General A727 Potential R&R questions/suggestions.

Sir Dodge alot

Active Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2022
Messages
311
Reaction score
92
Location
Fairview, TX
Recently the A727 in my 1964 Dodge custom 880 has been starting to make some noise, and decided in the near future i hope to plan on removing the transmission on my own for R&R well hopefully just a basic rebuild.
So some questions regarding the A727:

What Converter stall speed should i be aiming for? I considered a 2000/2500/2800 stall speed, the cam in the motor is a stock 256/256 cam in a big block Chrysler 361. Rear gear is 2.76. The car is practically a daily driver, but wouldn't mind some more performance boost. Maybe with a Trans go TF2 shift kit with better than stock clutches?
I plan on raising the car on jack stands, then removing the transmission crossmember, is the loosening of the torsion bar adjustment necessary?
It's an early A727 with Pushbutton, is there any information i should be mindful of compared to the later transmissions 65/66/67/68? I.E different valve body/differing minor details easily missed in FSM's
Regarding the question above, this is my first time removing a transmission & rebuilding one, any tips/Quirks i should keep in mind of while in the rebuilding phase?
How would you go about the transmission removal, under and out or remove the engine with the transmission together?
Is this a job you would consider leaving it to the trained eye and get it done by someone in the transmission rebuild trade?

I believe basic snap ring pliers, Circlip pliers (Circlips pliers To remove the tailshaft) Torque wrench in the Nm rating.
I bought the A727 rebuild book by: Tom hand
Should i consider getting another rebuild book just to compare and confirm correct adjustments are being made?
I have the Factory Dodge 880 FSM, but i assume the information in the one book is not enough to go about this job.

Regarding the Converter, for whomever tried different converters factory/non factory, what stall speed, what worked well on a 4000 LBS cruiser that doesn't feel sluggish off the line but has some "get up and go"?

More information will be provided if able, and the associated noises the transmission is making.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
As to the converter stall speed, Chrysler torque converters were a bit tighter than GM or Ford used back then. That gave them the feel that things were a bit more connected than the others. That orientation worked well with the factory cams back then (and in prior times), which were "small" by comparison to later cams, by observation.

One OTHER issue is that on a street car, the stall speed can affect when the torque converter gets into it's more efficient rpm range (i.e., "lock-up") where it has the least slippage in it. Which can usually mean the car is running at about 50mph on a flat, level roadway. If the lock-up speed is higher than that, throttle response can be soggy rather than not. With your car's axle ratio and tire size, 2000rpm is close to 55mph already, which makes the factory 1600-1800 stall speed range applicable.

On my '70 Monaco 383 4bbl, with 3.23 and P225/75R-15, 2000rpm is more like 50mph. At 60mph the throttle response seems a bit dead, but at 62mph, it is very "tight" from there on up. This is with the 10.75" factory torque converter. Originally, I felt it was the interaction of the cam, intake, carburetor, and such that caused this. After I installed a factory crate THM350 in my '77 Camaro (2000rpm = 62mph), the V-6 converter behind a V-8 caused a fuel economy loss until I learned to drive it better on the highway. Being that it suddenly took a bit more throttle to go up hills and such due to the converter not being "locked-up" at 55mph (when the national speed limit was 55mph). So easing into higher speeds was needed rather than not.

As to my last point, it could well be that Chrysler's consistent wins in the Mobil Fuel Economy run competitions was due to their tighter torque converter designs, too. Granted, from what I have read, Chrysler operatives took those wins to be just as important as their cars winning national NHRA and NASCAR races, so there was a high degree of execution in how those drivers motivated their cars to be "the ones to beat" in ALL size and engine classes. All engineering specs were important too.

