PT4000 2.7 vs. SS4000 2.6
02-11-2004, 06:12 PM
#41
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
"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.
Now you can say all day long that this method is not valid and that the only valid method is on a dyno comparing locked and unlocked numbers but that will not change the fact the efficiency of a converter is how much are you getting out verses how much you are putting into it. That is just the way it is.
The efficiency of a converter should not be measured in the shift extension RPM range. For that reason just look at all the efficiency numbers above 6200rpm which is well above the shift extension of a PT4000/4400. The results are the same…..POOR.
Funny thing is that when I use the above method of determining converter efficiency on my Vig 3200 I see 85%+ efficiency. Now that is on a converter that everybody refers to as being inefficient.
02-11-2004, 09:17 PM
#42
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: w.s.n.c.
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I run 3.90's and a PT4000. At 6700 RPM's it reaches 95% efficiency. With EFI, logging Trans input,Trans output and trans slippage, I get 335 RPM's slip at 6700. It would seem that unless you run at least 3.90's or want to shift higher you will not get the max benefit. yank claims 96% effeciency for this converter. With lower gears or more RPM's that would seem right.
02-11-2004, 09:39 PM
#43
John:
Using your measure of efficency, I beleive you'll find that a stock converter is the most efficent by far. However, I think anyone who has ever raced against a YTP from a roll would agree that the stock unit would get their a$$ kicked by a YTP, no matter what gear or mph the race was started from.
BTW, Since we are in general agreement that your converter had issues, I do not see the use of that data to support your propositions. Niether Colonel or myself are suggesting that your results were optimal or an appropriate baseline to measure from.
Using your measure of efficency, I beleive you'll find that a stock converter is the most efficent by far. However, I think anyone who has ever raced against a YTP from a roll would agree that the stock unit would get their a$$ kicked by a YTP, no matter what gear or mph the race was started from.
BTW, Since we are in general agreement that your converter had issues, I do not see the use of that data to support your propositions. Niether Colonel or myself are suggesting that your results were optimal or an appropriate baseline to measure from.
02-12-2004, 07:24 AM
#44
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gojo
I run 3.90's and a PT4000. At 6700 RPM's it reaches 95% efficiency. With EFI, logging Trans input,Trans output and trans slippage, I get 335 RPM's slip at 6700. It would seem that unless you run at least 3.90's or want to shift higher you will not get the max benefit. yank claims 96% effeciency for this converter. With lower gears or more RPM's that would seem right.
You are exactly correct about the gears. A car running ANY 4000+ stall converter (not just a YANK) with 3.23 gears will NEVER have the converter efficiencies of a car with 3.73, 3.90, or 4.xx gears.
Thanks for showing support that the logging of RPM and transmission data is a valid way to determine converter efficiency.
John
02-12-2004, 07:38 AM
#45
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:
Using your measure of efficency, I beleive you'll find that a stock converter is the most efficent by far. However, I think anyone who has ever raced against a YTP from a roll would agree that the stock unit would get their a$$ kicked by a YTP, no matter what gear or mph the race was started from.
BTW, Since we are in general agreement that your converter had issues, I do not see the use of that data to support your propositions. Niether Colonel or myself are suggesting that your results were optimal or an appropriate baseline to measure from.
Using your measure of efficency, I beleive you'll find that a stock converter is the most efficent by far. However, I think anyone who has ever raced against a YTP from a roll would agree that the stock unit would get their a$$ kicked by a YTP, no matter what gear or mph the race was started from.
BTW, Since we are in general agreement that your converter had issues, I do not see the use of that data to support your propositions. Niether Colonel or myself are suggesting that your results were optimal or an appropriate baseline to measure from.
There is no debate that my PT4000/4400 converter has problems. I totally agree with your suggestion that the converter that Yank sent me was a 4600+ stall. Needless to say that is not what I ordered.
To me the only debate here was the validity of how I was measuring converter efficiency. gojo's data supports my method.
Now I would like to see data from another car running 3.23 gears and a PT4400 or any 4000+ stall converter. I guarantee you that the efficiencies will be poor. The efficiency can not help but to be poor because the 3.23 gears will not allow the output shaft of the transmission to spin fast enough.
