96-99 7.4 performance mods

Performance modifications, tips & tricks

Moderators: flyingpolarbear, Eric@PPE, VicC, James B.

HotRodV6
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Conroe Tx 77304

Post by HotRodV6 »

stroker97k1500 wrote:I would say ARP BBC balancer bolt with red loctite 100 ft pounds
Well i was referring more to the three bolts that bolt the pulley to the balancer not the actual crankshaft bolt itself.

HotRodV6
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Conroe Tx 77304

Post by HotRodV6 »

Finally got the ZZ502 cam from UPS today! Now i have all the new valve train upgrade parts, just need to get the new gaskets ordered and then get everything swapped out.

I also need to call Torco Enterprises, they are the ones i for my 2500 stall converter from. The original specs were for a small block and now im wondering how the stall speed is going to be affectd going behind a ~400HP/500TQ big block.

Any thoughts from the gurus?

KennyB01
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am
Location: sin city

Post by KennyB01 »

HotRodV6 wrote:Finally got the ZZ502 cam from UPS today! Now i have all the new valve train upgrade parts, just need to get the new gaskets ordered and then get everything swapped out.

I also need to call Torco Enterprises, they are the ones i for my 2500 stall converter from. The original specs were for a small block and now im wondering how the stall speed is going to be affectd going behind a ~400HP/500TQ big block.

Any thoughts from the gurus?
interesting question, never thought of it that way, always figured stall was brought on by rpm's (and could not be manipulated), not torque. I know in the old day's I would take a inline six trans. (converter and all) and put behind a v8 and use the rear end of the six and would have a serious increase of bottom end (which I always figured was because of the lower rear end gears from the six). now, I do know if your cam rating is not close to your stall rating it will make a serious difference. I changed a cam out one time to a milder one and had a time trying to adjust the rpm's (idle) to match the stall. it just always seemed they were to high. anyway, hopefully one of these guys will break it down.

James B.
Moderator
Posts: 2823
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 1997 4:00 pm
Location: '98GMT400, '98GMT410, '99GMT420, '00GMT420

Post by James B. »

There's really no easy way to describe the internal working of a torque converter. It is a fluid coupling but the union come from the spiraling action of the fluid contained in the toroid-shaped tunnel section of the converter. This spiraling is induced by the impeller fins built into the housing, which is attached to the flexplate and spins at engine RPM. Fluid is directed through a set of semi-stationary fins (stator) against the fins of the turbine, which is coupled to the input shaft. The stator has sprag that only allows it to rotate the same direction as input RPM, and its fins optimize the angle the fluid as it enters the turbine section. At idle and high RPM delta scenarios where input RPM exceeds output RPM the stator is trying to counter rotate but held by its sprag. The fluid is making rapid spirals inside the toroid. As input torque and RPM increases so does the spiral velocity of the fluid. Because it is recirculating continuously around and continuously imparting force into the turbine section, toque is being multiplied. The great the RPM delta between the impeller section and the turbine section the greater the torque multiplication is that takes place. This is why it's called a "torque CONVERTER" - because it can literally convert RPM into torque.
In a stall situation you have both the stator and the turbine holding still and the impeller powered. The engine powers up and you're putting more and more energy into that fluid motion, and that motion is pushing harder and harder on the input shaft as torque. The impeller is fighting against the resistance of the fluid (like a pump building up a massive head of pressure) that just becomes stronger and stronger as RPM builds. At some point in a stall situation the amount of input torque needed to spin faster exceeds the engine's output torque and that is your "Stall RPM". Because input RPM vs. Torque multiplication meet along a curve of input torque and NOT a point - YES the stall speed of any converter will vary depending on the engine output it's attached to. The stronger the engine the higher the stall-speed will be of every torque converter. This is why performance converter shops ask for engine performance specifications - they need this in order to try to target the desired Stall-Speed.

Maybe worth mentioning also - you generally want the stall-RPM of your converter not to exceed the torque peek of your engine or else you're wasting the engine's power potential and will actually be slower. A stock L31 (Vortec 350) for example, peeks at 330 ft/lbs at 2800 RPM. A good converter for a stock L31 would have a 2600RPM stall-speed and would maximize launch potential.

