Higher stall converter
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 3
From: El Paso, TX
'03 G500, '13 G63, '17 GLS63,
Higher stall converter
I noticed that while folks are trying to get the best 1/4 mile times, the stall speed has not been brought up. I wonder if it would be possible to have a higher stall converter installed on the W211 E55.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,092
Likes: 13
From: Salt Lake City (but not Morm)
2003 E55 & 2014 GL550
I am sure you could have a company make one, but the torque you would place on the drivetrain would be just unreal. Half shafts would be popping like corn.
I still can't believe there is a guy in the Northeast dropping his E55 from neutral to drive at higher r's. Wow...that is nuts.
I still can't believe there is a guy in the Northeast dropping his E55 from neutral to drive at higher r's. Wow...that is nuts.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 3
From: El Paso, TX
'03 G500, '13 G63, '17 GLS63,
Does anybody have the part number for the T/C? Maybe it is shared with other models. I was also thinking maybe a V6 T/C would have a higher stall speed and bolt in.
Banned
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,797
Likes: 2
From: Richmond Hill, Ontario
2003 E55 AMG
Interesting idea.. Personally I think it would create more shock to the drivetrain to have a higher stall.. Car already makes a tonne of torque down low.. Higher stall will just make it harder to launch on street tires.
I dont know if I would want to put that in the car as you will most likely shorten the life of the tranny.
I dont know if I would want to put that in the car as you will most likely shorten the life of the tranny.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
If you think you have traction problems now - wait 'till you install a higher-stall torque converter . . .
Most factory converters stall in the 1400 - 2000 RPM range. And the same converter will stall higher in a car that has more torque down low. If you hold the brakes and rev the engine on your E55, at what RPM point do the tires break loose?
The purpose of a higher stall is to get the engine into the beefier part of the torque curve curve sooner. There is actual torque multiplication occurring. Do you think the E55 needs this?
Putting a V6 converter in the Beast is a recipe for disaster. The internal vanes are designed for specific applications and can actually do damage if mismatched improperly. I would not recommend this.
Although the idea of higher stall is good, it would be more applicable to the E500 or similar car.
Most factory converters stall in the 1400 - 2000 RPM range. And the same converter will stall higher in a car that has more torque down low. If you hold the brakes and rev the engine on your E55, at what RPM point do the tires break loose?
The purpose of a higher stall is to get the engine into the beefier part of the torque curve curve sooner. There is actual torque multiplication occurring. Do you think the E55 needs this?
Putting a V6 converter in the Beast is a recipe for disaster. The internal vanes are designed for specific applications and can actually do damage if mismatched improperly. I would not recommend this.
Although the idea of higher stall is good, it would be more applicable to the E500 or similar car.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 3
From: El Paso, TX
'03 G500, '13 G63, '17 GLS63,
Originally Posted by Grumpy666
If you think you have traction problems now - wait 'till you install a higher-stall torque converter . . .
Most factory converters stall in the 1400 - 2000 RPM range. And the same converter will stall higher in a car that has more torque down low. If you hold the brakes and rev the engine on your E55, at what RPM point do the tires break loose?
The purpose of a higher stall is to get the engine into the beefier part of the torque curve curve sooner. There is actual torque multiplication occurring. Do you think the E55 needs this?
Putting a V6 converter in the Beast is a recipe for disaster. The internal vanes are designed for specific applications and can actually do damage if mismatched improperly. I would not recommend this.
Although the idea of higher stall is good, it would be more applicable to the E500 or similar car.
Most factory converters stall in the 1400 - 2000 RPM range. And the same converter will stall higher in a car that has more torque down low. If you hold the brakes and rev the engine on your E55, at what RPM point do the tires break loose?
The purpose of a higher stall is to get the engine into the beefier part of the torque curve curve sooner. There is actual torque multiplication occurring. Do you think the E55 needs this?
