warranty?
did they tell you ahead of time you must run 3.73 or higher?
or did they spring it on you AFTER?
if after,
it make me wonder how many other hidden excuses there are for voiding the warranty.
does anyone know the 1/4 difference between SS4000 and PT4000?
even more info would be nice, i.e. 60ft, ending mph..
i got till tomorrow to get in on the GP
02-03-2004, 07:07 PM
#25
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stone0fFire
about the gear issue,
i will be running 3.73 when i install the verter.
what i would like to know is,
was Yank forthcoming about their reasons for voiding the warranty?
did they tell you ahead of time you must run 3.73 or higher?
or did they spring it on you AFTER?
if after,
it make me wonder how many other hidden excuses there are for voiding the warranty.
i will be running 3.73 when i install the verter.
what i would like to know is,
was Yank forthcoming about their reasons for voiding the warranty?
did they tell you ahead of time you must run 3.73 or higher?
or did they spring it on you AFTER?
if after,
it make me wonder how many other hidden excuses there are for voiding the warranty.
However I can estimate it will cost between $300 and $600 to repair it.”
Was I told ahead of time about the use of 3.23 gears?
No. In fact on Yank's web site it shows 3.23 gears being used up to the PT4600 converter.
Good Luck
John
02-04-2004, 08:00 AM
#26
John:
I looked at your data.
1) Based upon the data pattern, the converter is doing EXACTLY what you want it to do. In second and third gear, it is holding your rpms to no less than 6000 rpm, keeping you very close to maximum HP all the way down the track.
2) Your converter was on the loose side of 4400. It was performing like a 4600+ stall. I think a 4600 is too loose for your cam and would agree that a tighter set-up might add 1 mph.
John, you don't have a $900 door stop. Based upon your PMs to me, Mike made you an offer to settle this. I know you aren't happy because it still requires an out of pocket payment, but if you are going to complain about Yank, you should at least post the best offer made by Yank to resolve this. I would take him up on the offer and ask that he restall the unit to a 4200 at that point. Your data shows that it is performing a bit loose for a 4400 and that should be cured at the same time. After it is fixed, you can sell it and recoup the repair cost and much (not all) of your investment if you don't want to retry it.
I looked at your data.
1) Based upon the data pattern, the converter is doing EXACTLY what you want it to do. In second and third gear, it is holding your rpms to no less than 6000 rpm, keeping you very close to maximum HP all the way down the track.
2) Your converter was on the loose side of 4400. It was performing like a 4600+ stall. I think a 4600 is too loose for your cam and would agree that a tighter set-up might add 1 mph.
John, you don't have a $900 door stop. Based upon your PMs to me, Mike made you an offer to settle this. I know you aren't happy because it still requires an out of pocket payment, but if you are going to complain about Yank, you should at least post the best offer made by Yank to resolve this. I would take him up on the offer and ask that he restall the unit to a 4200 at that point. Your data shows that it is performing a bit loose for a 4400 and that should be cured at the same time. After it is fixed, you can sell it and recoup the repair cost and much (not all) of your investment if you don't want to retry it.
02-04-2004, 09:52 AM
#27
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ragtop 99
John:
I looked at your data.
1) Based upon the data pattern, the converter is doing EXACTLY what you want it to do. In second and third gear, it is holding your rpms to no less than 6000 rpm, keeping you very close to maximum HP all the way down the track.
2) Your converter was on the loose side of 4400. It was performing like a 4600+ stall. I think a 4600 is too loose for your cam and would agree that a tighter set-up might add 1 mph.
John, you don't have a $900 door stop. Based upon your PMs to me, Mike made you an offer to settle this. I know you aren't happy because it still requires an out of pocket payment, but if you are going to complain about Yank, you should at least post the best offer made by Yank to resolve this. I would take him up on the offer and ask that he restall the unit to a 4200 at that point. Your data shows that it is performing a bit loose for a 4400 and that should be cured at the same time. After it is fixed, you can sell it and recoup the repair cost and much (not all) of your investment if you don't want to retry it.
I looked at your data.
1) Based upon the data pattern, the converter is doing EXACTLY what you want it to do. In second and third gear, it is holding your rpms to no less than 6000 rpm, keeping you very close to maximum HP all the way down the track.
