Precision Industries Torque Converters [Archive]

Cobra25

08-21-2006, 05:55 PM

Who has a PI 3000 stall torque converter and a roots blower ? and who's tune are you running. I am looking for some feedback. I have talked to Lidio and got his recommendation, but was looking for what others have done. I have a 2003 MM with a Stallion 3000 Stall Torgue converter And a Trilogy Blower. I'm useing a 3.0 pulley. I have a Custom Dyno Tune from Scott Beer on the car and love it. My friend ghost03 has the same with a 3.2 Pulley. His tune is different. Shakes 26 if I'm correct also has the same , not sure of the pulley size on his Marauder.

KillJoy

08-21-2006, 06:37 PM

Do you feel it makes up for the Low RPM lag?

KillJoy

merc

08-21-2006, 06:37 PM

I have a 2003 MM with a Stallion 3000 Stall Torgue converter And a Trilogy Blower. I'm useing a 3.0 pulley. I have a Custom Dyno Tune from Scott Beer on the car and love it.

According to the timeslip database your best time was 12.910 @ 111.41, but you don't list your 60 ft times. With a trap speed of 111.41 it seems that you lost traction off the line, is that true ? Some people have stated that a loose converter with the addition of a Trilogy blower equals traction issues off the line. I would be interested in your comments public or private.

Joe Walsh

08-21-2006, 06:52 PM

I would expect that the immediate low end torque available from a Roots style S/C would greatly minimize, if not eliminate, the need for a 3000 rpm stall converter.
Also, remember that the more Torque/Horsepower that you put through a given TC, the higher it will stall anyway.
I wonder if any Trilogy guys have used a 2500 or 2800 rpm stall converter.

BTW: Why the Roots blower/stall converter questions Merc??? heh heh heh....;)

merc

08-21-2006, 06:58 PM

BTW: Why the Roots blower/stall converter questions Merc??? heh heh heh....;)

You know my set current setup. Things are going to change soon, very soon.

Joe Walsh

08-21-2006, 07:05 PM

You know my set current setup. Things are going to change soon, very soon.

Hoo Hoo!!!

Looks like a few more CAMmers are about to 'get blown'!!!

Now that the weather is cooling off, I'm going to take a few more stabs at lowering the N/A record before I bolt on the F.I.T. Procharger kit.

merc

08-21-2006, 07:09 PM

Hoo Hoo!!!

Looks like a few more CAMmers are about to 'get blown'!!!

Now that the weather is cooling off, I'm going to take a few more stabs at lowering the N/A record before I bolt on the F.I.T. Procharger kit.

Check your P.M's

Breadfan

08-21-2006, 07:10 PM

If I recall, don't the Marauder's have a 2500-2800 stall converter stock? There is a thread from way back when in which this was discussed and it was decided the converters in our cars are about 2500-2800...right?

Maybe not as nice as a PI, but that's what they are. It makes me feel that going to a 3000 with a roots isn't going to make as much a difference as you might see with other setups due to the torque from a roots setup off the line.

The question is, would it hinder traction more than it helps times. With 4.10's like you have (and I have for that matter) I'd be curious.

I borrowed your BFG's in March, with my 4.10's, Trilogy, and stock converter I did launch too hard and broke them loose. You also ran that day so you may recall the track setup. Just something to keep in mind...hope it helps.

BTW merc, I had a tougher time breaking loose the MT's I had on the CVPI wheels than I did those BFGs. Could've been track prep though, it's hard to say. They felt stickier but lets be honest theres 3 months in between when I used each one. You're more than welcome to try the M/T's next time you run if you'd like to test them out.

Bluerauder

08-21-2006, 07:14 PM

Hoo Hoo!!!

Looks like a few more CAMmers are about to 'get blown'!!!
The pressure is getting unbearable. Now I gotta go see if there's an extra $6995 laying around somewhere .... Oh wait ... there's an S/C raffle right?? ;)

Breadfan

08-21-2006, 07:21 PM

Cheaper than that Charlie. Don't forget, I got all the tools too. ;)

Ok, Ok, I'm no help!! :D

sailsmen

08-21-2006, 07:36 PM

Go w/ a 3,500 Stall. I have a Vortec.

Zack had a very low 60' with the 3,500 stall.

No difference in driveability except you have to give it more gas when backing up.

DEFYANT

08-21-2006, 07:39 PM

Cheaper than that Charlie. Don't forget, I got all the tools too. ;)

Ok, Ok, I'm no help!! :D

+10,000

...and Charlie, your just about out of warranty - aintcha! :D

Count me in for the install party!