Perhaps my spending longer times in our '66 Newport driving back and forth to college (4 hours each way) once a month, back then, allowed me to get a more bit "tuned into" the car, how the suspension felt at various road speeds, how the engine responded to very minor throttle inputs, and the long range radio reception (and frequency response) of the factory AM radio. I learned a lot about what made Chrysler vehicles the great vehicles they were . . . something which others might not have paid attention to as they spent less time with their vehicles each time they drove them. I learned that each powertrain combination had its own "sweet spot" cruising speed, too. For the 383 2bbls with 2.76 rear axle ratio, H78-14 tires, and HD factory shocks, it was 75-90mph. At 70mph it was bored, at 92mph, not enough shock and spring. So 75-90 was it, also being on the top of the torque curve rpm, too. GM and Fords did not seem to have such sweet spots other than with their engines, by comparison.

I was always impressed with the tightness of the off-idle throttle response of the '63-era Chrysler products. Throttle response was immediate and swift, by observation, even with a 318 Poly 2bbl. Might not lay rubber, but the efficiency of the aluminum case 727 was legendary, back then. One reason that after about the first 20' on a drag strip, the 727 would beat a 4-speed to the end of the track. Chevies, by comparison, needed a 4-speed to be successful, until the THM400 appeared later. Yet the PowerGlides consumed less power to operate than any other automatic transmission, just did not have the low gear to get it off the line quicker.

I know, it's harder to keep up with modern traffic patterns, where every other car around can easily leave you behind. But just consider that it would take EFI and a ZF 8-speed automatic behind your engine in your car to compete with them. With a "Break-away" torque multiplication of over 9:1 in those transmissions ALONE, compared to 5:1 in a TF, so no reason to try to compete, per se, but some tweaks can increase the "street cred" a bit, though. Sometimes, I'm intrigued by how such a modernized combination might feel to drive, whether a Chrysler or my '77 Camaro 355 . . . heck, ANYTHING from back then.

Sorry for the length,
CBODY67
 
While I haven’t done what you are planning, I say go for it. From what I have read, the 727 is a rather easy transmission to rebuild.

I’d pull it out from the bottom. You may have to get the car in the air a bit to do it, but very achievable.

Lots of knowledge about what you are planning lives here on this forum. Start a thread on your plan (or use this one) and get to it!
 
You will have trouble finding lots of torque converters with your 19 spline input shaft. I would not move much from stock, small engine, small cam, small heads. Most likely just get yours rebuilt, and if you have a shop in your area that understands if you say you want it a little looser that would be okay. If they do not understand drop it and move on.
 
I have a 19 spline TC and you won't find any of those with different stall speeds. I had mine rebuilt to handle a higher stall (2800-ish). Not sure of the name of the company, but they came recommended to me by my transmission guy. You may want to consult a tranny shop and see what they say, or hit up the ol googlizer.
 
The first boost in performance it to get rid of the 2.76 gears. They kill the torque. 2 ideas here

1) Think of removing lug nuts, the longer the breaker bar the easier it is to do the work.

2) Think of your bicycle riding days. Starting off in 10th gear was difficult and you had no torque to get moving, but great when at speed. Change the gear and you could go up hills easily.

Both examples were using the same powerplant with different leverage.

Especially if you want to change the torque converter. It will just slip more than it should from loading the engine more.

That’s why Chrysler Corp cars with Trailer towing package come with 3.23 gears.
 
You will have trouble finding lots of torque converters with your 19 spline input shaft.
A&A did have various performance converters listed, as well as valve bodies, ETC for pre'65 tranmissions..... I'd certainly call them for any hard parts you may need. There are not many cores floating around as far as the valve body is concerned, and you should be aware that those do crack.... I'll try to find a pic of the weak spot, but plan to examine yours carefully.

Tom Hand's book is flat out awesome when it comes to the pictures presented, and the instruction is very good as well. If you do consider another book, I would recommend Carl Munroe's as well, but you may not need it.
 
Thanks to all who have chipped in, will go about things once the ball starts rolling!
Also I did forget to mention.

I'll read through the books and get aquatinted with the various parts that reside below the transmission tunnel, I was considering Carl munroe's book a while back. I'll just get it, since more information can't possibly hurt.

I did consider getting a 2.92 or 3.23 gears and add an Gear Vendor overdrive, but unfortunately it might not be in the budget, but we'll see.

Consensus is the 2000 RPM converter is the "neighborhoody" choice to go with.

More on later if able, appreciate the information so far gentleman.
 