Putting a V6 converter in the Beast is a recipe for disaster. The internal vanes are designed for specific applications and can actually do damage if mismatched improperly. I would not recommend this.
Although the idea of higher stall is good, it would be more applicable to the E500 or similar car.
Trending Topics
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by medici78
The only reason I thought of a V6 converter was the assumption the stall speed would be higher. Back in the day, I had a modified S10 converter on my '96 Impala SS with a head/cam package. It made a world of difference on that car.
One other thought - modified converters usually means that the vanes are changed, which will affect how torque is coupled.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
7 Craziest Things AMG Gas Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
New Electric Mercedes-AMG GT 4-Door Coupe Unveiled: 10 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 3
From: El Paso, TX
'03 G500, '13 G63, '17 GLS63,
Originally Posted by Grumpy666
Yeah, that was a fairly common transplant back then. But don't you think that a 200+ rwhp Impala vs a V6 is a much closer match than the 400+ rwhp Beast vs a V6? Wait a minute - scratch that comparison - it's much better to compare the low-RPM torque numbers, which would make it much, much worse.
One other thought - modified converters usually means that the vanes are changed, which will affect how torque is coupled.
One other thought - modified converters usually means that the vanes are changed, which will affect how torque is coupled.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by medici78
It was actually a 350rwhp Impala . . .
OK - I lied:
Not on an LT1 with only a head and cam package. Especially through the 700R4 tranny.The LT1 in the mid 90's Impala was rated at 275 HP. And unlike current LS1 engines, that was a fairly accurate rating. I've seen 'em on chassis dynos near sea level huff and puff to get over 200 rwhp. Some wouldn't get there. With a 20% DT loss number, 350 at the wheels implies 440 at the crank. Nope - no way. The best head/cam package and still be a little streetable would give about 75 more. So that would give you 350 at the crank and maybe 275 at the wheels.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Likes: 1
From: So. Cal.
2006 CLS55-030, 2002 BMW 540 Wagon, 1995 VW Jetta GLX
Good Conclusion !
Originally Posted by AMGE
I think a higher stall on a S/C E55 would not yield the desired results unless additional efforts to significantly improve traction were also made.
- Bob
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,445
Likes: 3
From: WOT somewhere in the Bay Area
1951 Caterpiller D6
Originally Posted by AmenMercedesGo
I'll find it soon, but I recall someone on Dragtimes posting the use of a SL55 converter in their E55. For the SL it probably stalls higher to launch the heavy roadster.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 3
From: Frederick, MD
'72 Suburban
Originally Posted by Grumpy666
I promised to be kinder and gentler, so I won't comment on this.
OK - I lied: Not on an LT1 with only a head and cam package. Especially through the 700R4 tranny.
OK - I lied:
Not on an LT1 with only a head and cam package. Especially through the 700R4 tranny.If you want to get technical, it wasn't a 700R4 at that point, it was the 4L60E in the 94-96 Impalas.
Originally Posted by Grumpy666
The LT1 in the mid 90's Impala was rated at 275 HP. And unlike current LS1 engines, that was a fairly accurate rating. I've seen 'em on chassis dynos near sea level huff and puff to get over 200 rwhp. Some wouldn't get there. With a 20% DT loss number, 350 at the wheels implies 440 at the crank. Nope - no way. The best head/cam package and still be a little streetable would give about 75 more. So that would give you 350 at the crank and maybe 275 at the wheels.
A mild head/cam (duration @ .050 ~220-230 i/e)/header package on any LT1 engine would net you 330-360rwhp. I can show you examples, including dyno graphs (dyno from my head/cam/long tube LT1). The stock iron heads on the Impy really struggled, but once you swapped to aluminum heads (like the LT1/4 in the Corvette and F-bodies) they responded very well to mods.
