Auto not locking up?

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

Car is an HQ 1 tonner with a 308.

No matter how gently you drive it, you cannot get better than 21L/
100km. This is all rural cruising too.

Except two days ago when it suddenly felt like it actually had a V8 in
it and I got 11L/100km on a trip to Bathurst and back (220km). It was
even doing things like creeping up to 130km/h without me realising it
straight away.

These figures aren't 100% accurate as it's hard to tell when it's tank
is exactly full, but you get a pretty good idea.

Would the auto not locking up cause such dire fuel consumption? And if
so, how expensive will this potentially be as I wasn't really planning
to spend much (anything) on this car?

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Diesel Damo wrote:
> Car is an HQ 1 tonner with a 308.
>
> No matter how gently you drive it, you cannot get better than 21L/
> 100km. This is all rural cruising too.
>
> Except two days ago when it suddenly felt like it actually had a V8 in
> it and I got 11L/100km on a trip to Bathurst and back (220km). It was
> even doing things like creeping up to 130km/h without me realising it
> straight away.
>
> These figures aren't 100% accurate as it's hard to tell when it's tank
> is exactly full, but you get a pretty good idea.
>
> Would the auto not locking up cause such dire fuel consumption? And if
> so, how expensive will this potentially be as I wasn't really planning
> to spend much (anything) on this car?
>


Does it have a tacho?
A tacho will tell you what revs the engine is doing at a particular
speed, if that varies than maybe its a problem with the auto but unless
its got an auto out of a much later car it won't have a lock up torque
convertor, they weren't common till the late 80's early 90's.
Is it going into top gear?
There are many things that could cause your problem,
Blocked air filter,
Poor state of tune, plugs points, timing etc,
Vacuum advance not working,
Carby secondaries out of adjustment (if its got any)
Handbrake sticking on, etc etc.



Daryl

[Ext User(David Z)]

Quite normal for a 70s barge. Have heard some of the larger US V8s (7-8Ls)
of the era get close to 40L/100km.

"Diesel Damo" <Diesel_4WD@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1171871662.306200.210950@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> Car is an HQ 1 tonner with a 308.
>
> No matter how gently you drive it, you cannot get better than 21L/
> 100km. This is all rural cruising too.
>
> Except two days ago when it suddenly felt like it actually had a V8 in
> it and I got 11L/100km on a trip to Bathurst and back (220km). It was
> even doing things like creeping up to 130km/h without me realising it
> straight away.
>
> These figures aren't 100% accurate as it's hard to tell when it's tank
> is exactly full, but you get a pretty good idea.
>
> Would the auto not locking up cause such dire fuel consumption? And if
> so, how expensive will this potentially be as I wasn't really planning
> to spend much (anything) on this car?
>

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Diesel Damo" <Diesel_4WD@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

> No matter how gently you drive it, you cannot get better than 21L/
> 100km. This is all rural cruising too.

Take the Rochester & inlet manifold off and throw it in the nearest bin. Go
to your local wrecker and get a Stomberg 2 barrel & manifold off a 253, and
fit to your engine.

Problem solved, but power will take a sizable hit.

> Except two days ago when it suddenly felt like it actually had a V8 in
> it and I got 11L/100km on a trip to Bathurst and back (220km). It was
> even doing things like creeping up to 130km/h without me realising it
> straight away.
>
> These figures aren't 100% accurate as it's hard to tell when it's tank
> is exactly full, but you get a pretty good idea.
>
> Would the auto not locking up cause such dire fuel consumption? And if
> so, how expensive will this potentially be as I wasn't really planning
> to spend much (anything) on this car?

If it's a HQ, and has a Tri-matic or Turbo 350/400, then it doesn't have a
lock up converter, so you have nothing to worry about :)

Your problem is fairly common because (a) you only have 3 forward ratios
with a 1:1 top gear, (b) you probably have a commercial ratio differential
which will make load pulling a snap it'll be shitful for fuel economy, and
(c) without a lock up converter your auto is only ever spinning at 9 tenth's
of crankshaft speed, so you've got a considerable loss right there.

You can improve things by doing the obvious, and that is making sure the
engine is at optimum tune. Changing the rear axle ratio for a taller gear
set (lower numbers) will help with cruising rpm (and, hence fuel economy),
but you can't do much with the auto other than nsure it's not slipping and
that the bands are correctly adjusted.

If the engine is a turbo block, then swapping the auto for a turbo 700 (or
460LE) is an easy conversion, and there is a cheap option to activate the
lock up converter (on the early VN type models) for use in early model cars.
The combination of an overdrive top gear *and* a lock up converter will make
a huge difference to cruising economy.

My advice, for what it's worth, would be to purchase a second hand gas kit
for 150 bucks or so from ebay or the Trading post, and never have to worry
about fuel economy again.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Mike)]

In article <1171871662.306200.210950@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups. com>, Diesel_4WD@yahoo.com.au says...

>Except two days ago when it suddenly felt like it actually had a V8 in
>it and I got 11L/100km on a trip to Bathurst and back (220km). It was
>even doing things like creeping up to 130km/h without me realising it
>straight away.

Had something similar happen in a ford escort, ie Economy was sort of
average and it ran more or less ok, then one suddenly it ran so much better
with economy rather good - I was amazed !

Turned out my head gasket had a leak, <guh>

So fixed head gasket, back to 'normal'

funny that


--
Regards
Mike
* VK/VL Commodore FuseRails that wont warp or melt with fuse failure indication
and now with auto 10-15 min timer for engine illumination option.
* VN, VP, VR Models with relay holder in progress.
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au

[Ext User(Patrick)]

Mike wrote:
> In article <1171871662.306200.210950@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups. com>, Diesel_4WD@yahoo.com.au says...
>
>> Except two days ago when it suddenly felt like it actually had a V8 in
>> it and I got 11L/100km on a trip to Bathurst and back (220km). It was
>> even doing things like creeping up to 130km/h without me realising it
>> straight away.