Last edited:
You can find 19 spline converters, just mentioning it is something to be aware of.
I will agree A&A is good for parts. Don't fall down the rabbit hole of buying racing parts for your transmission. Not to say don't buy things but a stock 727 behind a 361 is a stout piece. Definitely add a transgo kit.
 
My 383 Coronet wagon is great with stock converter and 2.94 rear. I find it perfect for both city and highway. I have the engine torque up a bit. Strong RV cam, 440 source heads, Edelbrock performer intake, Thermoquad, curved distributor, shorty TTI headers with full 2.5 dual exhaust from TTI, 275/60r15 rear tires. etc Etc....

IMG_2385.jpeg


IMG_5315.jpeg


IMG_5200.jpeg


IMG_5195.jpeg
 
Awesome, I was afraid that someone was going to shun the 361, glad to hear from another person that it's an absolute unit.

The 2.92 gears I was looking for around junkyards but it's quite difficult to locate one out of a Full-size or C-body.

And an RV cam, like a 260/260 cam?
 
Awesome, I was afraid that someone was going to shun the 361, glad to hear from another person that it's an absolute unit.

The 2.92 gears I was looking for around junkyards but it's quite difficult to locate one out of a Full-size or C-body.

And an RV cam, like a 260/260 cam?
My papers show it is a 260H. It came with the short block in a deal for unpaid labour. I am still going to rebuild my original 383 one day to my specs. I will remove the shorty headers as well. I am sure it will hurt performance but I don't see any high RPM runs to much in the wagons future, the HP Manifolds and stock looking engines are cool by me.
Just looking through the wagons file, it could be a 268H in there. It's been a while and a bunch of other builds ago.
 
Look at Lunati Cams, some of which Summit sells for a good price. But with the smaller engine, it can be easier to over-cam it than with a 440, for example. They, like CompCams, have or used to have some cams with assymetrical lobes that puts more area under the lift curve for better cyl filling.

2.94s were common for many years, but then relegated to LA motor use, it seems, in a smaller ring gear rear axle.

Using an OD mechanism with anything less than about a 3.55 or so gear will put the cruise rpm too low for good engine throttle response and fuel economy, especially with a looser torque converter, typically. Factory 3-speed/ODs usually had 3.7 rear axle ratios for that reason.
 
My papers show it is a 260H. It came with the short block in a deal for unpaid labour. I am still going to rebuild my original 383 one day to my specs. I will remove the shorty headers as well. I am sure it will hurt performance but I don't see any high RPM runs to much in the wagons future, the HP Manifolds and stock looking engines are cool by me.
Just looking through the wagons file, it could be a 268H in there. It's been a while and a bunch of other builds ago.
A while back I've been perusing the catalogue for a 260/260 cam but it's comp cams. And recently I've seen/heard comp cams had various cam failures.

So I might consider Lunatic, voodoo cams.
 
A while back I've been perusing the catalogue for a 260/260 cam but it's comp cams. And recently I've seen/heard comp cams had various cam failures.

So I might consider Lunatic, voodoo cams.
Like I said, the cam came with the short block from a dead beat old customer. It is a Comp and I would not have gone that route. Been bitten a few times. Howards have a good product, I have been told a few times that they do the cams for Hughes Engines. Might check if the have any RV cams.
I took a look. | Howards Cams
 
Like I said, the cam came with the short block from a dead beat old customer. It is a Comp and I would not have gone that route. Been bitten a few times. Howards have a good product, I have been told a few times that they do the cams for Hughes Engines. Might check if the have any RV cams.
I took a look. | Howards Cams
Maybe the comp cams cam you had in there was when comp was making good cams now a days I hear bad news.
 
Like I said, the cam came with the short block from a dead beat old customer. It is a Comp and I would not have gone that route. Been bitten a few times. Howards have a good product, I have been told a few times that they do the cams for Hughes Engines. Might check if the have any RV cams.
I took a look. | Howards Cams
Will do, will check out Howard's also, thanks.
 
Ok, so I took a look at A & A transmission website, there seems to be a rebuild kit with kolene steels, would you consider getting individual transmission parts or an overhaul kit?