Back to the original topic, I think that if you ran a sticky tire, you'd see huge gains going with a looser converter. But you do risk damage to other parts
I'd check with tuners like Renntech to see if they have experimented with it in any of their cars.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 2
From: FL410
'05 E320 CDI, '08 BMW X5 4.8i, '11 Duramax 2500HD
Originally Posted by ricky.agrawal
The beauty of the E55 right now (and with all the guys modding theirs) is that they are still daily drivers.
By ramping up the stall speed, you remove that ability
By ramping up the stall speed, you remove that ability
I hope I never get that fanatical about Horses!
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 28,933
Likes: 12
Originally Posted by CE750
These guys are nuts, aren't they? They're already driving one of the fastest cars in the world, and they want to turn it into an F1 killer..
I hope I never get that fanatical about Horses!
I hope I never get that fanatical about Horses!
BTW: I'm as obsessed as they are, because half the fun is having a problem.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 2
From: FL410
'05 E320 CDI, '08 BMW X5 4.8i, '11 Duramax 2500HD
Originally Posted by ricky.agrawal
It's not a bad thing, I'm just saying...
BTW: I'm as obsessed as they are, because half the fun is having a problem.
BTW: I'm as obsessed as they are, because half the fun is having a problem.
I wouldn't turn down a CL65... don't get me wrong.. but.. anyway. I'm going to get an E55 at some point in the next couple of years.. maybe I'll be on here asking the same crap! :p
anyway.. sorry don't let me hi-jack the poor mans quest for Horses!
carry on...
Last edited by CE750; Sep 7, 2005 at 09:16 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,143
Likes: 3
From: Sydney, Australia
2017 S63 Coupe Iridium Silver
Originally Posted by medici78
I noticed that while folks are trying to get the best 1/4 mile times, the stall speed has not been brought up. I wonder if it would be possible to have a higher stall converter installed on the W211 E55.
If you want your E55 to kick like a mule, (before you snap the drive train like a matchstick) put it in NEUTRAL, rev to 3800 RPM (Neutral rev limiter), then shift into DRIVE, and you will never forget the experience! Then get out of the car and put all the bits left behind in the trunk. Now, wait for a tow truck...
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 3
From: El Paso, TX
'03 G500, '13 G63, '17 GLS63,
Originally Posted by Grumpy666
I promised to be kinder and gentler, so I won't comment on this.
OK - I lied: Not on an LT1 with only a head and cam package. Especially through the 700R4 tranny.
The LT1 in the mid 90's Impala was rated at 275 HP. And unlike current LS1 engines, that was a fairly accurate rating. I've seen 'em on chassis dynos near sea level huff and puff to get over 200 rwhp. Some wouldn't get there. With a 20% DT loss number, 350 at the wheels implies 440 at the crank. Nope - no way. The best head/cam package and still be a little streetable would give about 75 more. So that would give you 350 at the crank and maybe 275 at the wheels.
OK - I lied:
Not on an LT1 with only a head and cam package. Especially through the 700R4 tranny.The LT1 in the mid 90's Impala was rated at 275 HP. And unlike current LS1 engines, that was a fairly accurate rating. I've seen 'em on chassis dynos near sea level huff and puff to get over 200 rwhp. Some wouldn't get there. With a 20% DT loss number, 350 at the wheels implies 440 at the crank. Nope - no way. The best head/cam package and still be a little streetable would give about 75 more. So that would give you 350 at the crank and maybe 275 at the wheels.
Back on topic:
I dont think the weak link on our cars is the tranny. If the same tranny can handle the power of the 65 engines, I dont think a higher stall would do as much damage as folks think. However, I would like to know what experience people have had with breaking drivetrain parts besides the tranny on the W211 E55.
Last edited by medici78; Sep 7, 2005 at 10:16 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by WayneE
If you want to get technical, it wasn't a 700R4 at that point, it was the 4L60E in the 94-96 Impalas.
