TCI vs. Yank 4400 results
03-08-2005, 09:01 PM
#81
kieth your combo running 120 mph is as effecient as can be in an automatic.a na car running 120 has the capabilty of going an 11.00 ,no faster no matter what converter is in it.now bain i see you have a speed of 116.8 ,your car at that speed has the capability of running a 11.27-11.28,your effeciency is around96-97%. kieths is about 98% bain you could pick up an easy 1//10 somewhere in your driveline.the reason i know this is because we have been using the MOROSO-POWER SPEED CALCULATOR for about 20 years now,it does not lie,it takes the guess work out of racing.its called running on the ruler by the pros, jegs and summit have them
03-09-2005, 08:01 AM
#82
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NHRAFORMULA00
kieth your combo running 120 mph is as effecient as can be in an automatic.a na car running 120 has the capabilty of going an 11.00 ,no faster no matter what converter is in it.now bain i see you have a speed of 116.8 ,your car at that speed has the capability of running a 11.27-11.28,your effeciency is around96-97%. kieths is about 98% bain you could pick up an easy 1//10 somewhere in your driveline.the reason i know this is because we have been using the MOROSO-POWER SPEED CALCULATOR for about 20 years now,it does not lie,it takes the guess work out of racing.its called running on the ruler by the pros, jegs and summit have them
Mine ran 116-117 weighing 3470 lbs. and a higher DA 
03-09-2005, 08:04 PM
#83
doesnt matter what your weight difference was ,a given mph will only produce a given et,just takes more or less hp to do it.a 3500 lb car that runs 120 will need 465 to the rear wheels, a 3000 lb car will need 395 hp too the rear wheels.both have the capacity too run an 11.00 flat.kieths car is right there no improvement other than more hp will make his combo et faster.now your combo with a speed of 116.8 can run a best of 11.28 no faster at that speed.do you see what im getting at?your efficency has a very small amount too improve on .without trying different cominations the only way too know for sure is a data accusition with sensors on the drive train .very $$$
03-11-2005, 10:32 AM
#84
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NHRAFORMULA00
doesnt matter what your weight difference was ,a given mph will only produce a given et,just takes more or less hp to do it.a 3500 lb car that runs 120 will need 465 to the rear wheels, a 3000 lb car will need 395 hp too the rear wheels.both have the capacity too run an 11.00 flat.kieths car is right there no improvement other than more hp will make his combo et faster.now your combo with a speed of 116.8 can run a best of 11.28 no faster at that speed.do you see what im getting at?your efficency has a very small amount too improve on .without trying different cominations the only way too know for sure is a data accusition with sensors on the drive train .very $$$
3470 lbs. 121 mph = 347 rwhp. Cam-only
3450 lbs. 116 mph = 304 rwhp. SI
03-12-2005, 10:36 PM
#86
i give up trying pal,i guess a former NMCA PRO NOSALGIA,record holder from 1993,partner of a PRO STOCK motor cycle team from 1981-1986,as some of my former credentials,i know nothing,sorry i posted on this subject.if you think your car went 116mph at 3450 lbs, with only 304 rwhp.i guess you have the right too believe that, but its actually more like 410 to the wheels. GOOD LUCK NHRAFORMULA00
03-13-2005, 05:43 PM
#87
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chi-Town
Posts: 3,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<sigh>
couple of thoughts from me
i went 1.47 cam only with a vig3200, pretty much stock race weight. whats that say?
people are in this post spouting how great their yank is, with NO OTHER COMPARISON! how can you sit there and say that the yank wins when you havent tried a tci or vig or whatever else is out there? to come into a post and bluntly put that the yank is the best for your car is just plain ignorance.
ive had a few yanks, and the last a pt4400. it was a beast, but i was comparing it to a vig3200, so i would hope it would feel better. only raced in 100% street trim so i never got to see real back to back tests and the full benefit of the yank. however, it broke after like 3K miles. clutches went to ****. whats up with that? i had the vigilante for ****....prolly 12K+ HARD miles with ZERO problems.
