Best Torque Converter mild Commando 273

[xLURKxDOGx]

Looking for some suggestions for the best fit of my setup. It said it was the max i could use with stock convertor but want something a bit more. 1966 273 .40 over egge hipo 10.5 to 1 pistons and a COMP 260/268 duration and .444/.444 110 LSA.



Thanks!!!!

 

[Abodybomber]

What transmission, 904? What gears,stock tire diameter/oversized rubber? Let's start ,there.

 

[xLURKxDOGx]

What transmission, 904? What gears,stock tire diameter/oversized rubber? Let's start ,there.

Sorry, its a pushbutton SB 904 on a 63 plymouth valiant signet and i believe its 3.23 and i have 185/75 R14's.


Jake

 

[Woods74]

Try a stock hi-stall gopnh.com. Should stall around 1800-2000. They make quality converters for inexpensive .. Keep it under 2500rpm. How I came to that conclusion is your cruise speed at 60 will probably be about 2700, and most of the time, you'd want your stall speed to stay under your cruise speed, so it's slipping and creating a bunch of heat.

There is another thing, get a good cooler like a 11x11x1.5" B&M super cooler. Biggest you can fit in your wallet and in the space.

 

[Woods74]

http://www.hardtail.com/techtips/selectingconverter.html

 

[FredS]

xLURKxDOGx, I have a stock 904 converter with the stall raised to 2100-2200 if you want to try one with a little higher stall than OEM.

Where in Phoenix are you? I'm in the far, far West Valley

 

[Woods74]

That sounds like fun Fred! Lurkdog, good lead here!

 

[fishy68]

With a small cubic inch engine and healthy cam like yours I'd go for as much stall as possible to make up for the shortage of torque of your small engine. 2500 would be the minimum I'd run. But in the end it's what you really plan on doing with the car. I'm a gearhead so I always go loose on the stall. If you don't plan on running it real hard a 2500 is plenty loose. If it were me I'd probably look into something in the 3200-3500 range. Also, if you buy a good quality efficient converter you don't need to worry about the stall speed being less than your hwy cruise rpm. Most converters made 25 yrs. ago weren't technologically advanced enough to be really efficient like what we have today. For that reason back then you always wanted the stall less than cruise rpm. I recently ran a 3500 stall in my Cuda with 3.23 gears and 28" tires that cruised at 2600 rpm. Had no slippage problems whatsoever even with a very torquey 408.

 

[273]

Don't forget earlier 273's won't take a later model torque converter so your probably gonna need a custom one anyways.

 

[xLURKxDOGx]

Try a stock hi-stall gopnh.com. Should stall around 1800-2000. They make quality converters for inexpensive .. Keep it under 2500rpm. How I came to that conclusion is your cruise speed at 60 will probably be about 2700, and most of the time, you'd want your stall speed to stay under your cruise speed, so it's slipping and creating a bunch of heat.

THANKS!!!

There is another thing, get a good cooler like a 11x11x1.5" B&M super cooler. Biggest you can fit in your wallet and in the space.

Do those mount in front of the radiator?

xLURKxDOGx, I have a stock 904 converter with the stall raised to 2100-2200 if you want to try one with a little higher stall than OEM.

Where in Phoenix are you? I'm in the far, far West Valley

Im downtown. I have 2 stock torque converters from 904's but im not sure of the stall.

With a small cubic inch engine and healthy cam like yours I'd go for as much stall as possible to make up for the shortage of torque of your small engine. 2500 would be the minimum I'd run. But in the end it's what you really plan on doing with the car. I'm a gearhead so I always go loose on the stall. If you don't plan on running it real hard a 2500 is plenty loose. If it were me I'd probably look into something in the 3200-3500 range. Also, if you buy a good quality efficient converter you don't need to worry about the stall speed being less than your hwy cruise rpm. Most converters made 25 yrs. ago weren't technologically advanced enough to be really efficient like what we have today. For that reason back then you always wanted the stall less than cruise rpm. I recently ran a 3500 stall in my Cuda with 3.23 gears and 28" tires that cruised at 2600 rpm. Had no slippage problems whatsoever even with a very torquey 408.

Thanks!!!

 

[toolmanmike]

Remember that the 273/4 had as much torque as a 1972-76 318 and 5 more horse power than most of the 318's built.

 

[cosgig]

Don't forget earlier 273's won't take a later model torque converter so your probably gonna need a custom one anyways.

This!!!^^^^^^^

Expect to pay extra for that privilege also!! Won't just be finding one off the shelf!! I paid over $600 for the Frank Lupo unit in my Cuda, and that was many moons ago!!!

 

[toolmanmike]

This!!!^^^^^^^

Expect to pay extra for that privilege also!! Won't just be finding one off the shelf!! I paid over $600 for the Frank Lupo unit in my Cuda, and that was many moons ago!!!

Did it work good Cosig? If the engine was apart the register could be machined for a newer converter. (you already knew that though) LOL

 

[69 Cuda 440]

A-904 Torque Converter

* Stock Stall Rate ....... 1800 RPM's
* 185/75 R-15 ............ 25.0" Tire Diameter
* Gears ..................... 3.23

* Comp-Cams #260AH-8 'Magnum Muscle'
* Type ....................... Hydraulic
* Lift ......................... .444"/.444"
* Duration .................. 260*/268*
* Duration @ .050" ...... 212*/218*
* Overlap ................... 44*
* LSA ......................... 110*
* Centerline ................ 106*
* RPM Range ............... 1700 to 5500 RPM's

On a 'mild build' with 3.23 Gears, you want to stay at
2500 to 2600 RPM's.