James B.
Moderator
Posts: 2823
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 1997 4:00 pm
Location: '98GMT400, '98GMT410, '99GMT420, '00GMT420

Post by James B. »

By the way, THANK YOU for not calling it a "stall"!
It HAS "stall" and does not IS "stall"!

It seems the same brilliant minds that gifted the internet with terminology like "old body style" through now "new new new body style" have also popularized referring to a torque converter as a "stall".
Well, to the contrary of their credibility, the noun form of "stall" is something we take shits in. "Stall" in the context of a torque converter is an adjective used to describe velocity, or RPM. It can even be hyphenated, as in "stall-speed" or "stall-RPM". It's a "Torque Converter", "Converter" or even "TC". Thanks! :D /soapbox

JR96CK
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 1998 8:12 pm
Location: Texas

Post by JR96CK »

James B. wrote:By the way, THANK YOU for not calling it a "stall"!
It HAS "stall" and does not IS "stall"!

It seems the same brilliant minds that gifted the internet with terminology like "old body style" through now "new new new body style" have also popularized referring to a torque converter as a "stall".
Well, to the contrary of their credibility, the noun form of "stall" is something we take shits in. "Stall" in the context of a torque converter is an adjective used to describe velocity, or RPM. It can even be hyphenated, as in "stall-speed" or "stall-RPM". It's a "Torque Converter", "Converter" or even "TC". Thanks! :D /soapbox
You mean it's not a "stall converter?"

hehe :P

Hog
Posts: 5036
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: 1997 Chev ECSB L31 350 1997 GMC Sierra SLE RCSB, Ontario

Post by Hog »

JR96CK wrote:
James B. wrote:By the way, THANK YOU for not calling it a "stall"!
It HAS "stall" and does not IS "stall"!

It seems the same brilliant minds that gifted the internet with terminology like "old body style" through now "new new new body style" have also popularized referring to a torque converter as a "stall".
Well, to the contrary of their credibility, the noun form of "stall" is something we take shits in. "Stall" in the context of a torque converter is an adjective used to describe velocity, or RPM. It can even be hyphenated, as in "stall-speed" or "stall-RPM". It's a "Torque Converter", "Converter" or even "TC". Thanks! :D /soapbox
You mean it's not a "stall converter?"

hehe :P
Just expanding upon previously discussed topics for a laugh.

2 statements:

I installed a new hydraulic roller cam in my GMT 400 so I need to install a performance torque converter with a higher stall speed in the 4l60e transmission. While I'm at it I will check for wear on the distributor gear.
or
I installed a new roller cam in my GMT 400 so I need to put a stall in the A4 transmission. While I'm at it, I will check for wear on the distributor gear.

Subjects of contention:
1) How to properly describe the 1988-99 GM 1/2 ton truck line
GMT 400 Old Body Style vs. the proper GMT-400 Obviously whoever started this mutiny of rational thought had no sense of perspective. The 2032-2037 GMC Sierra 1/2 ton lineup will be referred to as the NNNNNNNNNNNNBS pickup. Just silly

2) Performance high-stall torque converter vs. the word "stall" inappropriately being used as a noun.

3) A4 being used to describe an automatic transmission with 4 forward speeds, a manual shift 6 speed trans would be M6. That one is just a personal peeve of mine.

4) Using d-I-z-z-y to describe a distributer is frowned upon by the management here at PPE.

peace
Hog

Hog
Posts: 5036
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: 1997 Chev ECSB L31 350 1997 GMC Sierra SLE RCSB, Ontario

Post by Hog »

When selecting a torque converter I would suggest that you use the torque peak rpm that is discovered on a chassis/engine dyno rather than using the stock GM torque peak ratings. This may only apply for the 1996-2002 Vortec 305, 350 engines. These Vortec V8's come with many different air intake and exhaust configurations. I have seen chassis dyno graphs using the stock 1 7/8" headpipes and also graphs of L31's with the 3/4 ton 2-3/4 - 3" headpipes with stock torque peaks of 3300-3400rpm.