someone said that customer service makes or breaks a company. i have to agree. ive dealt with yanks customer service and i have to say it is by far the worst i have seen. im betting the only reason yank is in THIS post is because its gonna cause bad publicity for them otherwise. im not trying to bash, but this is just my experience.
i am now going to buy a built trans and a converter. i was unsure of what verter to get, but now this post has me thinking about a tci.
the pt4400 did make my car a beast though. i could blow the tires off the car at 55+mph with 315 nittos on. wish i would ran with slicks and the verter.
while i am never one to believe dyno charts for an auto car, i dynoed about 380 to the rear with my 3500lb car. i was a few ticks away from 120 mph. where did the other 90 horses go on the dyno?
couple of thoughts from me
i went 1.47 cam only with a vig3200, pretty much stock race weight. whats that say?
people are in this post spouting how great their yank is, with NO OTHER COMPARISON! how can you sit there and say that the yank wins when you havent tried a tci or vig or whatever else is out there? to come into a post and bluntly put that the yank is the best for your car is just plain ignorance.
ive had a few yanks, and the last a pt4400. it was a beast, but i was comparing it to a vig3200, so i would hope it would feel better. only raced in 100% street trim so i never got to see real back to back tests and the full benefit of the yank. however, it broke after like 3K miles. clutches went to ****. whats up with that? i had the vigilante for ****....prolly 12K+ HARD miles with ZERO problems.
someone said that customer service makes or breaks a company. i have to agree. ive dealt with yanks customer service and i have to say it is by far the worst i have seen. im betting the only reason yank is in THIS post is because its gonna cause bad publicity for them otherwise. im not trying to bash, but this is just my experience.
i am now going to buy a built trans and a converter. i was unsure of what verter to get, but now this post has me thinking about a tci.
the pt4400 did make my car a beast though. i could blow the tires off the car at 55+mph with 315 nittos on. wish i would ran with slicks and the verter.
NHRAFORMULA00
doesnt matter what your weight difference was ,a given mph will only produce a given et,just takes more or less hp to do it.a 3500 lb car that runs 120 will need 465 to the rear wheels, a 3000 lb car will need 395 hp too the rear wheels.
doesnt matter what your weight difference was ,a given mph will only produce a given et,just takes more or less hp to do it.a 3500 lb car that runs 120 will need 465 to the rear wheels, a 3000 lb car will need 395 hp too the rear wheels.
03-13-2005, 08:42 PM
#88
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BAIN
GD can't you people read. 
Trust me my car's suspension is setup fine
The E.T. and mph was not there period. I will give the Yank one more chance at the track once I get everything from the move situated. If it doesn't 60' and mph better then the TCI is going back in.
Trust me my car's suspension is setup fine The E.T. and mph was not there period. I will give the Yank one more chance at the track once I get everything from the move situated. If it doesn't 60' and mph better then the TCI is going back in.
03-13-2005, 08:45 PM
#89
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NHRAFORMULA00
doesnt matter what your weight difference was ,a given mph will only produce a given et,just takes more or less hp to do it.a 3500 lb car that runs 120 will need 465 to the rear wheels, a 3000 lb car will need 395 hp too the rear wheels.both have the capacity too run an 11.00 flat.kieths car is right there no improvement other than more hp will make his combo et faster.now your combo with a speed of 116.8 can run a best of 11.28 no faster at that speed.do you see what im getting at?your efficency has a very small amount too improve on .without trying different cominations the only way too know for sure is a data accusition with sensors on the drive train .very $$$
Your calculations aren't making sense there. At least not in the LS1 world
03-15-2005, 08:48 AM
#90
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chrs1313
i give up trying pal,i guess a former NMCA PRO NOSALGIA,record holder from 1993,partner of a PRO STOCK motor cycle team from 1981-1986,as some of my former credentials,i know nothing,sorry i posted on this subject.if you think your car went 116mph at 3450 lbs, with only 304 rwhp.i guess you have the right too believe that, but its actually more like 410 to the wheels. GOOD LUCK NHRAFORMULA00
I don't think my car ran 11.42 @ 116.8mph at 3450 lbs. with only 304 rwhp. I know it did.