Joe Walsh

08-21-2006, 07:52 PM

If I recall, don't the Marauder's have a 2500-2800 stall converter stock? There is a thread from way back when in which this was discussed and it was decided the converters in our cars are about 2500-2800...right?

I've heard lots of different stall speeds claimed for the OEM ('03) converter.

2500-2800 rpm sounds a little high for an OEM converter that is designed for maximum fuel economy, not maximum acceleration.

Art Carr, who I bought my 2800 rpm stall converter from said that the OEM converter is around 1800 rpm.
I know that the Art Carr converter is a lot smaller than my OEM and it DEFINITELY stalls a lot higher than the OEM converter.

merc

08-21-2006, 08:39 PM

BTW merc, I had a tougher time breaking loose the MT's I had on the CVPI wheels than I did those BFGs. Could've been track prep though, it's hard to say. They felt stickier but lets be honest theres 3 months in between when I used each one. You're more than welcome to try the M/T's next time you run if you'd like to test them out.

I think I will take you up on that offer :beer:

shakes_26

08-21-2006, 08:43 PM

Merc,

We spoke the other day on the phone about this.

I ran the PI 3K stall, setup for a 400-450hp car, I spoke with Don (I think) at P.I, ran this on the car NA for a while, it dropped my ET to the lower 14s If I remember correctly. I was using Lidio's NA tune, short of the low mpg I was seeing Highway (my fault I have a lead foot) it ran fine, perfect shifting. I did need more gas to get the car 'moving' but once into it it went. I thought this was due to the added 'looseness' for the expeced higher hp.

I added the Trilogy standard blower kit to the car. With this combo, and drag radials, I ran a best of 12.4, with 1.71 at the 60' mark. What I found was I could launch the car at about 2K rpm, roll into the gas and then stand on it. My car was pretty fast, I also had the K&N and a full exhaust 2.5" on the car. Consistent was 12.55-12.6 quarter mile, about 1.8 0-60

I then added the 3.0 pulley, fuel pump and custom tune by Scott. Why? Because with the smaller pulley I needed a tune and well, I wasn't going to go across country to get it done. Plus Scott is very good at what he does. I basically ran a best of at 12.17 with this combo, 0-60 was 1.77, big power. I consistently ran 12.3s in this trim, but I just didnt care for the driveability with the torque converter. It had been there since the beginning, that little you have to give it 'extra' gas to get rolling.

Now there was nothing wrong with the TC, just that little tick, I could not live with. Like the damn 2 specks of dirt under the paint on the right front qrtr panel....lets not go there. Anyway, I took the TC out and went back oem.

I haven't had much track time with her in this trim, I found I was launching too hard and spinning the Nitto's, so I'll need to lower the launch rpm. I was running mid 12.5s,with 1.95/2 flat 0-60 but I've tweaked a few things since then, so with some cooler air (Florida summer ya know) and less humidity, I should be able to make up some of that difference.

For the street, I do not miss the TC one bit. Nada. With the car in gear at idle, I lift off the brake and the car starts moving... I love that.

In short if you had no issues witht he TC under NA, you wont have any with it running an Eaton. As with any setup you'll need to learn it. I went trhough a set of drag radials until I got 'it' down and the feeling was there of what I could and could not get away with (traction wise).

And with those QA1's, you'll be able to dial in those launches nicely for track conditions.

Cobra25

08-21-2006, 09:39 PM

According to the timeslip database your best time was 12.910 @ 111.41, but you don't list your 60 ft times. With a trap speed of 111.41 it seems that you lost traction off the line, is that true ? Some people have stated that a loose converter with the addition of a Trilogy blower equals traction issues off the line. I would be interested in your comments public or private.I've only been to the track and raced my Marauder one time. That was my first run ever. Lost traction off the line , Yes. But I'm not a skilled racer. As far as traction I ran KDW2 255's. Next time I'll run my widened rim's with the Nitto's 305's. Should help. I did my 3000 stall torque Converter when my car was stock. I think it has to do alot with how much HP & Torq you have in your car. I feel if you have under 400 rwhp the 3000 stall Torgue Converter is fine But when you get higher than that the stock on would be better at the Track for launching out of the hole . Either way, I would think if you practiced enought you would do well. I'm no expert thats just How I see it at this time.

merc

08-22-2006, 06:31 AM

Merc,

We spoke the other day on the phone about this.

In short if you had no issues witht he TC under NA, you wont have any with it running an Eaton. As with any setup you'll need to learn it. I went trhough a set of drag radials until I got 'it' down and the feeling was there of what I could and could not get away with (traction wise).

