aaronk785
Well-Known Member
I know my 383 RR converter stalled about 2800 behind a mostly stock 440. Made a big difference over the 11.75 low stall. They made low stall 10.75 converters to.
Factory High Stall Converters
- Thread starter Skip Carden
- Start date
-
Right! Tell that to that ratty bastid. lol
No, I get it. You're the one being totally ignorant. Carry on with your bad self. lol
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
So let me get this straight. If today, you had the choice of a 10 inch 2800 converter and an 11.75 inch 2800 converter that Chrysler stamped “hi stall” on you’d take the latter? Go it. No one EVER beside Chrysler called a 2800 stall converter “hi stall” unless it was a magazine ad. You don’t get anything other that you have to defend your foolish myths. Ridiculous how old men hold on to myths to keep their memories relevant. Keep using junk. You love it.
Clear case of revisionism or if that’s the wrong term, redefining the past using today’s standards. And some off these post authors sure seem eerily familiar, like ghosts from the past
CudaFactHackJob
Well-Known Member
The problem with a very hi-stall converter in a street machine is the trans feels mushy when it shifts just driving it to the grocery store because rpm drops to below stall; post shift. Your car will feel boring and it gets old quick. Converter choices are all over the place, but the companies that make individual recommendations usually charge an arm and a leg for a "custom" converter; when they can usually be purchased for about 1/3 the price...even from THEM. I say err on the side of caution and go with a lower stall than all your friends might recommend. They don't have to drive your car every day. Some of the factory hi-stalls can be bought at your local auto parts place for under $100.
Ok. I see now. You're just a damned idiot.
AJ/FormS
68 Formua-S fastback clone 367/A833/GVod/3.55s
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 25,856
- Reaction score
- 13,166
And the original post was .....
Depending on the size of your engine, the performance you are looking for, the weight of the vehicle, rear gearing, and hiway cruising speed with or without a Lock-Up; something in that range will usually be just fine.
However small, low-compression engines with big cams that have a very late intake valve closing angle, will have so little torque at zero mph, that sometimes even the 2800 is too low of a stall.
Stall speed is the quickest easiest, and cheapest way for a streeter to blast off the line.
==========================
For example;
lets say you have a stock shortblock Smoggerteen with 340 heads and cam. Your compression ratio comes in at say 7.5, and with the cam installed at split overlap, the Ica is 66*.
At 900ft elevation, your Dcr is gonna come in at around 6/1 and CCP is predicted to be 105psi.
This is a very sick combo. And I'm trying to prove a point here.
This will take off like a slanty.
>Now suppose this combo makes a measly 51hp/150tq at WOT at 1700 rpm. Lets use a 904, and 26" tires, and 2.76 gears. And finally, at zero mph this TC at this stall, at 1700rpm, might have a TM ratio of 1.5.
So then; At zero mph; to the road, this will put;
150 x 1.5 x 2.45 x 2.76 x 24/26 = 1352 ftlbs into two tires (Sure-Grip), so not a snowball's chance in hell it will spin the tires.
>Some to most guys will immediately swap out the 2.76s for lets say 3.91s for a City car. The new numbers are;
150 x 1.5 x 2.45 x 3.91 x 24/26 = 1990 ftlbs, still no chance.....
>Now lets get rid of that 1700TC and install a 2800.
Lets say the power at 2800 has risen to 140hp/260 ftlbs. and at this power level, let's say the convertor ratio is up to 1.6. The new numbers are;
260 x 1.6 x 2.45 x 3.91 x 24/26= 3680, so now we got a good amount of tire-smoke.
>We could actually give some up in order to reduce hi-way rpm. Lets try 20% or so less gear; say 3.23s, the new numbers are
260 x 1.6 x 2.45 x 3.23 x 24/26 = 3040 just about right for 245/60-14s .
>But what this combo really needs is waaaaaaaay more CCP. Lets bump it up to 150psi, keep the 2800 and go back to the 2.76s
Lets suppose the power jumps to 180hp/338Tq, and the TC jumps to 1.7 ratio; the new numbers are;
338 x 1.7 x 2.45 x 2.76 x 24/26 = 3587 ftlbs
And that friends is why I never recommend to install stock 340 heads and cam into a stock shortblock smoggerteen. 3587 annihilates 1352
>Lets give up some stall, to reduce tirespin, lets go to 2600. Lets say the hi-compression 318 now makes 165hp/333tq, and the TC ratio falls to 1.65; so ;
333 x 1.65 x 2.45 x 2.76 x 24/26 = 3430 Very good.