Wild guesses:

distributor advance mechanism or carby was jammed and it just got loose
and started to work.
Oppositely, it was previously badly tuned, and now it is jammed in a
manner that counteracts the bad setup.
you had some sort of block in the exhaust that gave heaps of
backpressure, this just burnt/rusted away.

The question is, has it remained good? Or did it deteriorate again?


>
> Had something similar happen in a ford escort, ie Economy was sort of
> average and it ran more or less ok, then one suddenly it ran so much better
> with economy rather good - I was amazed !
>
> Turned out my head gasket had a leak, <guh>
>
> So fixed head gasket, back to 'normal'
>
> funny that
>
>

So basically, you were getting a water injection system by accident.
Maybe it's something to investigate on a more deliberate basis?

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

Diesel Damo wrote:
>
> Car is an HQ 1 tonner with a 308.
>
> No matter how gently you drive it, you cannot get better than 21L/
> 100km. This is all rural cruising too.
>
> Except two days ago when it suddenly felt like it actually had a V8 in
> it and I got 11L/100km on a trip to Bathurst and back (220km). It was
> even doing things like creeping up to 130km/h without me realising it
> straight away.

My bet would be (based on the above) that either it had a fouled plug
(which I'm tipping you would notice for sure) or something sticking in
the carburettor, which finally worked itself free with enough use and
fuel flowing through it.

> Would the auto not locking up cause such dire fuel consumption? And if
> so, how expensive will this potentially be as I wasn't really planning
> to spend much (anything) on this car?

not sure what you mean by locking up. If it wasn't hooking up the
clutches to engage top gear, it'd not likely _last_ a tank of fuel, so
it wouldn't affect economy.

The biggest issue on them used to be that a few (though I'll concede it
was more likely if it had a 253 or a 6) had diff ratios to allow them to
pull sylvester stallone's hand off his cock with ease (which requires a
lot of torque multiplication) and were then somewhat screaming at
100-110, let alone if you wanted to cruise faster.

I've said in the past that the rochester is a good carb if it's in good
nick and setup by someone competent. If I was in your boat, and a decent
600 vac sec holley came up, it's typically easier to (using fairly
pragmatic and uncomplicated methodology) set it up to give decent power
and excellent economy. If one looked at the rochester purely on paper
and in theory it would have the edge for economy. In practice they tend
to be a fucking inordinantly complicated job to actually get to their
full potential, and short of being setup to that full potential, they
won't have any edge whatsoever.

Other thing - if it hasn't already got it - grab the later blue motor
hei dizzy and coil (and slightly tweak the tangs for the mech advance
springs, as they will have lost some tension and cause the mech to come
in way too soon). A very strong spark tends to make for more consistent
and complete combustion, absolutely no downside. Well maybe plugs won't
last forever, but they should be changed as a matter of maintenance at a
reasonable interval...

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
abuse@cia.gov If you've got a blacklist,I want to be on it $USER@$HOST
$LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com abuse@msn.com
abuse@asio.gov.au abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@iprimus.com.au

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Feb 19, 9:38 pm, D Walford <walf...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> Does it have a tacho?

Unfortunately no.

> A tacho will tell you what revs the engine is doing at a particular
> speed, if that varies than maybe its a problem with the auto

I'd love to know, and there's too much road noise to do it by ear.

> but unless
> its got an auto out of a much later car it won't have a lock up torque
> convertor, they weren't common till the late 80's early 90's.

Oh.

> Is it going into top gear?

Yep.

> There are many things that could cause your problem,
> Blocked air filter,
> Poor state of tune, plugs points, timing etc,
> Vacuum advance not working,
> Carby secondaries out of adjustment (if its got any)
> Handbrake sticking on, etc etc.

Thinking back to my first Valiant and when I first picked it up, it
may indeed be a problem with the points. I'll have a look on the
weekend.

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Feb 19, 9:42 pm, "David Z" <d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Quite normal for a 70s barge.

But is it quite normal for it to get 21L/100km one day, then 11L/100km
the next day on the same route?

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Feb 19, 9:58 pm, "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote:
> Take the Rochester & inlet manifold off and throw it in the
> nearest bin. Go to your local wrecker and get a Stomberg
> 2 barrel & manifold off a 253, and fit to your engine.

Currently it's got an Edelbrock Torquer manifold with a Holley vacuum
secondary 4 barrel on it. Looks like it might be 600cfm but not sure.
Other things I note just at a glance are extractors and some crazy
huge fuel filtering system.

It also pings under hard acceleration if I use anything other than 98
octane. Sad thing is when I picked it up after purchase the guy had 91
in it, so who knows how bad things are internally.

So I'd say it's had a lot of different people "hotting it up".

> Problem solved, but power will take a sizable hit.

Indeed it would. Might be worth trying it though to see if that area
is where the problem is.

> If it's a HQ, and has a Tri-matic or Turbo 350/400, then it doesn't have a
> lock up converter, so you have nothing to worry about :)

I think it's tri-matic but it might be a TH 350 or 400 since that was
always the common thing to do if you had a hot Holden V8.

> Your problem is fairly common because (a) you only have 3 forward ratios
> with a 1:1 top gear, (b) you probably have a commercial ratio differential
> which will make load pulling a snap it'll be shitful for fuel economy, and

Yep. Definitely 4.11:1 here.

> (c) without a lock up converter your auto is only ever spinning at 9 tenth's
> of crankshaft speed, so you've got a considerable loss right there.

Well that sucks :-)

> You can improve things by doing the obvious, and that is making sure the
> engine is at optimum tune. Changing the rear axle ratio for a taller gear
> set (lower numbers) will help with cruising rpm (and, hence fuel economy),
> but you can't do much with the auto other than nsure it's not slipping and
> that the bands are correctly adjusted.