And with those QA1's, you'll be able to dial in those launches nicely for track conditions.

Thanks Shakes for taking the time out to answer some questions during your vacation. Given the feedback on this subject I elect to keep the PI converter and test the drivability and track manors before reinventing the wheel. According to my local Ford Dealer I could upgrade to a 2004 OEM Marauder converter for around 250 with my old core. I will report later on next month on how things workout.

KilledKenny

08-24-2006, 07:17 AM

SergntMac

08-24-2006, 08:19 AM

sailsmen

08-24-2006, 08:30 AM

" I feel if you have under 400 rwhp the 3000 stall Torgue Converter is fine But when you get higher than that the stock on would be better at the Track for launching out of the hole . "

Provided you have DR or slicks the increased torque of the PI and higher stall will result in lower 60' time.

SamF

08-24-2006, 11:45 AM

Just some specs on our stock converters.
Factory Spec for 2003
Stall Speed-Application Min. Max.
4.6L 2,094 2,440
4.6L police applications 2,319 2,750
4.6L Marauder 2,555 3,011
Factory Spec for 2004
Stall Speed-Application Min. Max.
4.6L 2,031 2,374
4.6L (with Handling Package) 2,372 2,808

Strictly looking at the numbers it seems the stocker has a very similar stall profile to the PI. I am wondering what the main benefit of the PI upgrade would be on a N/A car like mine. Will I really see an increase (less lost to drivetrain) in actual RWHP based on the TQ multiplier and reduction in weight?

SergntMac

08-24-2006, 01:59 PM

Strictly looking at the numbers it seems the stocker has a very similar stall profile to the PI. I am wondering what the main benefit of the PI upgrade would be on a N/A car like mine. Will I really see an increase (less lost to drivetrain) in actual RWHP based on the TQ multiplier and reduction in weight?If the "PI" you mention in you post is a referrence to Precision Industries and the Stallion TC, yes, you will see gains across the board. Not on any dyno, but at the race track, and in street and highway performance.

Folks have reported a variety of ET results, but it averages out to one-half of a second in reduced ETs. Parasitic drag is also improved by decreasing gross weight, the PI weighs less and it's smaller. And, it multilpies engine torque greater than the stock TC, 1:90:1 vs 2:50:1 multiplication.

Will you build more new power? Nope, not a bit. But, you see more of the power you own go to work on the pavement, and suck less from the gas tank too.

If you were asking about "PI" as in Police Interceptor, no way dude. The stock OEM Marauder converter outperforms the PI torque converter on all fronts. The only real difference is the powerbands of the 2V and 4V engines. The 2V SOHC PI engine develops more power sooner than the 4V DOHC, and at lower RPMs, but that runs out quickly when the 4V keeps going. In theory, the PI produces better throttle response in short standing start launches, but doesn't run as fast, as far as it's bigger brother.

Smokie

08-24-2006, 04:38 PM

You already have 4:10's and 3000 PI. so it would make sense to keep what you have when you add Roots blower and get it tuned accordingly, if you don't like it for everyday driving then make a change.

I don't know that there is proof that once you get a Base Trilogy Kit with gears & loose converter you automatically will run faster than with stock gears and converter. You might or you may not. I chose to leave my power train and tires stock and compliment my Base T-Kit with exhaust and airbox.

I know there are plenty of people running faster than me, but I am sure there are not lots of people running faster with same or less mods. My great enjoyment from my car comes from the fact that it drives so smooth and quiet until I chose to get on it.

Tallboy

08-24-2006, 05:37 PM

Smokie

08-24-2006, 05:58 PM

I do. As witnessed by Shakes_26 removing his 3000 stall converter and going back to OEM. It cost him 2-3 tenths in the quarter.

Do you honestly not believe gears will make any car run the 1320 faster? There are equally equipped cars as mine with 4:10's and they do not run faster.

I believe any mod. has the potential to make a car faster than not having the mod. No guarantee that it will. Look at the timeslip page and you can find great disparity in results.

Higher HP does not guarantee faster 1/4 mile
Drag radials do not guarantee better 60'
4:10's don't always beat 3:55's
Looser TC don't always make their owners happy....and so on and on.

I have always supported whatever my friends want to spend their money on their cars, is about what makes you happy, it's all about choice.

Tallboy

08-24-2006, 06:03 PM

There are equally equipped cars as mine with 4:10's and they do not run faster.