I have the timeslips and dyno graphs to prove it. Even if I locked up the converter on the dyno it would be nowhere near 410 rwhp more like 330-340. I appreciate your tying to help, but face it your calculations do not work for my car. 
03-17-2005, 10:51 PM
#92
ive ran a JW, tci, ptc, and now switched to a 9" yank in my th350.
i picked up .05 and over 1mph with the yank, and that was with a poor track. 60ft was 5 numbers
i guess it all depends on what day it was built and who got laid last night.
flip a coin.
yank may be a good converter for my setup, or i might have gotten lucky. i think they build a nice piece. pricy tho.
i picked up .05 and over 1mph with the yank, and that was with a poor track. 60ft was 5 numbers
i guess it all depends on what day it was built and who got laid last night.
flip a coin.
yank may be a good converter for my setup, or i might have gotten lucky. i think they build a nice piece. pricy tho.
03-20-2005, 02:54 PM
#93
Pipster your car went 127 threw a 6sp...
I wonder what that would equate to an A4,maybe a 3 to 4 MPH loss...
I know my car is 3365 and runs 124MPH threw the 1/4 threw an A4/Yank TP4200
It also went 121MPH at 3560 threw the 1/4 threw my A4/TP4200
I dont know what this equates to but im my book thats impressive....
Yanks Rock....
I wonder what that would equate to an A4,maybe a 3 to 4 MPH loss...
I know my car is 3365 and runs 124MPH threw the 1/4 threw an A4/Yank TP4200
It also went 121MPH at 3560 threw the 1/4 threw my A4/TP4200
I dont know what this equates to but im my book thats impressive....
Yanks Rock....
05-29-2005, 09:23 AM
#94
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: L.I. NY
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old thread I know but very interesting. So any new results Bain?
Oh and by the way, not trying to flame here (though some won't believe that lol), but NHRAFORMULA is correct. Chassis dynos don't measure the true power that's applied to the wheels on the street. The dyno doesn't provide enough load to do that. The numbers that the Moroso slide rule provides are based on mathematical calculations. It takes X amount of power to accelerate Y amount of weight to reach a certain speed. Just plain Physics. I'm not sure if vehicle aerodynamics are included in the slide rules calculations, ie: sedan, coupe, dragster, but for a rudimentary tool it works pretty well. The drag simulations that you can get for your computer take that into account, along with several other factors.
The slide rule uses mathematics to provide a pretty accurate estimate of the horsepower needed to run a certain MPH for a given weight. It can then correlate a max ET for that MPH through a formula. But that's not as fool proof as the MPH/HP calculation when looking at record setting Stock Eliminator cars. They go for max ET (lots of gear) and are willing to sacrifice some MPH to do it. There are 10.9 Stock Elim cars that trap 118-119 mph. Heck just look at Magnus' car, 10.987 at 119.3. So the slide rule is off by a smidge when it predicts that 11.0 is the best that 120 mph can support.
Oh and by the way, not trying to flame here (though some won't believe that lol), but NHRAFORMULA is correct. Chassis dynos don't measure the true power that's applied to the wheels on the street. The dyno doesn't provide enough load to do that. The numbers that the Moroso slide rule provides are based on mathematical calculations. It takes X amount of power to accelerate Y amount of weight to reach a certain speed. Just plain Physics. I'm not sure if vehicle aerodynamics are included in the slide rules calculations, ie: sedan, coupe, dragster, but for a rudimentary tool it works pretty well. The drag simulations that you can get for your computer take that into account, along with several other factors.
The slide rule uses mathematics to provide a pretty accurate estimate of the horsepower needed to run a certain MPH for a given weight. It can then correlate a max ET for that MPH through a formula. But that's not as fool proof as the MPH/HP calculation when looking at record setting Stock Eliminator cars. They go for max ET (lots of gear) and are willing to sacrifice some MPH to do it. There are 10.9 Stock Elim cars that trap 118-119 mph. Heck just look at Magnus' car, 10.987 at 119.3. So the slide rule is off by a smidge when it predicts that 11.0 is the best that 120 mph can support.
I have a different cam, springs, gears, and converter now. 