Ever wonder why a Stalled Auto will out run the M6
08-31-2010, 08:29 AM
#1
Ever wonder why a Stalled Auto will out run the M6 The Stalled Auto will put more power to the ground that the M6 car
in this test two stock GXP LS3 cars are compared.
As you can see the stalled car with either the SS3200 or the SS3600 put down more HP to the wheels and did this almost thru the complete RPM range.
The cars are both run in 3rd gear with the A6 having theconverter unlocked as you can see the A6 has a higher MPH range and the M6 will have a shift at 89 MPH to keep up with the A6 to 99
MPH. In addition the M6 was at a disadvantage in the low MPH range below 35 MPH, this allows the A6 to out run the M6 from the lower MPH start point to red line.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/attachmen...e-scan0005.jpg
in this test two stock GXP LS3 cars are compared.
As you can see the stalled car with either the SS3200 or the SS3600 put down more HP to the wheels and did this almost thru the complete RPM range.
The cars are both run in 3rd gear with the A6 having theconverter unlocked as you can see the A6 has a higher MPH range and the M6 will have a shift at 89 MPH to keep up with the A6 to 99
MPH. In addition the M6 was at a disadvantage in the low MPH range below 35 MPH, this allows the A6 to out run the M6 from the lower MPH start point to red line.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/attachmen...e-scan0005.jpg
Last edited by Yank; 03-07-2011 at 07:58 AM. Reason: title change
09-01-2010, 03:39 AM
#2
TECH Resident
The Stalled Auto will put more power to the ground that the M6 car
in this test two stock GXP LS3 cars are compared.
As you can see the stalled car with either the SS3200 or the SS3600 put down more HP to the wheels and did this almost thru the complete RPM range.
The cars are both run in 3rd gear as you can see the A6 has a higher MPH range and the M6 will have a shift at 89 MPH to keep up with the A6 to 99
MPH. In addition the M6 was at a disadvantage in the low MPH range below 35 MPH, this allows the A6 to out run the M6 from the lower MPH start point to red line.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/attachmen...e-scan0005.jpg
in this test two stock GXP LS3 cars are compared.
As you can see the stalled car with either the SS3200 or the SS3600 put down more HP to the wheels and did this almost thru the complete RPM range.
The cars are both run in 3rd gear as you can see the A6 has a higher MPH range and the M6 will have a shift at 89 MPH to keep up with the A6 to 99
MPH. In addition the M6 was at a disadvantage in the low MPH range below 35 MPH, this allows the A6 to out run the M6 from the lower MPH start point to red line.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/attachmen...e-scan0005.jpg
09-01-2010, 08:18 AM
#3
Look on our site www.converter.cc at the dyno test area and see a stock converter to SS3600 test the SS3200 will be up soon
09-01-2010, 09:06 PM
#4
TECH Resident
Look on our site www.converter.cc at the dyno test area and see a stock converter to SS3600 test the SS3200 will be up soon
.
09-02-2010, 05:41 AM
#5
09-02-2010, 11:54 AM
#6
11 Second Club
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: TN
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm trying to put a prospective on your testing.
G8 A6 3rd gear ratio I believe is 1.53
4.03; 2.36; 1.53; 1.15; 0.85; 0.67
G8 M6 3rd gear may be 1.30, at least that is what C6 corvette is.
C6: 2.66; 1.78; 1.30; 1.00; 0.74; 0.50
What is the rear end ratio of the G8 A6 equipped car and what is the rear end ratio of the G8 M6 equipped car?
Is rear gearing difference the reason the M6 has to shift in 1/4 mile?
What I'd rather see is graph comparison of time to rpm measured from 3400 rpm to same approximate rpm max HP is achieved by both cars.
I know from experience on my Motorcycles, that when I do WOT runs in 1.00 gear, Engine shows and increase of around 4-5 HP with 3.15 gear ratio over what it make when I swap over to 3.37 rear gearing.
But when I measure how long it takes the engine to rev to 6000 RPM from 2500 RPM, of course the 3.37 gearing produces a faster time. When checking MPH the 3.37 reaches the same MPH faster than the 3.15 does when checked at same time. So MPH hour wise, it shows a faster rate of climb than with the 3.15 rear gearing.
Not sure about which will win in 1/4 mile the G8 with A6 or G8 with M6. Maybe it's one of those things only a LONG BLACK DYNO can determine
By the way, I am running one of your TQ converters in my 1966 corvette LS7 & 6L80E build.
My other 64 corvette build, is being built to compete in Pro Touring events that only one of is straight line. How TC handles down shifts is as important as how it handles up shifts as engine needs to be kept in it's power band at all times.
I don't think a stall above 2400-2500 RPM works either when competing in Pro Tour events. Manuals due to gear splits seem to kick Auto's Butts in Pro Tour Events.