I believe any mod. has the potential to make a car faster than not having the mod. No guarantee that it will. Look at the timeslip page and you can find great disparity in results.

Higher HP does not guarantee faster 1/4 mile
Drag radials do not guarantee better 60'
4:10's don't always beat 3:55's
Looser TC don't always make their owners happy....and so on and on.

I have always supported whatever my friends want to spend their money on their car, is about what makes you happy, it's all about choice.

Yeah-you're correct on the above, but you said "I don't know that there is proof that once you get a Base Trilogy Kit with gears & loose converter you automatically will run faster than with stock gears and converter." I believe this flies in the face of everything we accept as fact on this board. A 3000 stall will make the car quicker in the 1/4-fact. Taller gears will make a car quicker in the 1/4-fact.

Do you think BillyGman would run 12.00 without gears and converter on his base Trilogy kit?

Smokie

08-24-2006, 06:14 PM

Yeah-you're correct on the above, but you said "I don't know that there is proof that once you get a Base Trilogy Kit with gears & loose converter you automatically will run faster than with stock gears and converter." I believe this flies in the face of everything we accept as fact on this board. A 3000 stall will make the car quicker in the 1/4-fact. Taller gears will make a car quicker in the 1/4-fact.

Do you think BillyGman would run 12.00 without gears and converter on his base Trilogy kit?

The part I highlighted is the key to my argument, in theory you should go faster, not guaranteed you will beat another car that does not have aftermarket converter and gears. The mods, you mentioned will make YOUR car faster than it was, not neccesarily faster than another car.

I could give you specific examples, but it would be in bad taste. I agree with you the looser converter and gears makes the car faster than it was before the mods.

shakes_26

08-24-2006, 06:20 PM

please elaborate with examples, because your statements are not clear.

The part I highlighted is the key to my argument, in theory you should go faster, not guaranteed you will beat another car that does not have aftermarket converter and gears. The mods, you mentioned will make YOUR car faster than it was, not neccesarily faster than another car.

I could give you specific examples, but it would be in bad taste. I agree with you the looser converter and gears makes the car faster than it was before the mods.

Tallboy

08-24-2006, 06:22 PM

The part I highlighted is the key to my argument, in theory you should go faster, not guaranteed you will beat another car that does not have aftermarket converter and gears. The mods, you mentioned will make YOUR car faster than it was, not neccesarily faster than another car.

I could give you specific examples, but it would be in bad taste. I agree with you the looser converter and gears makes the car faster than it was before the mods.

I'm not talking about racing anyone else, and you didnot refer to that in your post. Here, I'll quote the whole thing again...

""I don't know that there is proof that once you get a Base Trilogy Kit with gears & loose converter you automatically will run faster than with stock gears and converter. You might or you may not. I chose to leave my power train and tires stock and compliment my Base T-Kit with exhaust and airbox.""

I don't care who you are or how your Marauder is modded, or who's blower you have. If you put a looser converter and taller gears in a car it will automatically be faster in the 1/4. Period. This isn't even open to interpretation.

You have examples to prove me wrong, but don't want to post 'em? Fine-PM them to me-I'd love to see them...

Smokie

08-24-2006, 06:45 PM

Merc will decide what is best for him, I am pretty sure what I think is not going to sway his decision. I don't want to provide specific examples.

If you take the time to examine the timeslip page in detail you can see examples of what I'm trying to tell you....but I think the time would be better spent drinking a cold brew.

Tallboy

08-24-2006, 06:47 PM

Smokie

08-24-2006, 06:48 PM

I'm not talking about racing anyone else, and you didnot refer to that in your post. Here, I'll quote the whole thing again...

""I don't know that there is proof that once you get a Base Trilogy Kit with gears & loose converter you automatically will run faster than someone else with stock gears and converter. You might or you may not. I chose to leave my power train and tires stock and compliment my Base T-Kit with exhaust and airbox.""

I don't care who you are or how your Marauder is modded, or who's blower you have. If you put a looser converter and taller gears in a car it will automatically be faster in the 1/4. Period. This isn't even open to interpretation.

You have examples to prove me wrong, but don't want to post 'em? Fine-PM them to me-I'd love to see them...

I realize now why we were not on the same page, here is what I was thinking but left out.

Tallboy

08-24-2006, 06:48 PM

I don't know that there is proof the Earth is round.

Smokie

08-24-2006, 06:52 PM

When the hell did Merc get involved???

This is his thread, he asked a question. I also have derailed his thread and I apologize for that.