Just wanted to mention that variation in stock GM vehicles. A properly matched performance TC will bring a combination together just perfectly.

peace
Hog

CrazyHoe
Posts: 6228
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Mtl; '98 2dr4x4 Tahoe, L31,Hookers Long T, 0411,EFIlive, 4L80-E,dual 3",marine int+inj

Post by CrazyHoe »

I love the diz_zy: I think it's quite a funny and descriptive slang word from down under.

I mean, who would't be dyz_zy spinning around from here to there...

KennyB01
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am
Location: sin city

Post by KennyB01 »

Hog wrote:
JR96CK wrote:
James B. wrote:By the way, THANK YOU for not calling it a "stall"!
It HAS "stall" and does not IS "stall"!

It seems the same brilliant minds that gifted the internet with terminology like "old body style" through now "new new new body style" have also popularized referring to a torque converter as a "stall".
Well, to the contrary of their credibility, the noun form of "stall" is something we take shits in. "Stall" in the context of a torque converter is an adjective used to describe velocity, or RPM. It can even be hyphenated, as in "stall-speed" or "stall-RPM". It's a "Torque Converter", "Converter" or even "TC". Thanks! :D /soapbox
You mean it's not a "stall converter?"

hehe :P
Just expanding upon previously discussed topics for a laugh.

2 statements:

I installed a new hydraulic roller cam in my GMT 400 so I need to install a performance torque converter with a higher stall speed in the 4l60e transmission. While I'm at it I will check for wear on the distributor gear.
or
I installed a new roller cam in my GMT 400 so I need to put a stall in the A4 transmission. While I'm at it, I will check for wear on the distributor gear.

Subjects of contention:
1) How to properly describe the 1988-99 GM 1/2 ton truck line
GMT 400 Old Body Style vs. the proper GMT-400 Obviously whoever started this mutiny of rational thought had no sense of perspective. The 2032-2037 GMC Sierra 1/2 ton lineup will be referred to as the NNNNNNNNNNNNBS pickup. Just silly

2) Performance high-stall torque converter vs. the word "stall" inappropriately being used as a noun.

3) A4 being used to describe an automatic transmission with 4 forward speeds, a manual shift 6 speed trans would be M6. That one is just a personal peeve of mine.

4) Using d-I-z-z-y to describe a distributer is frowned upon by the management here at PPE.

peace
Hog

ya, the language changes with every generation, stall is just one the out comes of a torque converter. I have a hard time guessing what old, new, what ever body style means. back in my days your tool box contained only tools, only a timing light for electronics. now a scanner has took the place of a timing light and almost every tool has gone to metric. and I have never understood what the word d-I-z-z-y is suppose to describe for a distributor's actions or performance. m6 I do understand only because I put a 6 speed behind my 454 vortec/ modified motor in my 96, when I had the computer reprogrammed they called it a m6 program. language changes for the worst in my opinion but only because I am what I would have called an old fart back in my younger days. go figure :)

Speeder
Posts: 10772
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 1999 9:12 pm
Location: 2015 Tahoe 2WD 5.3L 6L80E, 2008 Colorado work beater, 2003 Dodge Dakota pro-touring project

Post by Speeder »

KennyB01 wrote:and I have never understood what the word d-I-z-z-y is suppose to describe for a distributor's actions or performance.
Spoken like a man who has never tried to adjust one with wet hands before... I did once, and was quite "distributor" afterwards. KZRRRRK!!!

KennyB01
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am
Location: sin city

Post by KennyB01 »

Speeder wrote:
KennyB01 wrote:and I have never understood what the word d-I-z-z-y is suppose to describe for a distributor's actions or performance.
Spoken like a man who has never tried to adjust one with wet hands before... I did once, and was quite "distributor" afterwards. KZRRRRK!!!
ya, spell check should change to what you mean check.

