http://cleveland.craigslist.org/pts/861482268.html
At the same time, I am looking to see if it has two shift arms, or three. Looks too big to be a three speed. Four speed for $65 *with* bellhousing and clutch? Even if it's a grotty old Saginaw, it's still worth a bunch more...
Someone is a little confused.
Moderators: MostMint, wxo, Fred32v, Basement Paul, ttamrettus
-
Noisy Cricket
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:08 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
-
TireSmoker
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:45 pm
- Location: roaming the Matrix
- Contact:
Does anyone remember those setups that used a conventional clutch disc in place of the torque converter on an automatic? I remember seeing a guy a Thompson years ago with a setup like that. My guess is that was sorta like a wannabe transbrake -- get the revs up, but leave the chassis unloaded and then dump the clutch.
-Dave
-Dave
-
Noisy Cricket
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:08 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
I may have been born yesterday but I remember reading about the Clutch-Flite in Car Craft. (I had a subscription when I was five!)
That's exactly what it was... as I got older and understood the problem it was trying to solve, I kinda like the idea. Not only can you launch "wherever", but you never miss a shift, you don't *have* to lift (probably hard on U-joints, though), and you don't have to worry about the torque converter ballooning, or slipping at the top end.
As a downside, you can't ride on a high stall speed to compensate for a really narrow powerband - you're stuck with 2.48-1.48-1.0 or worse.
I don't remember if the conversion drove the front pump full-time, or if it tied the front pump to the input shaft. Instinct says to drive the pump all the time, but really, if you have the clutch disengaged, does the trans really need hydraulic pressure? Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
Nowadays they still use that setup for circle track. Replace the torque converter with a three pound steel shaft to drive the input and front pump, and do some funky work to the hydraulics to make a workable clutch, if desired. Or not. That's if you don't have the bucks for a nice internal-clutch 2-speed... I love it when my new Speedway Motors catalog comes in the mail. For supposedly knuckle-draggingly dumb racing, there is a LOT of innovation in circle track.
That's exactly what it was... as I got older and understood the problem it was trying to solve, I kinda like the idea. Not only can you launch "wherever", but you never miss a shift, you don't *have* to lift (probably hard on U-joints, though), and you don't have to worry about the torque converter ballooning, or slipping at the top end.
As a downside, you can't ride on a high stall speed to compensate for a really narrow powerband - you're stuck with 2.48-1.48-1.0 or worse.
I don't remember if the conversion drove the front pump full-time, or if it tied the front pump to the input shaft. Instinct says to drive the pump all the time, but really, if you have the clutch disengaged, does the trans really need hydraulic pressure? Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
Nowadays they still use that setup for circle track. Replace the torque converter with a three pound steel shaft to drive the input and front pump, and do some funky work to the hydraulics to make a workable clutch, if desired. Or not. That's if you don't have the bucks for a nice internal-clutch 2-speed... I love it when my new Speedway Motors catalog comes in the mail. For supposedly knuckle-draggingly dumb racing, there is a LOT of innovation in circle track.