Cobra25

08-24-2006, 06:59 PM

I don't know that there is proof the Earth is round. Did another Ship fall off the edge of the Earth again? Dame I miss all the good stuff !

merc

08-24-2006, 07:06 PM

This is his thread, he asked a question. I also have derailed his thread and I apologize for that.
Back to your normalyl scheduled programing.

It seems that having a precision industries torque converter with a Trilogy kit and stock blower pulley should work fine in theory. I do anticipate some additional tuning to get things to my satisfaction. Once I get it on the track in the next month I will report on the traction combinations I used. The QA-1 shocks with slicks should handle a aggressive launch. I do own a set of 31 spline axles incase I brake the 28’s.

SamF

08-24-2006, 07:12 PM

If the "PI" you mention in you post is a referrence to Precision Industries and the Stallion TC, yes, you will see gains across the board. Not on any dyno, but at the race track, and in street and highway performance.

Folks have reported a variety of ET results, but it averages out to one-half of a second in reduced ETs. Parasitic drag is also improved by decreasing gross weight, the PI weighs less and it's smaller. And, it multilpies engine torque greater than the stock TC, 1:90:1 vs 2:50:1 multiplication.

Will you build more new power? Nope, not a bit. But, you see more of the power you own go to work on the pavement, and suck less from the gas tank too.

If you were asking about "PI" as in Police Interceptor, no way dude. The stock OEM Marauder converter outperforms the PI torque converter on all fronts. The only real difference is the powerbands of the 2V and 4V engines. The 2V SOHC PI engine develops more power sooner than the 4V DOHC, and at lower RPMs, but that runs out quickly when the 4V keeps going. In theory, the PI produces better throttle response in short standing start launches, but doesn't run as fast, as far as it's bigger brother.

Thanks for the comments, sorry for being cryptic, yes I meant the precision industries converter...

Need more speed :D

2003DOHC

08-24-2006, 08:09 PM

Thanks for the comments, sorry for being cryptic, yes I meant the precision industries converter...

Need more speed :D

It's official you have the gotta have that next mod. sickness:D

KilledKenny

08-25-2006, 06:20 AM

Thank you very much for the data. Your resource is...?
Those specs are from our FORD factory repair manual. :) Also don't forget about torque multiplication ratio. Ford doen't not give us the specs on that. I'm guessing its around 2.5:1 on factory but I could be wrong.
http://www.tciauto.com/tech_info/torque_converters_explained.ht m

SergntMac

08-25-2006, 04:51 PM

Those specs are from our FORD factory repair manual. :) Also don't forget about torque multiplication ratio. Ford doen't not give us the specs on that. I'm guessing its around 2.5:1 on factory but I could be wrong.
http://www.tciauto.com/tech_info/torque_converters_explained.ht m
Thank you, the stall speed numbers you post are very close to the specs I also got from Ford.

Your suggestion of a 2.5:1 torque ratio from a factory stock torque converter is quite generous, you should look into this more.

I got my explanation from Ford as 1.90:1, but even then, it felt like it was a guess on the speaker's behalf, or, at least an elementary question he has not been asked in a long time. I suppose that when you have been engineering trannys for Ford for 11 years, some basics escape you for the moment. Nonetheless, it's the number I have accepted as genuine.

Overall this FAQ is very helpful, despite errors and contradictions it contains. The mathematical equasions for measuring RWTQ given there do not work in the real world.

BillyGman

08-26-2006, 12:28 PM

How did I miss this thread???!!!......

I'm just going to state facts here about my car, and you can draw whatever conclusion you like.....

My car is a 2003 Marauder, with a Trilogy S/Cer, with the standard 3.4" 9.5 PSI pulley on it, 4.56 gears in the rear, and a 3,000 RPM stall speed coming from a Stallion single plate torque converter. And the car hooks fantastic off the starting line at the track which produces 1.6 second 60' times consistently with 17 PSI of air pressure in the Nitto P305 drag radials I have in the back, along with 12.2 ET's ( see my signature below). And those results have been pretty consistent as long as I don't brake torque the car at the starting line. I let it idle, and hit the gas when I get the light on the tree, and the car hooks great 8 out of 10 runs.

When I ran against John at the track ( aka "Jet") for three passes, he beat me by one tenth of a second on two of the runs, and on the third run he beat me by only 5 one hundredths of a second, despite the fact that he has the same supercharger as I do, but has 60 HP more at the rear wheels due to 3 PSI more of boost from his smaller blower pulley.

