Hi guys, I just discovered this forum and am quite pleased about it. In the not too distant future, I plan to repower a 1945 military track vehicle called a weasel with a 300 and a C-6. The weasel is 3000 pounds empty and 5 feet wide by 10 feet long. Studebaker made about 15,000 of them during WWII and they are the best thing I have found for getting around on the tundra here in interior Alaska. They were powered by a Studebaker Champion inline flathead 6 and a 3 speed manual transmission followed by a 2 speed rear axle. The little Studebaker has sufficient power most of the time and excellent fuel economy, but the 3 speed transmission is a major drawback. These machines have a water tight hull and can float with about 6 inches of freeboard. That makes them suitable for crossing mud and water that you couldn't walk across even in chest waders. The problem is, it takes a lot of power and momentum to get across that muck and as the weasel slows down it needs a gear change. When you push in the clutch the resistance of the muck stops the machine before you can get the lower gear and let out the clutch. Once stopped, it is often time to wade to solid ground with the winch line and hope there is somthing to hook it to. The C-6 behind a 300 should solve that problem most of the time. Of course, like anyone else once I make it work better in the places I go now the more places I'm likely to try to take it, so I'll probably have to use the winch as much as ever, but I'll be having more fun.
Anyway, here is my question. Some converters seem to transfer much more torque at low speed than others. I remember as a kid in the 60's most cars with automatics would really jump with just a little application of the throttle, even the family wagons with a small 2 barrel V-8. Then by the 70's they seemed get really sluggish. I remember being particularly disgusted by the throttle response of the new 350/Turbo350 1973 Blazers when I was working at the lube rack of our local Chevy dealer after high school. Did the factories change converter design in the 70's to make them slip less at highway speed and sacrifice torque multiplication at low speed in an effort to increase mileage? I powered my home built 4 wheel drive forklift/loader with a 300 and used a C-6 from a late 70's 2 barrel 400M. The engine seems to run great, but the off idle power is poor. In a hard pull, the engine revs up some and torques over on its mounts, but the converter seems to swallow up all the power without transfering it to the wheels.Does anyone have suggestions about what converer I can use to get good torque at very low speed with these machines? I don't care at all about high speed performance, just torque. Thanks in advance, Gene
By the way, here is a link to a youtube video of my weasel if anyone is interested.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CztxAlGp1Go
.....im guessing a 2000 rpm stall would work, maybe less. an RV/towing converter would help.
i think the emissions equipment on the 70's cars had more to do with getting less power to the ground then the torque converters.
The 60's cars probably had higher stall then the 70's cars, actually wasting power more.
Ford Galaxie Club of America member #3350
1966 Galaxie 500 Convertible built in Chicago Illinois, will have a HIPO 390, 780 Holley, built C6, Crites Aluminum radiator, California rear floor pan, and a rust free frame from the south. Work continues.
Please visit and revisit the Carb Forum athttp://network54.com/forum/88781