I had a long reply ready, but I cant help here. Logic doesn't work obviously.

Go buy yourself some big bad *** brakes.

 

We all should know by now to stop when there's a post that has the word "period" (post #11).

 

Your logic is poor, and you just contradicted yourself.

If you can stall a stock converter to 3000 RPM by increasing power, then why can he not stall a 3100 converter past 2000 RPM before he starts pushing through the brakes? The answer is obviously the brakes.

I have a 3200 stall converter. I'm sure if I drained the brake fluid I couldn't stall above 1500 RPM before pushing through. If my brakes were strong enough to hold it, I could stall that converter up to 4500. How do I know? Because I just did it yesterday.

I push through the brakes at 2600 RPM because boost comes in stupid early with my combo. During transbrake testing, I was able to stall up to 4500 RPM and 20+ PSI in just over 1 second. Why? I eliminated the weak point, the brakes. By your logic, I should have just replaced my converter.

 

He is a dipshit, the type of guy that fits right in with the "idiots on ls1tech" connotation

 

Please wow us more with your incredible turbo knowledge

 

Ok. Last post on this. A stall is designed to work at a certain Max stall point. Yes there is a range, but its most likey just a few hundred rpm. So decrease power, it goes down, increase power it goes up. But by only a few hundred rpm each way most of the time. Can you make the converter stall higher by adding big brakes and more power? Sure you can. But it doesnt make it right. Call any converter company and they will tell you the same thing. You are pushing past the converters designed limits, which can damage it. This is the part I keep seeing that bothers me. Is there are people on here and other topics that have the whole " I do it with mine " so it must be right mentailty.

I have a 6500 stall that was behind one of our BBC years ago. I called the company yesterday to see what it was and what the stall was on it. We have a bunch we havent used in years and couldnt remember what they were. Its a 63-6500 behind over a 1000hp before Nitrous. I asked what it would do on my 6.0 turbo and was told about 6200. Not much difference. And I will make several hundred hp less.

So just because the OPs converter says 3100 on the box doesnt mean its correct. He can check it. We have bought 4k stalls that wouldnt go over 3500. Sent it back and it came back right.

Now to brake issues. I have a hard time believing that a modern day brake system cant hold his car well enough to reach the 3k stall. And to say that drums hold better is funny. If this were true then race teams would still be using them. They will never reach the clamping force of good disc brakes.

As simple as I can make this. Doing a standing burnout without a line lock can be done. Is it the right way? Nope. Get a line lock so you dont burn up your rear brakes.

So do the proper checks before jumping to a conclusion.

Im out. PEACE.

 

And you can kiss my ***. It doesnt matter if its a turbo. The converter has no clue how the power is applied.

 

You’re confused… read up on converters and how they work. They are just a fluid coupler. Sure you can blow past the converters ability to couple with a ton of power if it’s not setup correctly for power it’s behind. I don’t think that’s the OP’s problem. Hope you aren’t considering a 6k+ stall for your turbo LS…

Read what I wrote about the brakes. Drum brakes hold better INITIALLY than a disc does. There is more area to grab and hold. They work better cold than a disc as well. Most disc brake pads need a good amount of heat in them to grab well. Obviously they are not as efficient at stopping as a disc once the car is moving. Drag “race teams” don’t use them because they aren’t needed with a trans brake and a disc is more efficient once the car is moving.

Once you start adding aftermarket and/or multiple calipers this might not be the case. But in general, the dinky single piston baby calipers on the back of most OEM rear disc brakes won’t hold near as well as a properly setup drum. Been proven many times over by the foot brake bracket guys. Grand National turbo buick guys were notorious for beefing up the rear drums instead of going to a disc so they could hold more boost on the line.

 

First, his converter was designed to stall at 3100. He is stalling at 2000. That makes the entire first bold portion of your post completely null.

Your second paragraph completely contradicts everything you said before the first bold part.

As far as modern day brake systems not holding the car back... my little 5.3 makes 900 ft-lbs at the flywheel on my 2 step at 3200 RPM. This is why I've lowered the 2-step to 2600. The mustang Cobra disc brakes in the rear cannot hold the car back anywhere above that RPM, and this is with a dual diaphragm booster and the line pressures for the rear cranked up. Any less of a setup, and I'd be pushing through just as I come into boost. Again, I can stall much higher on a T-brake because my brake system isn't adequate.

As for disc vs drums, drums are typically preferred in a foot braking setup. Holding power vs stopping power are 2 different things. The disadvantages of a drum, like heat expansion and fade, aren't a problem if you're not moving. The increased surface area of a large drum is still a major favorite of foot-brake racers. Go over on yellowbullet and they'll tell you all about it.

When you cannot stall a converter up to its recommended stall because you cannot hold the car back, going with a higher stall converter is the worst suggestion you can give. That's like suggesting a 4-cylinder guy toss in a 5.14 rear gear if he wants his car to be quicker. Solve the real problem.

 

The OP buys a converter from the jegs catalog listed as 3100 stall and you guys think that's where it'll stall in his turbo car. So much bad info in here. Maybe try talking to any company that builds converters and get one built for your setup, not buying an off the shelf generic unit and expect it to work.

I went through the same thing as the OP. I didn't believe what everyone told me and I built a 3200 off the shelf converter, I couldn't hold it back past 2000 RPM. I called and had a real converter built. I told them I want to be able to footbrake the car to 3500RPM and tight up top. Guess what, they did just that, built me a tubo converter that I can build boost with fast and tight up top.

 

Loool wow fail

Converter stall speed. Is completely and directly variable to TQ input to the converter. And no it just move a little here and there

Take a typical LS and it stalls at 3k with 400ftlbs applied to the converter....... now it builds 15psi of boost and 800ftlbs applied converter... can tell you the stall is no where near 3k......

 

What do you mean recommended stall? What the jegs catalog told him? Because I promise you that jegs rating will differ behind a 300hp vs 800hp setup.
So when the OP says he bought a 3100 stall, you know nothing about his setup or what jegs built the converter based around.

 

I stall at 3100 on motor and~5500 at 15lbs

 

Ok...... so your agreeing with me then. Because there is a huge difference in power between 0psi and 15psi. So like I said JoeNova comments make no sense. An advertised Stall speed in the catalog is related to HP.

 

No it is related to tq

 

and HP is related to torque. You're splitting hairs. My point is the OP bought a mickey mouse converter with a generic rating and everyone thinks that's where it should stall. Keep blaming the brakes and ignoring the real issue, I wont lose sleep.

 

Durp?

 

I've stalled a stock converter much higher the 2000 on the foot brake. Until he says where he got the converter from, we cant make an accurate analysis

 

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! 35 comments in and he finally gets it.

 

I still stand by my brake theory. If he could stall 1000+ RPM higher on a T-brake rather than a foot-brake, then its obviously his brakes.

If he couldn't get it to stall much higher on a T-brake, then it is the converter.

And we will never know.