However, he doesn't have the 4.56 gears like I do. So I beat him out of the hole on all three passes, and was in the lead for the entire first 1/8th mile. On all three runs, his car didn't catch-up to mine until the 1,000' mark, and he ended up beating me by no more than one full car length in two of the runs, and only one half a car length in one of the three runs. He has 4.10 gears and 12.5 PSI of boost, and I have 9.5 PSI of boost and 4.56 gears. An interesting stat is that at the 1/8th mile mark, John's car was already taveling 2+ MPH faster than my car was, however I was still in the lead, and with a better 1/8th mile ET than his car had. So John's Marauder was already gaining ground on mine at the halfway point, but it was still atleast one and a half car lengths behind my car at that point. This is all due to the difference in the way our cars launch, and blast through the first 330' of the quartermile.

Please note that the better ET that I have than John does that are displayed in the Timeslips page, is a result of me arriving at the track two hours before John did that day, and therefore allowed me to run three passes in cooler temperatures, and that's the reason for my quicker timeslip than John has. Had he arrived at the track in the morning that day like I did, he would've broken into the 11's I'm sure, since it was cooler in the morning.

Glenn

08-26-2006, 02:31 PM

Interesting comparsion between the two cars. What size pulley was Jet running - a 3.2 or 3.0?

Glenn

merc

08-26-2006, 05:38 PM

My car is a 2003 Marauder, with a Trilogy S/Cer, with the standard 3.4" 9.5 PSI pulley on it, 4.56 gears in the rear, and a 3,000 RPM stall speed coming from a Stallion single plate torque converter. And the car hooks fantastic off the starting line at the track which produces 1.6 second 60' times consistently with 17 PSI of air pressure in the Nitto P305 drag radials I have in the back, along with 12.2 ET's ( see my signature below). And those results have been pretty consistent as long as I don't brake torque the car at the starting line. I let it idle, and hit the gas when I get the light on the tree, and the car hooks great 8 out of 10 runs.
.

It seems that you have an aggressive gear setup with a aftermarket torque converter. After running this combination for a couple of years do you feel lowering the gear ratio and replacing the PI with a O.E.M unit a consideration?, because your times favor the 1/8-mile track

fastblackmerc

08-26-2006, 08:33 PM

merc, have you talked to anyone at PI (800 649-7866)? I stopped by there last week to pickup a 3000 stall for my MM. Ask for Jack Sedory, I'm sure he'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.

BillyGman

08-26-2006, 08:59 PM

It seems that you have an aggressive gear setup with a aftermarket torque converter. After running this combination for a couple of years do you feel lowering the gear ratio and replacing the PI with a O.E.M unit a consideration?, because your times favor the 1/8-mile trackNot at all. 4.56 gears are the absolute best for the quartermile in Marauders. I think you've missed the point my friend. With 60 HP less than John's Marauder has, I came to within one car length of his in all of the three runs him and I ran up against eachother at the dragstrip. had there been 4.10 gears in the rear of my Marauder like there are in John's, then he would've beaten me by a whole lot more than that. And BTW, I know that John does NOT have the 3.2" pulley. I think it might be the 3.0 pulley, because he has 12.4 PSI of boost out of it. And for street races at traffic lights, you won't beat 4.56's either.

Although, the 4.56's are a slight compromise on the highway, but let me stress the term "slight". My Marauder revs at only 2,700 RPM at 70 MPH in O/D. But I can hit 120 MPH easy ( and often do when there's no traffic on the highway). I don't have any desire to go any faster than that on the street either. And every street race I've been in was over by 110 MPH anyway ( with me the victor). Look at the other Marauders that have a Trilogy blower that still have the standard Eaton 3.4" blower pulley like I have on my Marauder. They're all turning low 13 second ET's with perhaps one acception being in the 12.9 second range. So I'm running atleast three quarters of a second faster than those guys are. Why do you think that is? ( I can tell you why, but I believe it's obvious by now).

Smokie

08-27-2006, 04:48 AM

...Look at the other Marauders that have a Trilogy blower that still have the standard Eaton 3.4" blower pulley like I have on my Marauder. They're all turning low 13 second ET's with perhaps one acception being in the 12.9 second range. So I'm running atleast three quarters of a second faster than those guys are. Why do you think that is? ( I can tell you why, but I believe it's obvious by now).

Billy, you have without any doubt run faster than any Marauder with as much as 100 hp more than your car :bows: , the tall gears and torque converter are the MAIN reason, but not the only reason; give yourself some credit, the driver makes a difference.