And you will want 'cooler' trans-fluid temperature as well,
so replace the Stock Fluid Pan with a 'Cool-Pan'.

 

[xLURKxDOGx]

A-904 Torque Converter

* Stock Stall Rate ....... 1800 RPM's
* 185/75 R-15 ............ 25.0" Tire Diameter
* Gears ..................... 3.23

* Comp-Cams #260AH-8 'Magnum Muscle'
* Type ....................... Hydraulic
* Lift ......................... .444"/.444"
* Duration .................. 260*/268*
* Duration @ .050" ...... 212*/218*
* Overlap ................... 44*
* LSA ......................... 110*
* Centerline ................ 106*
* RPM Range ............... 1700 to 5500 RPM's

On a 'mild build' with 3.23 Gears, you want to stay at
2500 to 2600 RPM's.

And you will want 'cooler' trans-fluid temperature as well,
so replace the Stock Fluid Pan with a 'Cool-Pan'.

Thanks for the info!!

Remember that the 273/4 had as much torque as a 1972-76 318 and 5 more horse power than most of the 318's built.

Does that translate to bigger torque converter, do you know what that stock stall was on a 273/4? The trans i got was from a 65 i believe.

Don't forget earlier 273's won't take a later model torque converter so your probably gonna need a custom one anyways.

The block is a 66 and the trans a 65, is that going to be an issue?


Thanks,
Jake

 

[273]

I'm pretty sure they switched register on the crank in 67

 

[fishy68]

Remember that the 273/4 had as much torque as a 1972-76 318 and 5 more horse power than most of the 318's built.

In 72 the factories were forced to use a new ratings system that entailed having all accessories installed on the engine and if I remember right they even had to have the trans bolted up and the rating was taken after the trans. For that reason every engine no matter what brand appeared to lose anywhere up to 75 hp but in reality they lost only a fraction of that amount due to lower compression and sometimes a milder cam. I'm not knocking 273's but they did not produce as much torque as a 318 and even if they did the 318 isn't a torque monster by any stretch of the imagination and the cam he's using is pretty fair size considering the engine's cubic inches.

 

[fishy68]

The block is a 66 and the trans a 65, is that going to be an issue?


Thanks,
Jake

Jake what matters is the crankshaft used. Prior to 68 the torque converter pilot hole in the crank was 1.55".. In 68 they went up to 1.81".. The only way you can get away with using a post 67 converter is if the crankshaft is also a post 67 piece

 

[cosgig]

If I'm not mistaken, the early pre-67 904 has a front and rear pump and also uses a different spline count on the input shaft, or something of that nature! Add that to the register difference and you've got a pretty specialized piece!

My converter was built after a long consultation with Frank about every aspect of my car! Did it work?? Well, yes for the most part! The lower gear set of the 999 trans I had installed didn't play well with my trans and had to be rebuilt without them, after the converter was already purchased! Without that quick ramp in the headset, it is somewhat slower off the line and doesn't build power like it should! I think I have too much converter, and it's been so long all that paperwork is ......somewhere..........

 

[toolmanmike]

In 72 the factories were forced to use a new ratings system that entailed having all accessories installed on the engine and if I remember right they even had to have the trans bolted up and the rating was taken after the trans. For that reason every engine no matter what brand appeared to lose anywhere up to 75 hp but in reality they lost only a fraction of that amount due to lower compression and sometimes a milder cam. I'm not knocking 273's but they did not produce as much torque as a 318 and even if they did the 318 isn't a torque monster by any stretch of the imagination and the cam he's using is pretty fair size considering the engine's cubic inches.

Spoilsport! LOL The 273 is what it is. A small engine that runs good if you have all the elements correct but still not as good as the bigger engines of the same family. They are fun. When I let mine go and the clutch pedal sticks to the floor and the tach bounces off 6 and nothing is hurt it is cool. I don't rev and side step the clutch because I am the one that has to fix the damage but mine (they) run pretty good for a small cube engine just like the 283's and the 289's in the Chevy and Ford crowds. They ran the way they did and that's why the manufacturers went bigger. One step at at a time. Now we have 390 cube Hemi's that put out 700 horse. One step at a time! Nice chatting with you fishy.

 

[fishy68]

Spoilsport! LOL The 273 is what it is. A small engine that runs good if you have all the elements correct but still not as good as the bigger engines of the same family. They are fun. When I let mine go and the clutch pedal sticks to the floor and the tach bounces off 6 and nothing is hurt it is cool. I don't rev and side step the clutch because I am the one that has to fix the damage but mine (they) run pretty good for a small cube engine just like the 283's and the 289's in the Chevy and Ford crowds. They ran the way they did and that's why the manufacturers went bigger. One step at at a time. Now we have 390 cube Hemi's that put out 700 horse. One step at a time! Nice chatting with you fishy.

LOL... yes they are fantastic/durable engines that will hold their own very well against the 283 and 289. When I was 16 in 1980 a buddy of mine down the street bought a beautiful Red with white interior 67 Dart Gt with a 273 and it ran surprisingly good considering what was on the road at the time.

 

[69 Cuda 440]

'Factory Stock' A-904 Torque-Converters

1967 and earlier ......... 18" Spline Input Shaft
1967 and earlier.......... 10.75" Diameter
1967 and earlier ......... 1800 RPM 'Stall-Rate'