2) Your converter was on the loose side of 4400. It was performing like a 4600+ stall. I think a 4600 is too loose for your cam and would agree that a tighter set-up might add 1 mph.
John, you don't have a $900 door stop. Based upon your PMs to me, Mike made you an offer to settle this. I know you aren't happy because it still requires an out of pocket payment, but if you are going to complain about Yank, you should at least post the best offer made by Yank to resolve this. I would take him up on the offer and ask that he restall the unit to a 4200 at that point. Your data shows that it is performing a bit loose for a 4400 and that should be cured at the same time. After it is fixed, you can sell it and recoup the repair cost and much (not all) of your investment if you don't want to retry it.
As to the settlement. Thanks to a few of the moderators on this board A deal was reached with Yank to repair the converter at a cost of $100 - $200 with "used parts that were laying around the shop" As much as I appreciate the effort of the moderators involved with this I just cannot bring myself to pay any amount other than shipping for a product that is under warranty.
John
02-04-2004, 12:12 PM
#28
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Arlington, TX Congestion City
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by JNorris
You are correct that the converter is holding the rpms above 6000 in 2nd and 3rd. However that is at an efficiency level of 77% in 2nd and 72% in 3rd gear.
As to the settlement. Thanks to a few of the moderators on this board A deal was reached with Yank to repair the converter at a cost of $100 - $200 with "used parts that were laying around the shop" As much as I appreciate the effort of the moderators involved with this I just cannot bring myself to pay any amount other than shipping for a product that is under warranty.
John
As to the settlement. Thanks to a few of the moderators on this board A deal was reached with Yank to repair the converter at a cost of $100 - $200 with "used parts that were laying around the shop" As much as I appreciate the effort of the moderators involved with this I just cannot bring myself to pay any amount other than shipping for a product that is under warranty.
John
Oh and as to the topic at hand:
PT4400 or PT4200 all the way baby. You'll get used to it. If your plan on spraying go with the PT4000.
02-04-2004, 03:58 PM
#29
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 94form2000z
Tell ya what I'll give ya $50 for that door stop, and I'll get it fixed?
Oh and as to the topic at hand:
PT4400 or PT4200 all the way baby. You'll get used to it. If your plan on spraying go with the PT4000.
Oh and as to the topic at hand:
PT4400 or PT4200 all the way baby. You'll get used to it. If your plan on spraying go with the PT4000.
I think I will send it to TCI who will fix it for no more than $200 and provide a warranty. There is also a local company that builds transmissions and converters and they have all the necessary equipment to cut it open, repair it and balance it. They have quoted me a price of no more than $150. So there are options.
John
02-04-2004, 04:54 PM
#30
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Arlington, TX Congestion City
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by JNorris
LOL… I appreciate the offer.
I think I will send it to TCI who will fix it for no more than $200 and provide a warranty. There is also a local company that builds transmissions and converters and they have all the necessary equipment to cut it open, repair it and balance it. They have quoted me a price of no more than $150. So there are options.
John
I think I will send it to TCI who will fix it for no more than $200 and provide a warranty. There is also a local company that builds transmissions and converters and they have all the necessary equipment to cut it open, repair it and balance it. They have quoted me a price of no more than $150. So there are options.
John
Never hurts to ask. 
02-04-2004, 09:22 PM
#33
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ragtop 99
John, FWIW, If you are going to use it after it is fixed, having someone else repair it is fine. if you plan to sell it, I would send it back to Yank.
I agree.
02-09-2004, 02:19 PM
#34
TECH Senior Member
Hmmm....at the beginning of the launch, when at WOT and the output shaft of the converter has yet begun to move, that would be an efficiency of 0%, correct?
Point being, looking at input and output RPMs of the converter is NOT a means to figuring efficiency. That's slippage, totally different. You have lot's of slippage at the shift extension, for example. But does that mean a converter with a 5500 shift extension is inefficient at that point? No, it's just doing it's job. Now, if the setup in question made 400 RWHP at 5500 but only 320 was reaching the ground at 5500, that would be an inefficient converter.
I've had many Yank converters and their efficiency is unsurpassed, IMO.