Although it is uncommon, the 3.4" pulley Base Trilogy Kit, with stock gears, stock converter, stock wheels and street tires have actually ran faster than 12.9...all you have to do is look.:lol:

merc

08-27-2006, 04:59 AM

merc, have you talked to anyone at PI (800 649-7866)? I stopped by there last week to pickup a 3000 stall for my MM. Ask for Jack Sedory, I'm sure he'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.

Thanks for the information. I will call Monday.

I can tell you why, but I believe it's obvious by now.

I can see clearly now the rain is gone.

BillyGman

08-27-2006, 10:06 AM

I can see clearly now the rain is gone. LOL...sing it brutha :whistle: :sing: :snare:

BillyGman

08-27-2006, 10:14 AM

Billy, you have without any doubt run faster than any Marauder with as much as 100 hp more than your car :bows: , the tall gears and torque converter are the MAIN reason, but not the only reason; give yourself some credit, the driver makes a difference. I think the gears and stall speed make the most difference in my case. But I'll agree with you that my technique helps too. And I say that only because it seems that most guys are bent on brake torqing at the starting line to load up their converter, and it usually only results in wheelspin off the line with a Trilogy supercharged Marauder. So it only hurts their ET's instead of helping, and I don't do that. I simply let it idle until I get the tree and it's time to go. That technique has worked very well for me, and has given me the excellent 60' times that you see in the timeslips page and in my sig below.

Although it is uncommon, the 3.4" pulley Base Trilogy Kit, with stock gears, stock converter, stock wheels and street tires have actually ran faster than 12.9...all you have to do is look.:lol: Well if you mean your car, then you must not forget that you DO have the aftermarket intake tube and filter. I don't even have that. I've remained with the factory intake tube because it silences the blower whine, and I for one do NOT like the blower whine. You can still hear it very slightly over my Kooks headers and Magnaflow mufflers, but you have to listen closely for it. It isn't very obvious, and it's more like a lower pitched, slight moaning sound than a high pitched whine.

MM_BKK

08-27-2006, 11:39 AM

Billy, you have without any doubt run faster than any Marauder with as much as 100 hp more than your car :bows: , the tall gears and torque converter are the MAIN reason, but not the only reason; give yourself some credit, the driver makes a difference.

Although it is uncommon, the 3.4" pulley Base Trilogy Kit, with stock gears, stock converter, stock wheels and street tires have actually ran faster than 12.9...all you have to do is look.:lol:

I'm just a little confused by the quote above "tall gears". It seems that BillyGman has a very short gearing (4.56:1), but the quote above seems to suggest otherwise.
So my question is, which would be a taller set of gears, 3.55 or 4.56 ?

BillyGman

08-27-2006, 11:55 AM

I'm just a little confused by the quote above "tall gears". It seems that BillyGman has a very short gearing (4.56:1), but the quote above seems to suggest otherwise.
So my question is, which would be a taller set of gears, 3.55 or 4.56 ?Most guys would refer to the higher number being the "taller" gears, although some use the term "taller" in the opposite meaning. That's why I always say "numerically higher", or "numerically lower" to explain myself so that there's no confusion. but the important thing is that the numerically higher the gear ratio is, the more acceleration it will cause, and the less top end speed it will provide, and vice versa with numerically lower gears. Another rule of thumb is that a numerically higher gear ratio ( such as 4.56's ) are usually refered to as being a "lower" gear ratio since a lower top speed can be acheived with them. It can be confusing which is why "numerically lower" or "numerically higher" avoids any confustion. ( for instance, 4.56 is a numerically higher ratio than 3.55 is, since the 4.56 number is a higher number than 3.55 is).

SergntMac

08-27-2006, 12:00 PM

Nevermind...Well said by Billy.

MM_BKK

08-27-2006, 12:31 PM

Most guys would refer to the higher number being the "taller" gears, although some use the term "taller" in the opposite meaning. That's why I always say "numerically higher", or "numerically lower" to explain myself so that there's no confusion. but the important thing is that the numerically higher the gear ratio is, the more acceleration it will cause, and the less top end speed it will provide, and vice versa with numerically lower gears. Another rule of thumb is that a numerically higher gear ratio ( such as 4.56's ) are usually refered to as being a "lower" gear ratio since a lower top speed can be acheived with them. It can be confusing which is why "numerically lower" or "numerically higher" avoids any confustion. ( for instance, 4.56 is a numerically higher ratio than 3.55 is, since the 4.56 number is a higher number than 3.55 is).