Mike at Yank already told me that efficiencies with a PT series converter with 3.23 gears would be dismal. I agree and it can be proven mathematically. So there is no longer a debate here either.
The only outstanding issue here is that I am still getting screwed by Yank on my converter warranty. What really sucks is that Yank evidently sent me the wrong converter and is still screwing me on the warranty.
John
02-14-2004, 03:45 PM
#46
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JNorris
Now I would like to see data from another car running 3.23 gears and a PT4400 or any 4000+ stall converter. I guarantee you that the efficiencies will be poor. The efficiency can not help but to be poor because the 3.23 gears will not allow the output shaft of the transmission to spin fast enough.
Mike at Yank already told me that efficiencies with a PT series converter with 3.23 gears would be dismal. I agree and it can be proven mathematically. So there is no longer a debate here either.
The only outstanding issue here is that I am still getting screwed by Yank on my converter warranty. What really sucks is that Yank evidently sent me the wrong converter and is still screwing me on the warranty.
John
Mike at Yank already told me that efficiencies with a PT series converter with 3.23 gears would be dismal. I agree and it can be proven mathematically. So there is no longer a debate here either.
The only outstanding issue here is that I am still getting screwed by Yank on my converter warranty. What really sucks is that Yank evidently sent me the wrong converter and is still screwing me on the warranty.
John
the efficiency only matters because of the difference in track times, right?
did the verter cause unusually crappy track times?
that is when i would be concerned.
the SS4000 came in yesterday.
im going to email yank for warrantee details since they didnt send me any paperwork at all. no dos and donts, suggestions or even a damn sticker.
02-14-2004, 05:45 PM
#47
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
doesnt the colonel have a 4000 w/ 3.23?
the efficiency only matters because of the difference in track times, right?
did the verter cause unusually crappy track times?
that is when i would be concerned.
the SS4000 came in yesterday.
im going to email yank for warrantee details since they didnt send me any paperwork at all. no dos and donts, suggestions or even a damn sticker.
the efficiency only matters because of the difference in track times, right?
did the verter cause unusually crappy track times?
that is when i would be concerned.
the SS4000 came in yesterday.
im going to email yank for warrantee details since they didnt send me any paperwork at all. no dos and donts, suggestions or even a damn sticker.
Overall I was happy with the track performance of my converter. I do feel that I was leaving some performance on the table because of its lack of efficiency.
My real problem with Yank is their unwillingness to HONOR their warranty.
It is not likely that you will receive a reply to your email.
You can review the Yank Warranty on their web site.
What kind of sticker were you hoping to get?
Are you going to run that converter with 2.72 gears?
Sent you a PM.
Good luck
John
02-16-2004, 04:23 PM
#48
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JNorris
The last I hear Colonel was running a SS4000 with 3.23 gears.
Overall I was happy with the track performance of my converter. I do feel that I was leaving some performance on the table because of its lack of efficiency.
My real problem with Yank is their unwillingness to HONOR their warranty.
It is not likely that you will receive a reply to your email.
You can review the Yank Warranty on their web site.
What kind of sticker were you hoping to get?
Are you going to run that converter with 2.72 gears?
Sent you a PM.
Good luck
John
Overall I was happy with the track performance of my converter. I do feel that I was leaving some performance on the table because of its lack of efficiency.
My real problem with Yank is their unwillingness to HONOR their warranty.
It is not likely that you will receive a reply to your email.
You can review the Yank Warranty on their web site.
What kind of sticker were you hoping to get?
Are you going to run that converter with 2.72 gears?
Sent you a PM.
Good luck
John
i dont have any stickers on my car or toolbox or whatever..
come on, i dont even have brand names in my sig
why should i promote some company thats selling me a verter for $750 or a catback for $650?! how much does this crap cost to build?
you know all my ricer friends laugh cause every bolt on for their car is like $100 each. same thing for old SBC's. their cam is $80, but ours is $400? come on. $400 for a plastic intake? $50 for a 4L60e blazer transgo, but $100 for a 4L60e trans am transgo. whats the difference? packaging? a misleading video? im getting off subject.
im either going to run 3.42 or 3.73
thats why the verter isnt in yet.
4000 and 2.73?
i almost didnt buy the car because it was 1600 and 2.73