For the record, I think Mike was wrong to not honor your warranty based solely on your gear ratio...if that was indeed the case.
Point being, looking at input and output RPMs of the converter is NOT a means to figuring efficiency. That's slippage, totally different. You have lot's of slippage at the shift extension, for example. But does that mean a converter with a 5500 shift extension is inefficient at that point? No, it's just doing it's job. Now, if the setup in question made 400 RWHP at 5500 but only 320 was reaching the ground at 5500, that would be an inefficient converter.
I've had many Yank converters and their efficiency is unsurpassed, IMO.
For the record, I think Mike was wrong to not honor your warranty based solely on your gear ratio...if that was indeed the case.
02-10-2004, 01:58 PM
#35
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Arlington, TX Congestion City
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Colonel
I've had many Yank converters and their efficiency is unsurpassed, IMO.
For the record, I think Mike was wrong to not honor your warranty based solely on your gear ratio...if that was indeed the case.
For the record, I think Mike was wrong to not honor your warranty based solely on your gear ratio...if that was indeed the case.
02-10-2004, 06:37 PM
#36
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Colonel
Hmmm....at the beginning of the launch, when at WOT and the output shaft of the converter has yet begun to move, that would be an efficiency of 0%, correct?
Point being, looking at input and output RPMs of the converter is NOT a means to figuring efficiency. That's slippage, totally different. You have lot's of slippage at the shift extension, for example. But does that mean a converter with a 5500 shift extension is inefficient at that point? No, it's just doing it's job. Now, if the setup in question made 400 RWHP at 5500 but only 320 was reaching the ground at 5500, that would be an inefficient converter.
I've had many Yank converters and their efficiency is unsurpassed, IMO.
For the record, I think Mike was wrong to not honor your warranty based solely on your gear ratio...if that was indeed the case.
Point being, looking at input and output RPMs of the converter is NOT a means to figuring efficiency. That's slippage, totally different. You have lot's of slippage at the shift extension, for example. But does that mean a converter with a 5500 shift extension is inefficient at that point? No, it's just doing it's job. Now, if the setup in question made 400 RWHP at 5500 but only 320 was reaching the ground at 5500, that would be an inefficient converter.
I've had many Yank converters and their efficiency is unsurpassed, IMO.
For the record, I think Mike was wrong to not honor your warranty based solely on your gear ratio...if that was indeed the case.
I totally agree that using ANY method to determine converter efficiency at shift extension is not a valid indication of efficiency.
How well a converter transfer power (by hydraulic coupling) from side to side at a specific RPM at WOT with full vehicle load and in a gear with 1:1 ratio is EXACTALLY how a converters efficiency is measured. That is what I do at the track.
Determining a converters efficiency on a dyno (NOT full vehicle load on the converter) by looking at the difference in HP between being locked and unlocked is a measure of efficiency but it is not real world.
I think we can all agree that the shift extension of a PT4400 is about 5800 RPM. According to Mike at Yank it is stall speed + 1200 to 1500 rpm. It has been said that the 94%+ efficiency of the Yank 4000 to 4400 converters was measured at 6000rpm.
My PT4000/4400 at 6053rpm in 3rd gear had an OUTSTANDING efficiency of 60.1%, at 6100 it was 68.02%, at 6201 it was 73.18%, and at 6329 the highest RPM in 3rd gear the efficiency was a stellar 79.78%.
Those are REAL world efficiencies numbers not a dyno test.
Feel free to review the data at the link below.
Link to converter data
You know the details of my warranty problems with Yank.
I think know me well enough to know that I have no need to BS about what Mike told me. The facts are what they are. If you know them to be different please let me know.
John
Last edited by JNorris; 02-10-2004 at 07:01 PM.
02-10-2004, 08:05 PM
#37
How well a converter transfer power (by hydraulic coupling) from side to side at a specific RPM at WOT with full vehicle load and in a gear with 1:1 ratio is EXACTALLY how a converters efficiency is measured. That is what I do at the track.
Determining a converters efficiency on a dyno (NOT full vehicle load on the converter) by looking at the difference in HP between being locked and unlocked is a measure of efficiency but it is not real world.