Originally Posted by WayneE
A mild head/cam (duration @ .050 ~220-230 i/e)/header package on any LT1 engine would net you 330-360rwhp. I can show you examples, including dyno graphs (dyno from my head/cam/long tube LT1). The stock iron heads on the Impy really struggled, but once you swapped to aluminum heads (like the LT1/4 in the Corvette and F-bodies) they responded very well to mods.
My point was, and still is, you will not get 120 rwhp by adding a mild head and cam package to the Impala LT1. If that were the case, you could take this 4000 pound car that runs mid 15's at low 90's mph in stock trim and have it run in 112 mph range. That's the low end of what a stock E55 does. Think about it.
Last edited by Grumpy666; Sep 8, 2005 at 05:15 PM.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 3
From: El Paso, TX
'03 G500, '13 G63, '17 GLS63,
Originally Posted by Grumpy666
My point was, and still is, you will not get 120 rwhp by adding a mild head and cam package to the Impala LT1. If that were the case, you could take this 4000 pound car that runs mid 15's at low 90's mph in stock trim and have it run in 112 mph range. That's the low end of what a stock E55 does. Think about it.
Even so, How do you figure a 350rwhp car would put it to "the low end" of what a 400rwhp (E55)car does with similar (possibly less) weight. Think about that.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by medici78
I looked at my dyno sheetand found out it only made 321rwhp. Baseline dyno was 223rwhp. My mistake. However, this was done with the mildest cam MTI recommended (with aluminum head upgrade). It could have easily been up to 120rwhp gain if I had gone with a hotter cam. All told, it only gained 98rwhp.
For those of you who clicked on the link that WayneE provided for his mildly-modified LT1 engine (dyno from my head/cam/long tube LT1), click on this link (http://www.purplecar.org/) to see the 1996 Firebird that belongs to that graph. Read the description of the mods to the car. Big heads, big cam, high compression pistons, larger throttle body, high-lift rocker arms, yada yada yada. There are big bucks in that engine. You just lost all credibility, Wayne.
Originally Posted by medici78
Even so, How do you figure a 350rwhp car would put it to "the low end" of what a 400rwhp (E55)car does with similar (possibly less) weight. Think about that.
Enter 4000, select pounds, enter 112, select mph, hit Calculate. Scroll down after you hit calculate to see the HP calculation.
I still stand behind my original statement re: your rwhp claim that a mild head/cam LT1 will produce 350 rwhp.
Only now, Wayne has substantiated it.
This will be my last response to either one of you guys on this topic.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 3
From: Frederick, MD
'72 Suburban
Originally Posted by Grumpy666
The proof is in the posting. Show us your documented dyno sheets. And don't try to scam us like WayneE did.
For those of you who clicked on the link that WayneE provided for his mildly-modified LT1 engine (dyno from my head/cam/long tube LT1), click on this link (http://www.purplecar.org/) to see the 1996 Firebird that belongs to that graph. Read the description of the mods to the car. Big heads, big cam, high compression pistons, larger throttle body, high-lift rocker arms, yada yada yada. There are big bucks in that engine. You just lost all credibility, Wayne.
For those of you who clicked on the link that WayneE provided for his mildly-modified LT1 engine (dyno from my head/cam/long tube LT1), click on this link (http://www.purplecar.org/) to see the 1996 Firebird that belongs to that graph. Read the description of the mods to the car. Big heads, big cam, high compression pistons, larger throttle body, high-lift rocker arms, yada yada yada. There are big bucks in that engine. You just lost all credibility, Wayne.
I'm not here to lie or misrepresent anything. I built everything on that car (it was mine until about 2 yrs ago) - I know what I had in it at the time of the dyno.
I'll can post graphs from other LT1s that I've built, friends have built or had a hand in building. I'm no newbie and have nothing to gain by misrepresenting an old GM engine. :p How many LT1s have you built? Raced? Or are you an Internet expert?
The point is, you're 100% incorrect and no matter how you try to spin it, that fact does not change.