Or just not even look at the catalogue until the trans is disassembled?

I assume engine rebuilding is manner similar?
Don't even think about the catalogue until the rotating assembly is inspected?
 
Last edited:
As to the converter stall speed, Chrysler torque converters were a bit tighter than GM or Ford used back then. That gave them the feel that things were a bit more connected than the others. That orientation worked well with the factory cams back then (and in prior times), which were "small" by comparison to later cams, by observation.

One OTHER issue is that on a street car, the stall speed can affect when the torque converter gets into it's more efficient rpm range (i.e., "lock-up") where it has the least slippage in it. Which can usually mean the car is running at about 50mph on a flat, level roadway. If the lock-up speed is higher than that, throttle response can be soggy rather than not. With your car's axle ratio and tire size, 2000rpm is close to 55mph already, which makes the factory 1600-1800 stall speed range applicable.

On my '70 Monaco 383 4bbl, with 3.23 and P225/75R-15, 2000rpm is more like 50mph. At 60mph the throttle response seems a bit dead, but at 62mph, it is very "tight" from there on up. This is with the 10.75" factory torque converter. Originally, I felt it was the interaction of the cam, intake, carburetor, and such that caused this. After I installed a factory crate THM350 in my '77 Camaro (2000rpm = 62mph), the V-6 converter behind a V-8 caused a fuel economy loss until I learned to drive it better on the highway. Being that it suddenly took a bit more throttle to go up hills and such due to the converter not being "locked-up" at 55mph (when the national speed limit was 55mph). So easing into higher speeds was needed rather than not.

As to my last point, it could well be that Chrysler's consistent wins in the Mobil Fuel Economy run competitions was due to their tighter torque converter designs, too. Granted, from what I have read, Chrysler operatives took those wins to be just as important as their cars winning national NHRA and NASCAR races, so there was a high degree of execution in how those drivers motivated their cars to be "the ones to beat" in ALL size and engine classes. All engineering specs were important too.

Perhaps my spending longer times in our '66 Newport driving back and forth to college (4 hours each way) once a month, back then, allowed me to get a more bit "tuned into" the car, how the suspension felt at various road speeds, how the engine responded to very minor throttle inputs, and the long range radio reception (and frequency response) of the factory AM radio. I learned a lot about what made Chrysler vehicles the great vehicles they were . . . something which others might not have paid attention to as they spent less time with their vehicles each time they drove them. I learned that each powertrain combination had its own "sweet spot" cruising speed, too. For the 383 2bbls with 2.76 rear axle ratio, H78-14 tires, and HD factory shocks, it was 75-90mph. At 70mph it was bored, at 92mph, not enough shock and spring. So 75-90 was it, also being on the top of the torque curve rpm, too. GM and Fords did not seem to have such sweet spots other than with their engines, by comparison.

I was always impressed with the tightness of the off-idle throttle response of the '63-era Chrysler products. Throttle response was immediate and swift, by observation, even with a 318 Poly 2bbl. Might not lay rubber, but the efficiency of the aluminum case 727 was legendary, back then. One reason that after about the first 20' on a drag strip, the 727 would beat a 4-speed to the end of the track. Chevies, by comparison, needed a 4-speed to be successful, until the THM400 appeared later. Yet the PowerGlides consumed less power to operate than any other automatic transmission, just did not have the low gear to get it off the line quicker.

I know, it's harder to keep up with modern traffic patterns, where every other car around can easily leave you behind. But just consider that it would take EFI and a ZF 8-speed automatic behind your engine in your car to compete with them. With a "Break-away" torque multiplication of over 9:1 in those transmissions ALONE, compared to 5:1 in a TF, so no reason to try to compete, per se, but some tweaks can increase the "street cred" a bit, though. Sometimes, I'm intrigued by how such a modernized combination might feel to drive, whether a Chrysler or my '77 Camaro 355 . . . heck, ANYTHING from back then.

Sorry for the length,
CBODY67
Great write up. Gives u the idea of all the niuances that go into making and feeling the power on the road.
 
Back
Top