Thinking back, what I thought was auto slipping on hills could've
easily been engine choking as well.

> If the engine is a turbo block, then swapping the auto for a turbo 700 (or
> 460LE) is an easy conversion, and there is a cheap option to activate the
> lock up converter (on the early VN type models) for use in early model cars.
> The combination of an overdrive top gear *and* a lock up converter will make
> a huge difference to cruising economy.

That'd be a good idea, but fairly soon this car isn't going to be a
road goer anymore. It'll be Farm Hay Transporter, but I still don't
want it to drink like a race car.

> My advice, for what it's worth, would be to purchase a second hand gas kit
> for 150 bucks or so from ebay or the Trading post, and never have to worry
> about fuel economy again.

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Feb 20, 1:19 pm, John McKenzie <j...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> My bet would be (based on the above) that either it had a fouled plug
> (which I'm tipping you would notice for sure) or something sticking in
> the carburettor, which finally worked itself free with enough use and
> fuel flowing through it.

Since I last posted I've had 2 good trips and 2 bad, so it's
definitely something "on and off". That's why my next guess is the
points.

> not sure what you mean by locking up.

I mean I was too dumb to know they didn't have lock up converters back
then :-)

> The biggest issue on them used to be that a few (though I'll concede it
> was more likely if it had a 253 or a 6) had diff ratios to allow them to
> pull sylvester stallone's hand off his cock with ease

LOL. Yeah it does have a 4.11 ratio.

> lot of torque multiplication) and were then somewhat screaming at
> 100-110, let alone if you wanted to cruise faster.

Yep, it's pretty noisy sitting on 110.

> I've said in the past that the rochester is a good carb if it's in good
> nick and setup by someone competent. If I was in your boat, and a decent
> 600 vac sec holley came up,

Funnily enough, I think that's exactly what it's got. But when I had a
quick look at it, it looked like a fire fighter had just dug it out of
some week old wreckage, so I think a full rebuild wouldn't hurt.

> it's typically easier to (using fairly
> pragmatic and uncomplicated methodology) set it up to give decent
> power and excellent economy.

My bro had a 308 with a 600 vac sec and it was great on fuel, unless
you put your foot down.

> Other thing - if it hasn't already got it - grab the later blue motor
> hei dizzy and coil (and slightly tweak the tangs for the mech advance
> springs, as they will have lost some tension and cause the mech to come
> in way too soon). A very strong spark tends to make for more consistent
> and complete combustion, absolutely no downside. Well maybe plugs won't
> last forever, but they should be changed as a matter of maintenance at a
> reasonable interval...

Interesting. That's a bit beyond my own technical experience/
abilities, but I'll look into it.

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

Diesel Damo wrote:
>
>
> I mean I was too dumb to know they didn't have lock up converters back
> then :-)

One of the 'tricks' people used on them was to get a convertor from a 6
or a 4, then rebuilt using some bits from the v8 one (the 4 and 6cyl
convertors both fit a 6cyl trimatic, but the v8 has a bigger input
shaft, and also the torque convertor to flexplate bolts are relocated on
the v8) and you have a poor mans high stall (around 3000-3200rpm on a
308 with a 4cyl, and 2500ish with a 6cyl convertor vs 1800-2000 stock).
This would _really_ wake up a mild 253 and help it get off the line, and
likewise a 308, _but_ they are the antithesis of what you need for heavy
towing (where they'd produce so much extra heat as to cause the oil to
detiorate within a few heaving towing runs and fuck the auto
quicksmart). In that case, you tend to need to even look at modded
convertors that drag the stall rpm even lower.

>
> LOL. Yeah it does have a 4.11 ratio.

Which would probably be worth a dollar to a fair few people ou there.
You might consider swapping something like the far more common (for the
holdens of the era, but not that particular one) 3.36 or maybe 3.55 (but
imho, that might still have it revving higher than ideal). It's a hell
of a hard call to make, and tyres come into it, but I tend not to like
pushing past low 3000rpms for highway cruising. Switching to a 3.36 diff
(if that won't stuff up it's workhorse/towing potential) would pull a
good 700rpm out of it at 110-120km/h

Of course you have to weigh up all the concerns, and if it does less
than 10,000km a year, it's madness for me to even talk about diff ratio
changes, but if it was 100,000km a year, the sooner the better.

> > lot of torque multiplication) and were then somewhat screaming at
> > 100-110, let alone if you wanted to cruise faster.
>
> Yep, it's pretty noisy sitting on 110.
>
> > I've said in the past that the rochester is a good carb if it's in good
> > nick and setup by someone competent. If I was in your boat, and a decent
> > 600 vac sec holley came up,
>
> Funnily enough, I think that's exactly what it's got. But when I had a
> quick look at it, it looked like a fire fighter had just dug it out of
> some week old wreckage, so I think a full rebuild wouldn't hurt.

If it _is_ a holley, don't fuck around, buy the 're-usable' gaskets.
They seal 1000 times better (maybe more, it's an estimate) and put an
end to gasket scraping shit. If you need to pull the fuel bowls, they'll
come off with ease for a jet change etc, and seal well after months and
even years of tweaking.

High on the list would also be the power valve. They tend to rupture the
diaphragm, with age, or after a few backfires. When they rupture, they
aren't dangerous per se, they just stay open all the time, and have the
pwoer valve enrichment all the time, costing a lot of fuel.

Holley suggest a few ways of selecting the power valve, but assuming
it's a std or nearly std cam, and that it has to pull massive freeway
rpms, I'd be making a strong case for a 55 even when a 65 is typically
called for (it won't open till higher throttle input). But to be
absolutely sure, I'd also run a manifold vac guage and see what vac you
end up with fully loaded and up an incline at 110-120, or whatever the
highest you run it to is. You absolutely _don't_ want it open for steady
state cruising short of near full throttle lugging, like towing heavy up
a steep incline.