So what I did here is show you how to take a POS combo, and make ripper out of it, either with stall or with gears and or with proper cylinder pressure.
Lets go back to the first combo, but keep the 150 CCP. This would be 180hp/338tq/1700tc, and 2.76s
Ok but at the new Compression level the stall becomes say 2200 with a ratio of 1.55. At 2200 this 318HO makes say 120hp/286tq, so
286 x 1.55 x 2.45 x 2.76 x 24/26 = 2767 It will bust the 245s loose, but don't back out of it! lol. Compare this to the first combo, namely;
150 x 1.50 x 2.45 x 2.76 x 24/26 = 1352 ftlbs into two tires (Sure-Grip), so not a snowball's chance in hell it will spin the tires.
The only difference is the CCP going from 105psi to 150 psi, which pushed the stall up, and the TM ratio with it.
Now, I made all the numbers up for illustrative purposes, and I cannot say how accurate the power progression might be. But, IMO, the exercise ends up saying the same things, namely;
CCP is King.
then stall
then gears
some combos are just not a good idea.
Yeah yeah, 20 guys will crawl out of the woodwork and brag on their low-compression 318s being the bees knees with the 340 top end. But they are invariably not telling you the whole story.
Ask them about the Stall and gearing, the vehicle weight, cam-timing and valve lash, and at what roadspeed it finally wakes up.
Even if somebody gave me a nice set of prepped 340 heads and a brand new 340 cam kit, I still would not install that on a low-C 318..... cuz
Bin there done that, and more than once too, so
IMO
some combos are just not a good idea..
BTW; at 105psi such a combo will NOT be fuel friendly either.
There has to be at least a thousand better 318 combos. Maybe 10,000..
BTW-2
the stock smogger teen makes about 135psi at 900ft @8.0Scr, and if you put a 2800 and 3.91s on that you will have a better First gear ripper, and probably to 50 mph; than the 318/340 top-end/lo-stall combo, with the typical 3.23s. And with 3.55s the stock teener/2800 still makes great fuel economy for the ripper that it is.
I know, off track again.........
A street high stall will be something like a 2400 to 2800.
Depending on the size of your engine, the performance you are looking for, the weight of the vehicle, rear gearing, and hiway cruising speed with or without a Lock-Up; something in that range will usually be just fine.
However small, low-compression engines with big cams that have a very late intake valve closing angle, will have so little torque at zero mph, that sometimes even the 2800 is too low of a stall.
Stall speed is the quickest easiest, and cheapest way for a streeter to blast off the line.
==========================
For example;
lets say you have a stock shortblock Smoggerteen with 340 heads and cam. Your compression ratio comes in at say 7.5, and with the cam installed at split overlap, the Ica is 66*.
At 900ft elevation, your Dcr is gonna come in at around 6/1 and CCP is predicted to be 105psi.
This is a very sick combo. And I'm trying to prove a point here.
This will take off like a slanty.
>Now suppose this combo makes a measly 51hp/150tq at WOT at 1700 rpm. Lets use a 904, and 26" tires, and 2.76 gears. And finally, at zero mph this TC at this stall, at 1700rpm, might have a TM ratio of 1.5.
So then; At zero mph; to the road, this will put;
150 x 1.5 x 2.45 x 2.76 x 24/26 = 1352 ftlbs into two tires (Sure-Grip), so not a snowball's chance in hell it will spin the tires.
>Some to most guys will immediately swap out the 2.76s for lets say 3.91s for a City car. The new numbers are;
150 x 1.5 x 2.45 x 3.91 x 24/26 = 1990 ftlbs, still no chance.....
>Now lets get rid of that 1700TC and install a 2800.
Lets say the power at 2800 has risen to 140hp/260 ftlbs. and at this power level, let's say the convertor ratio is up to 1.6. The new numbers are;
260 x 1.6 x 2.45 x 3.91 x 24/26= 3680, so now we got a good amount of tire-smoke.
>We could actually give some up in order to reduce hi-way rpm. Lets try 20% or so less gear; say 3.23s, the new numbers are
260 x 1.6 x 2.45 x 3.23 x 24/26 = 3040 just about right for 245/60-14s .
