In its day, the 9/11 or10/12 "UFO" was a good torque converter, and there are still a few who seem to do well with it. The big disadvantage, is its weight. Technology has come along way, and I don't see any advantage to using this unit anymore. The last one I used was 9 years ago, & I do agree with Terry at Precision Industries on this. On street vehicles with low horsepower, and do not want to spend the extra money on the "others", this might be a secondary choice. If others "do well" with this unit, great. I "do not" see any advantages here, (as compared to Vig, Yank, Edge, etc.) , so why use it, just my opinion.......

 

the 10 12 is still in its day .if a turbocharged vehicle can run low 11s high 10s all year long with this converter while locking it up on the top end it certainly is not an outdated piece,or behind the times as uninformed individuals may claim.there are also other choices for those looking for stall speeds between 2200 to 2800 with engines producing between 350 and 400 ft lbs of torque.these are also very reliable and are based on modified versions of the ORIGINAL diameter gm 12"designs for the 27 and 30 spline 2004r,700r4 ,4l60e,with the 14 blade stator.they are priced at aroud 300 dollars and are assembled with roller bearings,woven fibre friction lockup disk,furnaced brazed fins etc.just like the other more expensive pieces.my wifes 86 gn runs mid 11s all year long and gets 18 mpg with a modified 12"stock diameter d5 cbf converter that stalls at 2800 rpms with 7 psi boost .i am not in the business of publicl humiliation but we just built a syclone trans for a customer and he sent us in a yank 12 "converter to install while wee did our usual in car test on the trans prior to shipping.anyway the converter was a b85 which is for ls1 applications and is taller than the 700r4 piece.yank suggested grinding off a boss on the pump off so the converter wouldnt hit.this is unacceptable in my opinion as we never have to do that with a converter built to the correct height.this is because they just want to sell what they have on the shelf.there are many companies building good products and the 10/12 is certainly a performance product in every sense of the word.anyone interested in more information on these products can contact us for a more in depth explanation behind the deign ,performance and principles of operation.www.ckperformance.com

 

Have any of you guys used or have any expirience with PRO TORQUE??

www.protorque.com

they seem to be a great converter and the staff are great and seem to know there stuff.

Thanks.

 

Chris718, you might wanna talk with the admins about advertising before you go plugging your site.

 

we have taken care of that already .thanks for your concern.the pro torque converters are also very good.we are a ny distributor for the product and use them in most of our high horsepower applications.

 

If you are going to do a 3rd gear WOT lockup with turbo charging, then this may be the way to go. I have seen in the past the majority of those doing WOT lockups (non turbo or super charging), did not gain anything in the quarter mile by doing this, in fact they lost trap speed & and little if any effect on ET. In the majority of cases, if the torque converter is designed correctly, and is matched to the vehicle, you should run your "fastest & quickest" in the quarter mile by not locking up the torque converter.

 

that statement is simply not true.testing has proven that just about every application that uses a lock up clutch will improve 1/4 mile et by 2 tenths with the cluch locked than with it unlocked.there is a compromise inherent in the design of every torque converter to provide adequate accelleration characteristics when the car must accellerate from a dead stop and the hydraulic coupling efficiency encountered beyond the multiplication phase of operation.for this reason slip is introduced on accelleration (higher input than output speed)until the vehicle is moving at which point slip is reduced and engine flywheel rpm more closely matches turbine shaft rpm .the converter clutch takes this principle one step further by allowing them both to unite and transfer 100 percent of input torque to the driveshaft.although the lockup converter weighs more ,inertia added to the driveline is increased due to the extra weight on launch so although the engine may rev easier with the omission of the clutch the lockup is more efficient and no measurable differences are gained when using the non locker unless the original design of the lock up converter was compromised in the multiplication phase because of improper selection.super large turbochargers that need high rpm launch to generate enough exhaust to drive the turbocharger may benefit in some applications from the non locker but this is very rare and is certainly beyond the realm of just about every high performance street application of most of our intended usages.also with the bigger turbos a converter that stalls in the 4000 range will have poor coupling characteristics necessitating the lock up.some transmissions that dont use lock up must be used in certain applications because their lock up counterparts cant handle the output of these sophisticated powerplants.

 

I was silently following this thread for useful info until I read that all cars benefit from lockup.

Every supercharged car that I have tested has slowed down by locking the converter. As soon as the RPM drops on lock-up, the boost drops & also loses power. I've tried this at various times in 2nd & 3rd gear. Even past 1000ft, the cars have slowed. This has been on 9-12 sec cars. So please elaborate on your findings.

Maybe if the car was overgeared it would keep you off the rev limiter or if the stall speed was misapplied to the application things would be different.

Conversely, the turbo cars definitely like lock-up. I've seen excellent results with Grand Nationals locking them up. They load the motor harder & really start to pull at the top end.

2 totally different applications & needs here.

 

locking it up in third is what im elaborating on.if youd like to have in depth information or conversation please contact me for the real world factual findings of a man obsessed with how things work.718 784 4256 chris at ckperformance.we specialize in turbo and supercharged applications as well as others and have jusr recently completed several tests on a 406 cid engine with a 144 cid supercharger with a 10 12 lockup converter .the car was consistently faster with the converter locked.if you do a search youll find we are one of the main suppliers of buick gn 2004rs in the country as well as the devolepers of custom ratio gears ,brakes and billet parts for these thing and have a huge following.ask any gn guy on turbobuick.com if they go faster locked.its a fact.im not playing hardball here ,i just am stating information based on fact,if the converter is inefficient to begin with than a too big rpm drop on lock up will hurt the motor but that is because youve got a converter that isnt working from the get go.id like to hear from you.

 

"inertia added to the driveline is increased due to the extra weight on launch", are you kidding, this only works with a manual tranmission when the clutch is dropped at a high rpm on the starting line. With an automatic, just the "opposite" is true. The lighter the torque converter, the lighter the gear train components, and anything else that can be lightened, the quicker the launch "no exceptions". If the torque converter is "designed" correctly, you will not gain anything in the quarter mile by locking up the torque converter, in normally aspirated vehicles. Lonnie Pavtis, has seen the same things as me, as has many others. If you are gaining in the quarter mile by locking them up (again in normally aspirated vehicles), the torque converter you are using (9-11, 10-12 design) is iniffecient in its design. If you are making this work, (9-11, 10-12 design) you are the exception. I know of no one in the last few years that will argue this.

 

pro built,if you think that you have a valid point i suggest you contact jwperformance and ask them the concept behind the wheel flywheel they sell and what factual information they have regarding the extra weight of the flywheel.i do agree with the information you present up to the point where it doesnt apply to automatics.and as far as the lockup dont take my word for it ,go ask around turbo buick ,or the mcss forums.the answer is universal.i look forward to presenting my information to all here as well as debating in good fun the truths ive found to be valid.enjoy the day.

 

Chris,
Nice talking with you today. It's not often I get someone that spends their time & money just to chat.

Since I deal with mainly centrifugals, this is what my findings are based upon.

To elaborate & tell all in more detail, the roots/eaton types often like the converter lockup similar to the turbo's. They make full boost at low RPM, so they will have broader torque curve & accelerate harder at lower RPM than a centrifugal. I usually neglect these chargers on this Camaro board, but the Cobra guys & even 1st & 2nd gen Camaro owners would be all ears.

Anyway, check out his site, Chris has some nice HD pieces for tranny upgrades.

It's nice to see some contributions from fellow trans builders. I'm sure a lot can be learned by everyone here.