>
> > it's typically easier to (using fairly
> > pragmatic and uncomplicated methodology) set it up to give decent
> > power and excellent economy.
>
> My bro had a 308 with a 600 vac sec and it was great on fuel, unless
> you put your foot down.

fwiw, even _at_ full throttle, I'd be more confident of getting a holley
to not use excessive fuel than a rochester. Ironically it's their 'bug
bear' that they have no air door (which is like a temporary choke as it
opens, richening things up and working like an acc pump for the secs)
for the secs that mean they tend to run frugally at higher loads
potentially (assuming the secs weren't setup deliberately too rich to
counteract the phenomena)

>
> Interesting. That's a bit beyond my own technical experience/
> abilities, but I'll look into it.

let me know if I can help out. I'm fairly sure I can source a hei dizzy
locally from one of the many commodore wrecker joints, and the work
itself is like 1 minute, so if you have no luck finding one, then feel
free to email me. Failing that, I'd _definitely_ put a new set of points
and a new condenser as a matter of course before doing any longer trips,
no down side really.






--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
If you didn't know it was wrong,why did you cover it up? abuse@msn.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@cia.gov
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
$LOGIN@localhost

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

Diesel Damo wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 9:38 pm, D Walford <walf...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> > Does it have a tacho?
>
> Unfortunately no.
>
> > A tacho will tell you what revs the engine is doing at a particular
> > speed, if that varies than maybe its a problem with the auto
>
> I'd love to know, and there's too much road noise to do it by ear.

If you had a commodore 64, or the commodore 64 emulator for the pc, I
could give you a program I wrote when I was around 15 years old, that
will give you the rpm for any given mph, or diff ratio, or tyre size (in
fact you put in everything minus the missing variable, and it gives you
the last one, also allowing for slippage in a typical torque convertor
(which would be anywhere from 5-10% tops for most streeters)

It also approximates tyre size, either from a static measurement of the
diameter, or if you enter the P 225/60 14 or corresponding figures.

Based on an assumption of a 225 65 14 tyre set (fairly common fare on
the sunraysia steel rims, or whatever they were called (I've got a
chrome set free to good home if anyone wants) an auto with a fairly low
stalling convertor and the 4.11 diff (on that note, what _IS_ the exact
diff ratio for the tonners with low diff gears - I've heard anything
including 4.1 4.11 4.3 and 4.4something_?, your rpms will be
approximately (rounded off, as frankly within 5rpm is close enough, and
easier to conceptualise the spread)

at 60km/h 2120rpm
at 80km/h 2830rpm
at 100km/h 3530rpm
at 110km/h 3890rpm
at 120km/h 4240rpm

Generally speaking pushrod v8s (well as long as we don't count any pommy
or some other shitheaps) don't _mind_ higher rpms (it's all relative)
all that much, and with a stroke just over 3 inches, the 308 certainly
isn't going beserk between 3 and 4 thousand rpm. BUT, they do tend to
have known issues with cam lobe wear. One might argue that at higher rpm
there's more oil flung from the rods to the cam lobes, but the
stress/friction/wear of them (in my opinion) goes up with rpm at a rate
that 4000rpm is imho pushing things for acceptably long life for the cam
lobes if it's stuck there for hours at a time.

If it was a 202, it'd likely start using oil at some point a little too
early for my liking with that sort of rpm (assuming you do freeway runs
like me,and 120 is not exactly all that high by some standards) whereas
a 186 (not that they are technically legal) is a much better bet for
massive freeway runs at higher speeds. the 10% loss in torque and power
(approx) is an issue, but personally I'd go that way for a old holden 6
resto).

In your case, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference in the rpm
potential of the 253/308. Technically the 253 piston _is_ lighter and
might enable a few hundred rpm more, but you have more shrouded valves
and it's 55cubes down, and that means it's not making as much power so
it'd be far more likely to 'want' lower gearing than the 186 vs 202
comparison.. But in both cases 253/308 there is still the cam lobe wear
issue. I don't want to make out it's atrocious, but they're no small
block chev in the 'indestructible and still dirt cheap' stakes.

> > but unless
> > its got an auto out of a much later car it won't have a lock up torque
> > convertor, they weren't common till the late 80's early 90's.
>
> Oh.

An interesting side note here is that typically the lockup convertors
will last the life of the other friction linings in the transmissions
(the 'take for granted' bits that get replaced every trans reco) so
that's not a big concern _but_ they only engage at a relatively low
throttle opening - true highway cruising, and will 'unlock' for higher
throttle inputs. This is to save them. Hypothetically if they were
overengineered, they could be engaged for higher throttle inputs). So
what it means is that for most towing duties, they might not lock up
anyway. Which means the difference in economy is (if it exists) down to
the overdrive top gear and lower overall freeway rpms, whilst towing at
least. And by towing, you could also include lugging very heavy loads on
the tray as well.

All of which tends to mean lack of a lockup convertor is no biggie, but
the diff ratio with the 3 speed auto _might_ be.

I've (unfortunately, as I now fucking hate the bastards almost as much
as the bw35, which for the record is a decent enough auto, but should
never ever have been put in heavy cars with bigger capacity/higher
torque chrysler 6s and even the later ford 6s) had a fair bit to do with
trimatics (though I'm not sure what yours is??) esp those modified for
racing and or hard duties.

My experiences are as follows : 99% of the so called experts out there
talk a lot of shit, and offer the world, and sponsor a few magazine
writeups (or maybe the magazines are always on the border of being short
of articles) but when it comes down to it, when their 'grenades' go off
less than a fortnight after install (and after being told before it was
built, the kind of treatment, and the willingness to go to a th400 if
necessary to avoid trouble) they say 'tough shit', and charge to rebuild
the damage, then it happens again, and again.