>But what this combo really needs is waaaaaaaay more CCP. Lets bump it up to 150psi, keep the 2800 and go back to the 2.76s
Lets suppose the power jumps to 180hp/338Tq, and the TC jumps to 1.7 ratio; the new numbers are;
338 x 1.7 x 2.45 x 2.76 x 24/26 = 3587 ftlbs
And that friends is why I never recommend to install stock 340 heads and cam into a stock shortblock smoggerteen. 3587 annihilates 1352
>Lets give up some stall, to reduce tirespin, lets go to 2600. Lets say the hi-compression 318 now makes 165hp/333tq, and the TC ratio falls to 1.65; so ;
333 x 1.65 x 2.45 x 2.76 x 24/26 = 3430 Very good.
So what I did here is show you how to take a POS combo, and make ripper out of it, either with stall or with gears and or with proper cylinder pressure.
Lets go back to the first combo, but keep the 150 CCP. This would be 180hp/338tq/1700tc, and 2.76s
Ok but at the new Compression level the stall becomes say 2200 with a ratio of 1.55. At 2200 this 318HO makes say 120hp/286tq, so
286 x 1.55 x 2.45 x 2.76 x 24/26 = 2767 It will bust the 245s loose, but don't back out of it! lol. Compare this to the first combo, namely;
150 x 1.50 x 2.45 x 2.76 x 24/26 = 1352 ftlbs into two tires (Sure-Grip), so not a snowball's chance in hell it will spin the tires.
The only difference is the CCP going from 105psi to 150 psi, which pushed the stall up, and the TM ratio with it.
Now, I made all the numbers up for illustrative purposes, and I cannot say how accurate the power progression might be. But, IMO, the exercise ends up saying the same things, namely;
CCP is King.
then stall
then gears
some combos are just not a good idea.
Yeah yeah, 20 guys will crawl out of the woodwork and brag on their low-compression 318s being the bees knees with the 340 top end. But they are invariably not telling you the whole story.
Ask them about the Stall and gearing, the vehicle weight, cam-timing and valve lash, and at what roadspeed it finally wakes up.
Even if somebody gave me a nice set of prepped 340 heads and a brand new 340 cam kit, I still would not install that on a low-C 318..... cuz
Bin there done that, and more than once too, so
IMO
some combos are just not a good idea..
BTW; at 105psi such a combo will NOT be fuel friendly either.
There has to be at least a thousand better 318 combos. Maybe 10,000..
BTW-2
the stock smogger teen makes about 135psi at 900ft @8.0Scr, and if you put a 2800 and 3.91s on that you will have a better First gear ripper, and probably to 50 mph; than the 318/340 top-end/lo-stall combo, with the typical 3.23s. And with 3.55s the stock teener/2800 still makes great fuel economy for the ripper that it is.
I know, off track again.........
Last edited:
1969reddart
or is it Copper...
Years ago I used a 340 (sticker said "Hi Stall") converter behind a high compression 440 with a MP 474 - 280 cam. 3.23 gears. Brake stalled to 2600 RPM and worked perfectly with my combo.
The problem here is your comparing today’s standards as well as your own vs yesteryears ratings. This does not make you right.
Rustyratrod is correct. You are not.
However! If you want to compare yesteryears standards vs today’s standards, it is a totally different ball game. One we are not playing.
Well said
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
2800 wasn’t a high stall in the 70’s either. Just because Chrysler stamped a term on something doesn’t make it so. For example anything over a stock cam and the converter was at best holding the engine back. If your definition of high stall is a factory 11.75 in converter you use the wrong definition.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
If you say so.
It would be nice if "some" people would take the original post more literate instead of turning it into their idea of what the OP asked. He simply asked about a factory torque converter. No one else definitions of a high stall converter. Just THE FACTORY!!!
For all we know he is writing a history article on factory Mopar torque converters.
For all we know he is writing a history article on factory Mopar torque converters.
Surely your not that thick headed are you? No one here is comparing a 70's Mopar factory Hi-Stall to the 4500 stall convertor that Frank Lupo built for my 416 Barracuda. Stay on point here.
Last edited:
My dad bought a new 71 Fury 4dr with a 360. And due to the weight and the need to get all that weight moving, it came with a Factory Hi-Stall in it. Which was verified when I pulled the trans to rebuild it after like 150K miles. It had the wider starter ring on it which I used to ID a Hi-Stall
I agree.