Determining a converters efficiency on a dyno (NOT full vehicle load on the converter) by looking at the difference in HP between being locked and unlocked is a measure of efficiency but it is not real world.
1) multiply torque on the upshift and give an extra boost to the rear wheels to power me past the gear change
2) keep the engine in a high rpm close to peak HP
3) put the power from the engine to the transmission with as little lost HP as possible.
As long as I don't run out of rpm before I cross, I don't more if the slip is 8% or 15%. I realize of course that if the slip % (past the shift extension) becomes too great, it will eventually cost power.
02-11-2004, 09:33 AM
#38
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ragtop 99
I agree the load is not exactly the same, but I care more about HP lost than an rpm differential. The dyno gives a pretty good approximation. I want the converter to do 3 things for me on the top end of the track (or when racing from a roll):
1) multiply torque on the upshift and give an extra boost to the rear wheels to power me past the gear change
2) keep the engine in a high rpm close to peak HP
3) put the power from the engine to the transmission with as little lost HP as possible.
As long as I don't run out of rpm before I cross, I don't more if the slip is 8% or 15%. I realize of course that if the slip % (past the shift extension) becomes too great, it will eventually cost power.
1) multiply torque on the upshift and give an extra boost to the rear wheels to power me past the gear change
2) keep the engine in a high rpm close to peak HP
3) put the power from the engine to the transmission with as little lost HP as possible.
As long as I don't run out of rpm before I cross, I don't more if the slip is 8% or 15%. I realize of course that if the slip % (past the shift extension) becomes too great, it will eventually cost power.
You can call it HP loss or RPM differential either way the results are the same.
Torque multiplication is not a factor at when you are shifting at 6400rpm. Look at the Yank dyno sheets all torque multiplication is gone past 5000 rpm.
I agree with the rest of what you are saying. Unfortunately I did not get that kind of performance with my Yank PT4000/4400 converter.
02-11-2004, 11:59 AM
#39
John:
The 5000 rpm is on the converter output shaft (trans input), not engine rpm. The graphs show their is gain until the output shaft catches up. Even on the 2-3 shift (tighter ratio than the 1-2), the rpm would drop back to about 4000 rpm with a 6400 rpm shift.
I agree that in your case there is excessive slip; I really think you had a 4600+ stall or a problem converter. My point is that I don't believe there is a 1:1 relationship bewteen slip rpm and HP lost. This is based upon my recollection of test data collected on converters. One of the variables was fluid heat which is a decent proxy for HP lost. I won't bet the farm on this as it has been a couple years since I last looked at that data.
The 5000 rpm is on the converter output shaft (trans input), not engine rpm. The graphs show their is gain until the output shaft catches up. Even on the 2-3 shift (tighter ratio than the 1-2), the rpm would drop back to about 4000 rpm with a 6400 rpm shift.
I agree that in your case there is excessive slip; I really think you had a 4600+ stall or a problem converter. My point is that I don't believe there is a 1:1 relationship bewteen slip rpm and HP lost. This is based upon my recollection of test data collected on converters. One of the variables was fluid heat which is a decent proxy for HP lost. I won't bet the farm on this as it has been a couple years since I last looked at that data.
02-11-2004, 04:07 PM
#40
TECH Senior Member
"My PT4000/4400 at 6053rpm in 3rd gear had an OUTSTANDING efficiency of 60.1%,"
John, my friend, NOTHING in your chart tells me that you had an efficiency of 60%. In fact,you don't have the info there to tell what your efficiency was. Sure, you can see slippage but not efficiency. You need a dyno for that. If you had a dyno sheet showing your RWHP at 6053 unlocked AND locked...then you would have the info to say what kind of power transfer you were seeing. Just divide the smaller number by the larger. Otherwise, you're just talking about RPM slippage...and I do agree that you had too much of that for your converter.
John, my friend, NOTHING in your chart tells me that you had an efficiency of 60%. In fact,you don't have the info there to tell what your efficiency was. Sure, you can see slippage but not efficiency. You need a dyno for that. If you had a dyno sheet showing your RWHP at 6053 unlocked AND locked...then you would have the info to say what kind of power transfer you were seeing. Just divide the smaller number by the larger. Otherwise, you're just talking about RPM slippage...and I do agree that you had too much of that for your converter.