There's two issues with trimatics (well probably 200) and the 'slightly
out of their league' autos in general. For racing or towing slow shifts
mean a lot of slip of the friction linings, and quicker wear. So you'd
typically want _slightly_ more pressure to _hold_ each clutch or band
when required. This is not the same as a harder quicker engagement. You
can apply more pressure, but route it through a restrictor (or not
enlarge the restrictor) so that it takes longer to fully buildup. This
will retain a slightly slower than 'ideal' shift but once it's engaged
the gear, it holds and resists tearing away (which will fuck the
friction linings quicker than britney fucked her hair).

IF you seek faster shifts, that _will_ reduce the wear on the friction
linings _BUT_ it also drastically increases the shock loading. And since
the trimatics are not all that 'well hung' in terms of planetary and
various shaft thicknesses, extra shock loading can and will break these
parts, so even _if_ the friction linings last longer, it's totally
irrelevant, as they break and that's all or nothing.

SO, the general approach is that _if_ the trans place (down the track)
offers to help out by sharpening up the shift speeds (they still shift
at the same rpm, just a more abrupt shift, no slip) thank them kindly,
and drive off (backing into their courtesy car for good measure). The
'go' is to (if they can be found) run a new heavy duty factory style
band, not a reline or otherwise manufactured band (as they typically
aren't as strong and the friction lining can peel off, which ironically
I've come across a lot with bw35s recently!) beccause it's not bonded on
as competently). If you must use a re-line, and there's a choice between
a factory band relined, or an aftermarket band and new lining, I'd go
the original.

Next, for two of the clutch packs (maybe all? I forget how many they
bloody have, but if you really want I'll re-check) the 4s have a set
number of friction clutches and shim discs. the 6s have one or two more,
and the 8s have one more again. What people used to do for tow car 6s
was run the v8 number of friction plate/discs. You _can_ go one
(actually two I think) better. What you do is get the piston from each
clutch pack (it'll make sense to any trans person, or fitter and turner)
and the corrugated (or wave shaped) spacer and turn them down in a
lathe. You don't go beserk, but it allows you to run an extra clutch
plate or two in each clutch pack. So it's like the difference between
std 6 and v8 internals, that much on top.

Aside from that don't modify the valvebody (some also do it by only
fitting half of the return springs in the clutch packs, which is imho
trouble on a long distance vehicle) to increase shift harshness. It's
possible (if unlikely) that the line pressure and so forth is a touch
down. This would be a result of the springs inside, probably one in
particular, having lost some tension due to constant compression and
thousands of heat cycles. IF (and it's a big if) test pressures were
down (*and the font pump was in proper working condition, having been
checked and addressed if necessary as part of the rebuild) then
replacing or perhaps shimming a spring might be called for. that would
not be to make the shifts harsher, but to get it back to where it was
supposed to be. From memory the 4s run lower line pressure, the 6s a
little more, and the v8 model trimatics the most (since they'd have to
counter progressively more torque/heavier vehicles. On the 4s, they are
so gutless, they'd never overpower the clutch packs etc, so it's just
wasting energy creating more line pressure for those autos in std
setups)

>
> > Is it going into top gear?
>
> Yep.

the other thing I'd suggest considering is the exhaust. It came up in
Trevor's query on a related matter. At those sort of rpms, even though
it wouldnt' likely be full throttle, a free flowing exhaust will make a
considerable difference to potential economy.

Another tid-bit on the dizzy, it's possible (aside from points) that the
vac advance cannister has a ruptured diaphragm, or a dodgy hose, going
into it. Maybe it's sealing ok on some days, or something like that. If
there's a stuffed hose/pipe then that could help big time. As a rough
and ready test, hook up a spare length of hose to the vac advance ont eh
dizzy (with the cap off, and such hard on teh hose, and see if the top
plate moves. Use a fairly long hose, and put a handkerchief over the end
you stick in your mouth. If it's impossible to suck in any air, or just
barely moves the dizzy top plate, it's likely actually ok. If it's
ruptured, you'll be able to keep sucking air through it. The reason for
the longer hose and hanky is if it's ruptured, the air _will_ come
through, and you'll end up inhaling a bunch of debris.

They tend to be the one thing you _won't_ have any joy sourcing from a
wrecker, as they would all be of a similar age. Such cannisters _are_
available new, but expect to pay more than $50 on average (give or take,
depending on your local area). they can make a 10% difference in fuel
usage.

> > There are many things that could cause your problem,
> > Blocked air filter,
> > Poor state of tune, plugs points, timing etc,
> > Vacuum advance not working,
> > Carby secondaries out of adjustment (if its got any)
> > Handbrake sticking on, etc etc.
>
> Thinking back to my first Valiant and when I first picked it up, it
> may indeed be a problem with the points. I'll have a look on the
> weekend.

last thought from the twilight zone. It's not common on the v8s, but ont
the 6s the fuel pumps could leak. Someimes into the sump, but rarely. On
the v8, it can leak fuel near the carb (not always) and end up on the
intake manifold, which then is warm enough to evaporate it, meaning it
might not be enough to notice as a smell when stopping or driving, and
will dry up by the time you look under the bonnet. Look for odd
discolouration around the carb base and inlet manifold, though I'm not
sure what colour it might be with current fuels. Still fuel related -
some of the caps on some holdens (though I concede it's the wagons
mostly, and the sedans less so, and if anything the tonners are the
least severe or non existant) that fuel can gush out the filler neck on
hard acceleration, or cornering. Perhaps very rough roads and the like.
Before I bought it off him, my mate was losing, literally, half the fuel
he put in the hk monaro, out the filler cap on right hand turns. I spent
about an hour at the local diy wreckers, and grabbed a few factory caps,
of similar diameter neck/overall. Combined what was a 2 door gemini (in
the c pillar) filler cap, and the seal rubbers from another (I forget
which) which were a _very_ secure fit/preloaded in fact, it it makes
sense) and that sorted it perfectly, until it was backed into and the
whole rear quarter, filler neck, and bloody tank, were collateral
damage.