I'm familiar with the terms "low gears" which would mean higher numerically ratio and more torque multiplication at the expense of top end speed and vice versa for "high gears". Thank you for the refresher course. I was more interested with the terms "tall gears and short gears".
Your quote "Most guys would refer to the higher number being the "taller" gears, although some use the term "taller" in the opposite meaning."
Does this mean "tall gears = low gears" and "short gears = high gears"?
In the earlier post, Smokie said you have tall gears and you seem to agree with him.
So my question again, which is taller gears, 3.55 or 4.56 ?

Breadfan

08-27-2006, 12:54 PM

3.55 is taller

4.56 is shorter

Smokie

08-27-2006, 01:03 PM

...deleted.

Smokie

08-27-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by BillyGman
Well if you mean your car, then you must not forget that you DO have the aftermarket intake tube and filter. I don't even have that. I've remained with the factory intake tube because it silences the blower whine, and I for one do NOT like the blower whine. You can still hear it very slightly over my Kooks headers and Magnaflow mufflers, but you have to listen closely for it. It isn't very obvious, and it's more like a lower pitched, slight moaning sound than a high pitched whine.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Billy there is little I forget. I do have an aftermarket air filter, below is a picture of my engine as it looks today. Exactly as it was the 86* afternoon I ran the times indicated in my sig. Most people don't even consider my Shorty headers real headers, from what I hear they don't make the power that mid length or long tube headers make, I also don't like noise or whining coming from under my hood just like you.:)

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/showcase/files/2/4/8/TrilogySupercharger004Medium.j pg

MM_BKK

08-27-2006, 04:20 PM

3.55 is taller

4.56 is shorter

Thank you Breadfan. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page with the "short and tall gears".

BillyGman

08-27-2006, 10:26 PM

3.55 is taller

4.56 is shorterHmmm, I always thought that "tall" meant lower gears, and that would mean that 4.56's are "taller" gears than 3.55's are. But I guess that all this slang doesn't matter much.

BTW Javier, I like that Intake set-up. And you still have that "J" hook in it along with the stock intake tube, so it must keep the blower whine to a minimum. Who's set-up is that, or where did you buy that from?

Smokie

08-28-2006, 04:09 AM

... Javier, I like that Intake set-up. And you still have that "J" hook in it along with the stock intake tube, so it must keep the blower whine to a minimum. Who's set-up is that, or where did you buy that from?

It is a Paul's High Performance airbox, it comes with a conical filter with a protective sock. The enclosure totally isolates the filter from engine heat. It sucks in air from behind the headlight opening.

It keeps my engine compartment very quiet (as I like it) I don't hear S/C whine until I get past about +5 psi. I bought from Dennis Reinhart.

BillyGman

08-28-2006, 08:38 AM

It is a Paul's High Performance airbox, it comes with a conical filter with a protective sock. The enclosure totally isolates the filter from engine heat. It sucks in air from behind the headlight opening.

It keeps my engine compartment very quiet (as I like it) I don't hear S/C whine until I get past about +5 psi. Thanks Smokie.

SergntMac

08-28-2006, 01:12 PM

Hmmm, I always thought that "tall" meant lower gears, and that would mean that 4.56's are "taller" gears than 3.55's are. But I guess that all this slang doesn't matter much.That's what I grew up with too, it was explained to me just that way. "Taller" meant more gear ratio, the 4:56 is taller than the 3:55. But, you're right again, Billy, no need to change simple slang terms. I learned it this way, no need to change in my later days.

Breadfan

08-28-2006, 01:48 PM

http://www.diesel-central.com/News/gears.htm

Tall gears VS. Short gears
Taller gears (numerically lower numbers) will make the engine turn less RPM at any give speed. With taller gears the engine also has less mechanical advantage over the tires but will increase fuel mileage. Shorter gears (numerically higher numbers) will make the engine turn a higher RPM and any given speed. The engine will have more mechanical advantage over the tires. The more mechanical advantage the engine has over the tires, the faster the vehicle will accelerate, but the engine will turn a higher RPM at sustained speeds reducing fuel mileage.

It is very confusing and any time I think about it I must ponder it for a second.

But think of it this way...taller gear is like having a taller tire. It will travel farther at the same RPM as a shorter tire becuase it's circumference is larger.

Just the same a shorter tire will not travel as far at the same RPM.

So to go 60 miles in one hour, a shorter tire will be spinning faster.

I think that's where the terminology originates from...a taller gear will have the engine spin slower to travel the same distance whereas a shorter gear has the engine sping more RPM's to travel the same distance.

It's still damn confusing, I'll probably forget all about this in 2 months anyway and have to think long and hard about it again.

Using "numerically higher" or "numerically lower" helps alleviate the confusion.