Time will only tell if car with it's 4L80E based 6 speed with it's gear splits is competitive with Manual Pro Tour Cars, and on Drag Strip with comparable HP to weight cars with either A4 or A6 transmission and their 1000 RPM higher stalled converters. Can my Gearing make me competive with them?
G8 A6 3rd gear ratio I believe is 1.53
4.03; 2.36; 1.53; 1.15; 0.85; 0.67
G8 M6 3rd gear may be 1.30, at least that is what C6 corvette is.
C6: 2.66; 1.78; 1.30; 1.00; 0.74; 0.50
What is the rear end ratio of the G8 A6 equipped car and what is the rear end ratio of the G8 M6 equipped car?
Is rear gearing difference the reason the M6 has to shift in 1/4 mile?
What I'd rather see is graph comparison of time to rpm measured from 3400 rpm to same approximate rpm max HP is achieved by both cars.
I know from experience on my Motorcycles, that when I do WOT runs in 1.00 gear, Engine shows and increase of around 4-5 HP with 3.15 gear ratio over what it make when I swap over to 3.37 rear gearing.
But when I measure how long it takes the engine to rev to 6000 RPM from 2500 RPM, of course the 3.37 gearing produces a faster time. When checking MPH the 3.37 reaches the same MPH faster than the 3.15 does when checked at same time. So MPH hour wise, it shows a faster rate of climb than with the 3.15 rear gearing.
Not sure about which will win in 1/4 mile the G8 with A6 or G8 with M6. Maybe it's one of those things only a LONG BLACK DYNO can determine
By the way, I am running one of your TQ converters in my 1966 corvette LS7 & 6L80E build.
My other 64 corvette build, is being built to compete in Pro Touring events that only one of is straight line. How TC handles down shifts is as important as how it handles up shifts as engine needs to be kept in it's power band at all times.
I don't think a stall above 2400-2500 RPM works either when competing in Pro Tour events. Manuals due to gear splits seem to kick Auto's Butts in Pro Tour Events.
Time will only tell if car with it's 4L80E based 6 speed with it's gear splits is competitive with Manual Pro Tour Cars, and on Drag Strip with comparable HP to weight cars with either A4 or A6 transmission and their 1000 RPM higher stalled converters. Can my Gearing make me competive with them?
Trending Topics
09-02-2010, 07:26 PM
#9
Look at the graph and see.
Two stock cars of the same make GM GXP LS3 2009 one with auto and one with M6 with no changes other than the converter added make sense?
The A6 car puts down more wheel Hp than the M6 thru out the full RPM range.
But with the stock converter it was lower in all ranges than the M6 the converter added a huge Hp increase to the ground!
this made a A6 car that could not keep up with the M6 kick it"s ***
Two stock cars of the same make GM GXP LS3 2009 one with auto and one with M6 with no changes other than the converter added make sense?
The A6 car puts down more wheel Hp than the M6 thru out the full RPM range.
But with the stock converter it was lower in all ranges than the M6 the converter added a huge Hp increase to the ground!
this made a A6 car that could not keep up with the M6 kick it"s ***
09-02-2010, 08:04 PM
#10
TECH Resident
. Thx.VERY impressive results. Your convertor designs obviously do as you promise and that is getting the engine rpm up and the resulting power across without turning the speed differential across the fluid coupling mostly into heat. Very efficient.
Major increase in area under the curve which is where the great results come from.
Was Patrick G's tune on the engine only or engine and trans?
Last edited by rsz288; 09-02-2010 at 08:10 PM.
09-03-2010, 07:39 AM
#12
LOL. There it was staring me right in the face wasnt it! Having a blind day . Thx.
VERY impressive results. Your convertor designs obviously do as you promise and that is getting the engine rpm up and the resulting power across without turning the speed differential across the fluid coupling mostly into heat. Very efficient.
Major increase in area under the curve which is where the great results come from.
Was Patrick G's tune on the engine only or engine and trans?
. Thx.VERY impressive results. Your convertor designs obviously do as you promise and that is getting the engine rpm up and the resulting power across without turning the speed differential across the fluid coupling mostly into heat. Very efficient.
Major increase in area under the curve which is where the great results come from.
Was Patrick G's tune on the engine only or engine and trans?
but we did add the trans tune added and it made a great improvement in driveabilty.