--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
If you didn't know it was wrong,why did you cover it up? abuse@msn.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@cia.gov
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
$LOGIN@localhost

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

I just looked it up - any chance it's a 4.44:1 diff? it doesn't seem to
have a 4.11 listed as available at all.

If it is then the revs are even higher. I was bored. so I did a couple
of calcs. If the rpm varies from a previous post, it's down to how
arbitrarily I rounded off the various speeds (the prog I made is in mph,
so I had to convert it from km/h and _then_ input it. I suppose it'd
work easier if I put the conversion in the program, but give a stuff...
In the case of a discrepancy, the figures below would be the ones to
lean toward.


I included the 4.11 at the end, after 4.44 just incase they do exist.


| 2.6 | 3.08 | 3.36 | 3.55 | 3.9 | 4.44 | |4.11 |
--------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|--|------|
60 km/h | 1340 | 1590 | 1730 | 1830 | 2010 | 2290 | | 2120 |
80 km/h | 1790 | 2120 | 2310 | 2440 | 2680 | 3052 | | 2826 |
100km/h | 2235 | 2650 | 2890 | 3050 | 3350 | 3820 | | 3530 |
110km/h | 2460 | 2910 | 3180 | 3360 | 3690 | 4200 | | 3885 |
120km/h | 2680 | 3095 | 3465 | 3660 | 4020 | 4580 | | 4240 |
130km/h | 2905 | 3440 | 3755 | 3970 | 4360 | 4960 | | 4590 |
140km/h | 3140 | 3720 | 4055 | 4290 | 4710 | 5360 | | 4960 |


hopefully the formatting endures usenet and is easy to read.

Based on 225 65 14 tyres and an arbitrary 5% trans slippage.

On the topic of trans slippage, when the road speed/diff gears etc end
up with rpms below convertor stall speed, the slippage can be a little
higher, so frankly it won't drop as low in rpm at those speeds. In any
event, at or under 60km/h won't produce unacceptablly high rpms with
_any_ available diff ratio, so listing the actual rpms any lower
wouldn't be of any real value.

A 3.36 ratio if available might be the go. After doing the calcs, it's a
genuine 1000rpm lower vs a 4.44 ratio at 110km/h, but probably wouldn't
affect the ability to tow heavy loads and retain reasonable enough
acceleration (not as per race track, but as per not causing traffic
issues by causing a convoy to build up as it struggles to get up to
highway speeds). the 2.6 would be 'great' for long distance work but
likely _would_ be a significant detriment to towing (only 60% the torque
multiplication vs 4.44 diff, whereas the 3.36 still has 75% of it, the
3.55 has 80% 3.9 has 88% or so) . Based on those figures, I'd _maybe_
suggest a 3.55, but likely the 3.36 would be a kinder compromise (engine
rpm wise)

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
If you didn't know it was wrong,why did you cover it up? abuse@msn.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@cia.gov
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
$LOGIN@localhost

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
If you didn't know it was wrong,why did you cover it up? abuse@msn.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@cia.gov
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
$LOGIN@localhost

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Feb 22, 7:55 pm, John McKenzie <j...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> If you had a commodore 64, or the commodore 64 emulator for the pc, I
> could give you a program I wrote when I was around 15 years old, that
> will give you the rpm for any given mph, or diff ratio, or tyre size (in
> fact you put in everything minus the missing variable, and it gives you
> the last one, also allowing for slippage in a typical torque convertor
> (which would be anywhere from 5-10% tops for most streeters)

A while ago I made an Excel spreadsheet that does exactly that. Well,
except for torque converter slippage anyway.

> It also approximates tyre size, either from a static measurement of the
> diameter, or if you enter the P 225/60 14 or corresponding figures.

I didn't bother approximating in my calculator. I figured at that
level of accuracy there's probably plenty of other things I'm missing
too.

> Based on an assumption of a 225 65 14 tyre set (fairly common fare on
> the sunraysia steel rims, or whatever they were called (I've got a
> chrome set free to good home if anyone wants) an auto with a fairly low
> stalling convertor and the 4.11 diff (on that note, what _IS_ the exact
> diff ratio for the tonners with low diff gears - I've heard anything
> including 4.1 4.11 4.3 and 4.4something_?, your rpms will be
> approximately (rounded off, as frankly within 5rpm is close enough, and
> easier to conceptualise the spread)

I've always heard it was 4.11. I know 4.3 is Hilux, and maybe some
Hilux diffs end up in slightly creative streeters. Back when my bros
diff blew, they accidentally put a one tonner diff in and that one was
4.11.

> at 60km/h 2120rpm
> at 80km/h 2830rpm
> at 100km/h 3530rpm
> at 110km/h 3890rpm
> at 120km/h 4240rpm
>
> Generally speaking pushrod v8s (well as long as we don't count any pommy
> or some other shitheaps) don't _mind_ higher rpms (it's all relative)
> all that much, and with a stroke just over 3 inches, the 308 certainly
> isn't going beserk between 3 and 4 thousand rpm. BUT, they do tend to
> have known issues with cam lobe wear. One might argue that at higher rpm
> there's more oil flung from the rods to the cam lobes, but the
> stress/friction/wear of them (in my opinion) goes up with rpm at a rate
> that 4000rpm is imho pushing things for acceptably long life for the cam
> lobes if it's stuck there for hours at a time.

Well I just chucked the figures into my calculator (note: 215/60R14)
and it spits out an exact figure of 4264 for 120km/h. But that assumes
a manual box with no slippage and I don't do anything fancy with the
tyre sizes - I just strictly calculate them.

So yeah, I probably shouldn't be sitting it on 120 for half an hour.
Let alone accidentally running it up to 130 (4620RPM).