CrazyHoe
Posts: 6228
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Mtl; '98 2dr4x4 Tahoe, L31,Hookers Long T, 0411,EFIlive, 4L80-E,dual 3",marine int+inj

Post by CrazyHoe »

Speeder wrote:
KennyB01 wrote:and I have never understood what the word d-I-z-z-y is suppose to describe for a distributor's actions or performance.
Spoken like a man who has never tried to adjust one with wet hands before... I did once, and was quite "d-I-z-z-y" afterwards. KZRRRRK!!!

KennyB01
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am
Location: sin city

Post by KennyB01 »

CrazyHoe wrote:
Speeder wrote:
KennyB01 wrote:and I have never understood what the word d-I-z-z-y is suppose to describe for a distributor's actions or performance.
Spoken like a man who has never tried to adjust one with wet hands before... I did once, and was quite "d-I-z-z-y" afterwards. KZRRRRK!!!
:) never mind. duh :)

HotRodV6
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Conroe Tx 77304

Post by HotRodV6 »

Ok, bringing this back, been kinda hectic the last few months, moving into a new place and tying to get my storage cleaned out has been a PITA!

i got all the new gaskets, and other parts needed to get the 96' 454 i have semi freshened up, got a set of 42# Lucas Disk Injectors that are flow matched, and yes i know they are probably bigger than i need, i already had them from an old LT1 build so they will get a good cleaning and re-purposed.

But since this engine has ~90K miles on it, or so i was told Ive been thinking about freshening up the bottom end with new rings and bearings and oil pump, and came across what seems like a decent deal for a set of Sealed Power(Speed Pro) Hypereutectic Flat top pistons that are STD bore. They have two valve reliefs and i was considering getting them and some moly rings in the hopes of bumping up the CR alittle bit as i think these engines are 8.5:1 stock and if my calculations are correct these new pistons should bump it up to 9.1:1 CR.

Can anyone confirm what the stock CR is and what are some thoughts and opinions on if these would be worth upgrading to?

CrazyHoe
Posts: 6228
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Mtl; '98 2dr4x4 Tahoe, L31,Hookers Long T, 0411,EFIlive, 4L80-E,dual 3",marine int+inj

Post by CrazyHoe »

I know nothing about BBC. But! Hehe

These engines don't rev. The rings are probably still breakin in.

Open up the oil filter and oil pan, if you don't find bearing material, why waste time and money. Plus risk being a victime of incompetant rebuilder and spend even more time and money.

HotRodV6
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Conroe Tx 77304

Post by HotRodV6 »

CrazyHoe wrote:I know nothing about BBC. But! Hehe

These engines don't rev. The rings are probably still breakin in.

Open up the oil filter and oil pan, if you don't find bearing material, why waste time and money. Plus risk being a victime of incompetant rebuilder and spend even more time and money.
Yeah i thought about just doing that as well, just leave well enough alone.

CrazyHoe
Posts: 6228
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Mtl; '98 2dr4x4 Tahoe, L31,Hookers Long T, 0411,EFIlive, 4L80-E,dual 3",marine int+inj

Post by CrazyHoe »

Yup.

Spend on better heads. With the combustion chamber sized for thr CR you're looking for. Better valve springs to match your new cam. And aluminum to help with higher CR.

http://www.pacificp.com/forum/viewtopic ... b49ee8df87

http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engine ... omparison/

CrazyHoe
Posts: 6228
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Mtl; '98 2dr4x4 Tahoe, L31,Hookers Long T, 0411,EFIlive, 4L80-E,dual 3",marine int+inj

Post by CrazyHoe »

A nice target would be 65ft-lb / L = 480 ft-lb
And 1 hp / cid = 454hp

Here:

Good article for you.

http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engine ... ine-build/

HotRodV6
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Conroe Tx 77304

Post by HotRodV6 »

Well yes I've wanted to upgrade to better and lighter aluminum heads just not sure which ones. I like the price point for the pro comp heads but worried about quality. I like the edelbrock performer rpm-O 60429 heads that have 290cc intake runners and 100cc chambers but at 965 each head are not cheap. I've already got a complete comp valve train so I'd just need the heads and valves.

Anyone have any experience with the edelbrock heads? I know the 110cc version are the 502 ramjet heads that can be had for about a 100 bucks cheaper.

Post Reply