09-03-2010, 09:30 AM
#13
ok so lets compare cheaper cars. like the fbody.
i have a stick and mine stock against a guy with a 3200 stall( his was stock i believe) i still raped him. i think this test has to many differences. the trany gears you cnat really change. but eh rear gears you can. so lets get a car with same rear gears and do a a few sets of dyno runs. then on the track.
you should take a new camaro and test it. the auot is rated at 400 and stick is rated at 430( somewhere around there) you put a stall in that auto. it wont pick up 30 horse.
there is way to many varibles. just need to start with a motor and 2 transmissions.
bolt up motor and M6 and hook that to a dyno and see what horse it has in all gears.
then bolt up Same motor and A6 and see what horse it has in all the gears.
that would the best way of doling this. you need a complete comparisen of all the gears. the auto might pul harder in first and the stick in second. so no real way to know a a 3rd gear pull when the dears are so far form each other on size
i have a stick and mine stock against a guy with a 3200 stall( his was stock i believe) i still raped him. i think this test has to many differences. the trany gears you cnat really change. but eh rear gears you can. so lets get a car with same rear gears and do a a few sets of dyno runs. then on the track.
you should take a new camaro and test it. the auot is rated at 400 and stick is rated at 430( somewhere around there) you put a stall in that auto. it wont pick up 30 horse.
there is way to many varibles. just need to start with a motor and 2 transmissions.
bolt up motor and M6 and hook that to a dyno and see what horse it has in all gears.
then bolt up Same motor and A6 and see what horse it has in all the gears.
that would the best way of doling this. you need a complete comparisen of all the gears. the auto might pul harder in first and the stick in second. so no real way to know a a 3rd gear pull when the dears are so far form each other on size
09-03-2010, 10:10 AM
#14
Again this 3 gear test from a low speed roll to red line.
Two stock cars on the same Dyno the same day (cars are as produced by GM) the M6 car out horsepowered the A6 car in stock form.
But the A6 car out horsepowered the M6 car with only a converter change this is showing the power to the ground gained by adding converter.
The results are much the same in all cases the converter has an STR that extends out by design and this is shown in this testing format.
Two stock cars on the same Dyno the same day (cars are as produced by GM) the M6 car out horsepowered the A6 car in stock form.
But the A6 car out horsepowered the M6 car with only a converter change this is showing the power to the ground gained by adding converter.
The results are much the same in all cases the converter has an STR that extends out by design and this is shown in this testing format.
09-03-2010, 03:19 PM
#15
On The Tree
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: trumbull connecticut
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not to hijack the thread but when should you change the transmission fluid after stall install. i had a yank ss3600 put in my 2002 ss . about 500 miles ago.
09-03-2010, 04:58 PM
#16
TECH Regular
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Plain Dealing, LA
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this claimed 8.2 rwhp increase at peak rpm's with the custom tune on the SS3600, and a stock tune on the factory converter?? I would think to be fair you would want the same tune on both converters to eliminate that variable to test peak numbers. Otherwise that claimed hp increase could easily be attributed to the tune.
On the other hand I know that big converters shine at lower mph and will easily pull a car with a stock converter off the line or from a low roll, maybe even pull a M6 car down low, but not up top. I've ran a Circle-D 4C and a 2B, both 245mm. The 2B pulls harder at peak rpms. My stock converter pulled a little better than the 2B at peak.
09-03-2010, 06:00 PM
#17
Yea I dont get it.
Is this claimed 8.2 rwhp increase at peak rpm's with the custom tune on the SS3600, and a stock tune on the factory converter?? I would think to be fair you would want the same tune on both converters to eliminate that variable to test peak numbers. Otherwise that claimed hp increase could easily be attributed to the tune.
On the other hand I know that big converters shine at lower mph and will easily pull a car with a stock converter off the line or from a low roll, maybe even pull a M6 car down low, but not up top. I've ran a Circle-D 4C and a 2B, both 245mm. The 2B pulls harder at peak rpms. My stock converter pulled a little better than the 2B at peak.
Is this claimed 8.2 rwhp increase at peak rpm's with the custom tune on the SS3600, and a stock tune on the factory converter?? I would think to be fair you would want the same tune on both converters to eliminate that variable to test peak numbers. Otherwise that claimed hp increase could easily be attributed to the tune.
On the other hand I know that big converters shine at lower mph and will easily pull a car with a stock converter off the line or from a low roll, maybe even pull a M6 car down low, but not up top. I've ran a Circle-D 4C and a 2B, both 245mm. The 2B pulls harder at peak rpms. My stock converter pulled a little better than the 2B at peak.
Did you read the info on the graph sheets?
http://www.converter.cc/g8/index.html
3 runs on the graph
Stock converter,SS3600 no tune, and SS3600 with tune
09-05-2010, 08:23 AM
#19
what about the graphs on the site touting high converter efficiency, and it was run with the converter LOCKED 
obviously its going to make power you're taking 30+ pounds of rotating mass away.
not bashing your product, im sure the converters are top notch. but the advertising confuses me... i'd like to see a rpm scaled graph as well as the torque curve, obviously its gonna show a buttload of torque (hp) down low over a stick car!
obviously its going to make power you're taking 30+ pounds of rotating mass away.not bashing your product, im sure the converters are top notch. but the advertising confuses me... i'd like to see a rpm scaled graph as well as the torque curve, obviously its gonna show a buttload of torque (hp) down low over a stick car!