> If it was a 202, it'd likely start using oil at some point a little too
> early for my liking with that sort of rpm (assuming you do freeway runs
> like me,and 120 is not exactly all that high by some standards) whereas
> a 186 (not that they are technically legal) is a much better bet for
> massive freeway runs at higher speeds. the 10% loss in torque and power
> (approx) is an issue, but personally I'd go that way for a old holden 6
> resto).
>
> In your case, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference in the rpm
> potential of the 253/308. Technically the 253 piston _is_ lighter and
> might enable a few hundred rpm more, but you have more shrouded valves
> and it's 55cubes down, and that means it's not making as much power so
> it'd be far more likely to 'want' lower gearing than the 186 vs 202
> comparison.. But in both cases 253/308 there is still the cam lobe wear
> issue. I don't want to make out it's atrocious, but they're no small
> block chev in the 'indestructible and still dirt cheap' stakes.

You never know, I might decide that this vehicle is going to be a long
term keeper and drop something nice in it like a SBC :-)

> > > but unless
> > > its got an auto out of a much later car it won't have a lock up torque
> > > convertor, they weren't common till the late 80's early 90's.
>
> > Oh.
>
> An interesting side note here is that typically the lockup convertors
> will last the life of the other friction linings in the transmissions
> (the 'take for granted' bits that get replaced every trans reco) so
> that's not a big concern _but_ they only engage at a relatively low
> throttle opening - true highway cruising, and will 'unlock' for higher
> throttle inputs. This is to save them. Hypothetically if they were
> overengineered, they could be engaged for higher throttle inputs). So
> what it means is that for most towing duties, they might not lock up
> anyway. Which means the difference in economy is (if it exists) down to
> the overdrive top gear and lower overall freeway rpms, whilst towing at
> least. And by towing, you could also include lugging very heavy loads on
> the tray as well.

Right now it's got about 200kg of fencing stuff in the back. I should
really take all that shit out and see if there's any improvement.

> All of which tends to mean lack of a lockup convertor is no biggie, but
> the diff ratio with the 3 speed auto _might_ be.
>
> I've (unfortunately, as I now fucking hate the bastards almost as much
> as the bw35, which for the record is a decent enough auto, but should
> never ever have been put in heavy cars with bigger capacity/higher
> torque chrysler 6s and even the later ford 6s) had a fair bit to do with
> trimatics (though I'm not sure what yours is??) esp those modified for
> racing and or hard duties.
>
> My experiences are as follows : 99% of the so called experts out there
> talk a lot of shit, and offer the world, and sponsor a few magazine
> writeups (or maybe the magazines are always on the border of being short
> of articles) but when it comes down to it, when their 'grenades' go off
> less than a fortnight after install (and after being told before it was
> built, the kind of treatment, and the willingness to go to a th400 if
> necessary to avoid trouble) they say 'tough shit', and charge to rebuild
> the damage, then it happens again, and again.
>
> There's two issues with trimatics (well probably 200) and the 'slightly
> out of their league' autos in general. For racing or towing slow shifts
> mean a lot of slip of the friction linings, and quicker wear. So you'd
> typically want _slightly_ more pressure to _hold_ each clutch or band
> when required. This is not the same as a harder quicker engagement. You
> can apply more pressure, but route it through a restrictor (or not
> enlarge the restrictor) so that it takes longer to fully buildup. This
> will retain a slightly slower than 'ideal' shift but once it's engaged
> the gear, it holds and resists tearing away (which will fuck the
> friction linings quicker than britney fucked her hair).
>
> IF you seek faster shifts, that _will_ reduce the wear on the friction
> linings _BUT_ it also drastically increases the shock loading. And since
> the trimatics are not all that 'well hung' in terms of planetary and
> various shaft thicknesses, extra shock loading can and will break these
> parts, so even _if_ the friction linings last longer, it's totally
> irrelevant, as they break and that's all or nothing.
>
> SO, the general approach is that _if_ the trans place (down the track)
> offers to help out by sharpening up the shift speeds (they still shift
> at the same rpm, just a more abrupt shift, no slip) thank them kindly,
> and drive off (backing into their courtesy car for good measure). The
> 'go' is to (if they can be found) run a new heavy duty factory style
> band, not a reline or otherwise manufactured band (as they typically
> aren't as strong and the friction lining can peel off, which ironically
> I've come across a lot with bw35s recently!) beccause it's not bonded on
> as competently). If you must use a re-line, and there's a choice between
> a factory band relined, or an aftermarket band and new lining, I'd go
> the original.
>
> Next, for two of the clutch packs (maybe all? I forget how many they
> bloody have, but if you really want I'll re-check) the 4s have a set
> number of friction clutches and shim discs. the 6s have one or two more,
> and the 8s have one more again. What people used to do for tow car 6s
> was run the v8 number of friction plate/discs. You _can_ go one
> (actually two I think) better. What you do is get the piston from each
> clutch pack (it'll make sense to any trans person, or fitter and turner)
> and the corrugated (or wave shaped) spacer and turn them down in a
> lathe. You don't go beserk, but it allows you to run an extra clutch
> plate or two in each clutch pack. So it's like the difference between
> std 6 and v8 internals, that much on top.
>
> Aside from that don't modify the valvebody (some also do it by only
> fitting half of the return springs in the clutch packs, which is imho
> trouble on a long distance vehicle) to increase shift harshness. It's
> possible (if unlikely) that the line pressure and so forth is a touch
> down. This would be a result of the springs inside, probably one in
> particular, having lost some tension due to constant compression and
> thousands of heat cycles. IF (and it's a big if) test pressures were
> down (*and the font pump was in proper working condition, having been
> checked and addressed if necessary as part of the rebuild) then
> replacing or perhaps shimming a spring might be called for. that would
> not be to make the shifts harsher, but to get it back to where it was
> supposed to be. From memory the 4s run lower line pressure, the 6s a
> little more, and the v8 model trimatics the most (since they'd have to
> counter progressively more torque/heavier vehicles. On the 4s, they are
> so gutless, they'd never overpower the clutch packs etc, so it's just
> wasting energy creating more line pressure for those autos in std
> setups)

I've now archived your post for future reference :-)

> > > Is it going into top gear?
>
> > Yep.
>
> the other thing I'd suggest considering is the exhaust. It came up in
> Trevor's query on a related matter. At those sort of rpms, even though
> it wouldnt' likely be full throttle, a free flowing exhaust will make a
> considerable difference to potential economy.

