TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance?

[Roger Heflin]

On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Bruce Plecan wrote:

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Heflin <rah at horizon.hit.net>
> To: diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu <diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>
> Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance?
> 
> If I was locking the converter, then I'd do it just over the flash speed of
> the converter.  As I understand things, the torque multiplication is about
> over
> or should be as you reach max torque, and that should be a tad higher than
> the stall speed of the converter.  Course IMHO, if your gettting that
> serious then
> a 200R makes even more sense since you get a set of closer gears, and
> then run a higher (numerically) rear gear.  Just wish there was an electric
> valve body for the 200R sitting on the floor here.  Then I'd go to a PCM.
> Just outta curiousity how did you figure your at 365HP?.
> Bruce

I am not worried about the torque multiplication.  I am just happy if
the torque convertor is slipping enough to put me at a higher torque
position on the engine.  Probably before the TCC was locking up at
somewhere around peak torque, now my peak torque is higher, I guess I
should lock it around peak engine torque.

The 365 hp was figured by using a rear wheel dyno (actually two
different rear wheel dynos that both agreed with 5hp (corrected)
several months apart).  So that is 365 rwhp, I don't really know what
I have at the engine.  The stock manual tranny vehicle was supposed to
loose at least 33 hp, so I figure at A4 loses more like 45-50
(assuming the losses don't increase with HP, and probably there is a
component that increases with HP and another component that does not).
So engine is somewhere around 410-415 hp.

				Roger