According to who? You? LMAO! Against your standard?
The key word in this sentence is “IF” which I never said in my direction that you (might have) assume(d).
Bare with me a second here.
Chrysler sells motor vehicles that have to meet a certain standard for the general public that run and drive a certain way. The car must, in Chrysler’s opinion, have a certain feel and performance aspect to it when you put it in drive, and then drive away. We will call this the normal car. That everyday car that will sell by the thousands type of vehicle.
When Chrysler started making there performance cars with the hotter cam engines, they found that the vehicle needed more stall in the converters. After all, the everyday engine will use a cam that has very low duration. The performance engines cam was a good bit larger than the everyday engine’s cam. It was quickly discovered (more so most probably known a head of time) that the newer and hotter engine needed more stall in the converter to meet the expectations for the intended performance and what ever vehicle it was going in.
This is where the factory had a higher stall converter designed and made. Being that this converter has a higher stall than that everyday set up they sell by the thousands a day, they had it stamped “Hi Stall” for that reason and probably as well as not to have anyone get confused as to what converter they were grabbing to install during assembly.
The difference in the stall is not that much but enough to be noticeable and probably feel like something is off if not outright wrong with the vehicle when driven. What should be certain feel from the average 318-2bbl Duster is going to be a bit off with an extra 1,00? 1,500, 1,500+ stall?
If some executive or engineer got in this run of the mill 318-2 with a 383 road runner converter, I think they would know something is off and I believe the average regular guy would agree when they drive the car.
There is a big stall difference in converters here that get used by the factory and as such they had them labeled “Hi Stall” which is accurate from where they stand and by which the standard of what the factory did, not yours or your idea of a high stall is.
I do not remember anybody replying that yesteryears factory high stall is nothing in comparison to today’s aftermarket high stall and which we didn’t even get to how awesome today’s converters drive on the street even at a 4500 rpm stall rating.
I myself have what I would call a general performance engine with a bit of cam and a 3500 stall converter that runs and drives super close to a stock car.
Calling what Chrysler stamped on the converters, Hi Stall, in the ‘60’s & ‘70’s as not a performance thing or an upgraded part is silly and made into sounding not only disrespectful but almost goes to crazy because you compare it to today’s standards of how many years later now?
This is what I think your missing. Even though it has been stated. For starters, let’s take a look at the thread title you completely ignore and argue against.
(Forgive the bold, it was just a copy and paste.)
“Factory High Stall Converters”
I don’t think no one would agree the better converter move, if so warranted by the build. But this is not the topic or argument here.
I know Bobby a little bit. This is not what he thinks or would or has done in the past on a performance build. He equipped the build as needed.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
I’ll leave this here to make my point as clear as I can.
Carter called this a “competition” carb. It’s not really. The only people who use this in “competition” are guys that have to by rule, and those who just don’t get it. Marketing is a powerful thing to the unwashed masses.
Carter called this a “competition” carb. It’s not really. The only people who use this in “competition” are guys that have to by rule, and those who just don’t get it. Marketing is a powerful thing to the unwashed masses.
And your attempting to “Unwash the Masses” via this discussion that doesn’t apply to the thread topic at hand?
It’s funny how no one is arguing with you on today’s standards of what I high stall converter is and how much better the converters are of today but amazing how you stick to your tune on what the factory calls a high stall converter on there performance cars vs what they put out on regular cars.
Just freaking amazing….
It’s funny how no one is arguing with you on today’s standards of what I high stall converter is and how much better the converters are of today but amazing how you stick to your tune on what the factory calls a high stall converter on there performance cars vs what they put out on regular cars.
Just freaking amazing….
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
What’s amazing is you keep coming back. I gave you a perfect example of marketing, which is all the hi stall stamped on the OE converter is. Simple as that. Get over it.
It’s not amazing that I came back but your inability to not stay on the thread topic and push yourself and thoughts on everyone else who disagrees with you. You are the only one holding on to your point which is NOT on topic of what the OE poster asked about.
Your example is not indispute.
IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT!
YOU GET OVER IT!
Your still wrong so get over it.
Your example is not indispute.
IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT!
YOU GET OVER IT!
Your still wrong so get over it.
aaronk785
Well-Known Member
Maybe it should have read (higher stall) .I bet there’s not a Chrysler motor made that wouldn’t run quicker with the 10.75 higher stall converter than the 11.75 low stall. Even a slant.
-