Well I'm starting to get more good runs than bad now. So it's possible
all this country cruising is clearing things out a bit.

> Another tid-bit on the dizzy, it's possible (aside from points) that the
> vac advance cannister has a ruptured diaphragm, or a dodgy hose, going
> into it. Maybe it's sealing ok on some days, or something like that. If
> there's a stuffed hose/pipe then that could help big time. As a rough
> and ready test, hook up a spare length of hose to the vac advance ont eh
> dizzy (with the cap off, and such hard on teh hose, and see if the top
> plate moves. Use a fairly long hose, and put a handkerchief over the end
> you stick in your mouth. If it's impossible to suck in any air, or just
> barely moves the dizzy top plate, it's likely actually ok. If it's
> ruptured, you'll be able to keep sucking air through it. The reason for
> the longer hose and hanky is if it's ruptured, the air _will_ come
> through, and you'll end up inhaling a bunch of debris.
>
> They tend to be the one thing you _won't_ have any joy sourcing from a
> wrecker, as they would all be of a similar age. Such cannisters _are_
> available new, but expect to pay more than $50 on average (give or take,
> depending on your local area). they can make a 10% difference in fuel
> usage.
>
> > > There are many things that could cause your problem,
> > > Blocked air filter,
> > > Poor state of tune, plugs points, timing etc,
> > > Vacuum advance not working,
> > > Carby secondaries out of adjustment (if its got any)
> > > Handbrake sticking on, etc etc.
>
> > Thinking back to my first Valiant and when I first picked it up, it
> > may indeed be a problem with the points. I'll have a look on the
> > weekend.
>
> last thought from the twilight zone. It's not common on the v8s, but ont
> the 6s the fuel pumps could leak. Someimes into the sump, but rarely. On
> the v8, it can leak fuel near the carb (not always) and end up on the
> intake manifold, which then is warm enough to evaporate it, meaning it
> might not be enough to notice as a smell when stopping or driving, and
> will dry up by the time you look under the bonnet. Look for odd
> discolouration around the carb base and inlet manifold, though I'm not
> sure what colour it might be with current fuels. Still fuel related -
> some of the caps on some holdens (though I concede it's the wagons
> mostly, and the sedans less so, and if anything the tonners are the
> least severe or non existant) that fuel can gush out the filler neck on
> hard acceleration, or cornering. Perhaps very rough roads and the like.
> Before I bought it off him, my mate was losing, literally, half the fuel
> he put in the hk monaro, out the filler cap on right hand turns. I spent
> about an hour at the local diy wreckers, and grabbed a few factory caps,
> of similar diameter neck/overall. Combined what was a 2 door gemini (in
> the c pillar) filler cap, and the seal rubbers from another (I forget
> which) which were a _very_ secure fit/preloaded in fact, it it makes
> sense) and that sorted it perfectly, until it was backed into and the
> whole rear quarter, filler neck, and bloody tank, were collateral
> damage.

I'll post a pic of the fuel filter this weekend. It's definitely *not*
standard. It sits in the right front corner of the engine bay and is
the size of a large rockmelon.

[Ext User(Andy)]

Diesel Damo wrote:

> I'll post a pic of the fuel filter this weekend. It's definitely *not*
> standard. It sits in the right front corner of the engine bay and is
> the size of a large rockmelon.


WTF?! Please don't forget to post a pic ;-)

Cheers,

Andy. (t'other Andy.)

[Ext User(the_dawggie)]

On Feb 23, 8:50 pm, Andy <nos...@no.no> wrote:
> Diesel Damo wrote:
> > I'll post a pic of the fuel filter this weekend. It's definitely *not*
> > standard. It sits in the right front corner of the engine bay and is
> > the size of a large rockmelon.
>
> WTF?! Please don't forget to post a pic ;-)

His is not the standard 'lux item, I use similar for
biodiesel production.

I've gotta get back to your email.

[Ext User(a9x5l)]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:11:09 -0800, Diesel Damo wrote:

> A while ago I made an Excel spreadsheet that does exactly that. Well,
> except for torque converter slippage anyway.

Torque converter slip and many other calcs...

http://www.tciauto.com/Products/TechInfo/Calculators.asp#4

--
a9x5l

[Ext User(Emjaye)]

nospam said...

> Take the Rochester & inlet manifold off and throw it in the nearest bin.
> Go to your local wrecker and get a Stomberg 2 barrel & manifold off a
> 253, and fit to your engine.
>
> Problem solved, but power will take a sizable hit.

When I owned a 253 with the above fuel delivery system it too would be
lucky to get 20l/100km (for those who understand it, back then we
would've called it 14 mpg).

These engines are thirsty thuckers, no two ways about it.

Put it on gas. A conversion with the rebate should cost you bugger all.

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Feb 23, 8:50 pm, Andy <nos...@no.no> wrote:
> Diesel Damo wrote:
> > I'll post a pic of the fuel filter this weekend. It's definitely *not*
> > standard. It sits in the right front corner of the engine bay and is
> > the size of a large rockmelon.
>
> WTF?! Please don't forget to post a pic ;-)

I remembered it as being a bit bigger than it actually is, but anyway:

Fuel filter (102KB)
<http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5229/fuelfilterlp6.jpg>

Carby and engine (118KB)
<http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2327/carbyrr4.jpg>