fury fan
Senior Member
^^ This.
General A727 Potential R&R questions/suggestions.
- Thread starter Sir Dodge alot
- Start date
65CopCar
Member
Are you calling the right number for A&A? I have never not had them answer. Spoke to them yesterday and today numerous times. Try again and ask for Nick - he is the parts guy and I have had great experiences with him. Rick is overwhelmed with work and does not need to help with a build like this - talk with Nick.
All I will say about John Cope is watch out. Google all the nightmare experiences with him. My buddy was one of the ones with Cope problems. I don't know a single person that has had a problem with A&A unless it parts availability.
fury fan
Senior Member
I hadn't heard anything about CRT problems, but here's a Moparts discussion:
https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3141563/1.html
https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3141563/1.html
Sir Dodge alot
Active Member
Hm, missing Torque converters not being shipped, pan plugs missing, thanks for letting me know.
I guess don't be blindly gullible like me eh?
Sir Dodge alot
Active Member
The one or 2 things I read in the first 2 thread pages was that, the torque converter was not shipped and certain parts were not included.
Buyer error not reading the fine print?
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
Nick is Rick Allison's grandson. Very nice young man who always takes a couple of seconds to talk to a old man who likes to talk about his (Nick's) car. He actually called me after a order to make sure they knew what I wanted to order, so it was proper and not return, resend, repeat. I have nothing but good things to say about A&A. I have never dealt with Cope so no opinion.
Sir Dodge alot
Active Member
Yup confirmed from various sources
(Your link, & CRT)
I would do a burnout, and started in 1st manual, big mistake I've realized now, glad I didn't end up with a grenaded Sprag/Drum, and or bodily harm.
(I doubt the Motor doesn't have tire roasting HP numbers to grenade a Sprag, but 305HP with a 2.76 is a certified burnout stopper, unless in the rain.)
But I'll abstain my grubby mits from coming into contact from "Race" trans parts.
Last edited:
Sir Dodge alot
Active Member
As for the torque converter, can a TC actually wear out to the point of needing a rebuild? Does the stator/impeller/turbine get dull with the constant ATF/friction modifiers beating on the fins?
I reckon I'll rebuild the stock TC if applicable @70bigblockdodge has mentioned a rebuilt TC as well.
I reckon I'll rebuild the stock TC if applicable @70bigblockdodge has mentioned a rebuilt TC as well.
Last edited:
Sir Dodge alot
Active Member
Just spoke/chatted with a gentleman from Hughes performance Torque converters,
He recommended a 2000/2200 stall converter, I believe the torque converter comes from the "street rod" line of torque converters.
Still am considering rebuilding the current TC and see if that works too.
The Torque converter from Hughes runs at about $440 USD.
Specs, or what I can gather.
*Torque converter part number: #19-20
*Torque converter bolt circle 10 inch
*Diameter 11 inch
*Input spline count: 19
*Balanced
*Furnace brazed
He recommended a 2000/2200 stall converter, I believe the torque converter comes from the "street rod" line of torque converters.
Still am considering rebuilding the current TC and see if that works too.
The Torque converter from Hughes runs at about $440 USD.
Specs, or what I can gather.
*Torque converter part number: #19-20
*Torque converter bolt circle 10 inch
*Diameter 11 inch
*Input spline count: 19
*Balanced
*Furnace brazed
Last edited:
Sir Dodge alot
Active Member
Just managed to finally get around to pulling the transmission, next stage, initiate operation: Rebuild & resecitate.
twostick
Senior Member
Gearvendors won't work with a pushbutton TF unless you were to go with a divorced unit which I don't think would be practical to do in a unibody car. On a truck or full frame car you can hang one aft of the trans like a hanger bearing and use a 2 piece drive shaft.
Rick Allison does offer a conversion kit to adapt your typewriter shifter to a 66 and up trans if you did want to do the unitized GV.
As to your torque converter choices, swapping in the 67 and up input shaft and front pump assembly into your transmission opens up a world of more economic choices. There are choices for the 19 spline trans but they are $$$$ compared to the later trans and good luck finding one in stock anywhere.
Kevin
Sir Dodge alot
Active Member
Hello there.
Yes I emailed the gentleman at GV, he told me the same thing.
The early A727's can't work with the GV overdrive unit. But an early trans swap and I'm golden.
But that's all I got.
At a later date, I'll dig into the options of attaching an overdrive, but for now I'll focus on the rebuild of the trans.
Seems like a good time to swap gears also, 2.93? 3.23?
Regarding the torque converter, a gentleman from Hughes performance Torque converters already has recommended me a new TC with the correct spline count.
Ref Post 37 . . . cam specs. If you are going to be using any kind of stock cast iron manifolds on the engine, aim for a cam with more exhaust duration than intake duration. The reason is that the added resistance of the exhaust needs more duration for the gasses to more-fully vacate the combustion chamber. A bit more valve lift helps too.
I strongly concur with the observation that it is much easier to over-cam a smaller engine than a larger one of the same engine family. Aim for a lobe separation angle of 112 degrees to help the idle smoothness.
On the quick open/slow close cam profiles, the valve should stay at max lift for about 10 degrees of crank rotation. More area under the lift curve means more flow. Stock and most other cams only maintain max lift for 1 degree of crank rotation.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
I strongly concur with the observation that it is much easier to over-cam a smaller engine than a larger one of the same engine family. Aim for a lobe separation angle of 112 degrees to help the idle smoothness.
On the quick open/slow close cam profiles, the valve should stay at max lift for about 10 degrees of crank rotation. More area under the lift curve means more flow. Stock and most other cams only maintain max lift for 1 degree of crank rotation.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
An OD unit??? Better get something like a 3.55 or lower rear axle ratio so the OD will work at about 60mph, unless you want to do EFI. A LOT of expense and effort just to get that "better launch" feel, yet the same fuel economy on the highway you now have. Slower engine rpm does NOT always mean better fuel economy, IF the cruise rpm in OD is too low.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Sir Dodge alot
Active Member
Yes Sir, actually with the 2.76 gears is not bad for mileage, I think the max I got was 19/21 MPG.
But then again I'll have to re-evaluate the cam/gear/OD choices, if I intend on doing it seriously. It was more of a "that would be nice to have" spur of moment.
Engine rebuild will be at a later date, honestly I promised myself that I wouldn't rebuild the trans/engine unless it started having issues.
But there are some glaring things that do stand out that's asking the engine to be rebuilt...
transmission seems like the first "to go out"
Just in time I reckon, the transmission's getting it's rebuild for the 64th anniversary with 2024 coming around.
Last edited:
Thanks for the information. I'm not sure under what conditions the 19/21 mpg figures were the result of (i.e., coming downhill from OKC at 60mph with a tailwind), but that is excellent mpg from a car like that. Just after the 55mph national speed limit was in place, I clocked 20mpg in our '66 Newport 383 (2.76/8.55x14 non radials/Holley 2210) at 55mph. BTAIM
When 3spd OD transmissions were available from Chevy, the presence of OD bumped the rear axle ratio to 3.70. I mention that brand as Chrysler did not "play that game" back in the later 1950s as other brands did. That made that combination one of the higher-performing combinations, but the OD units were weak enough that such things were only with the base 6cyls and 200 horsepower V-8s.
In the earlier 1960s era, Chrysler was one of the top competitors in the Mobil Gas Fuel Economy Run competition on USA highways. Much of what they did in tuning the base 2bbl V-8s related to their dominance in that activity. How they drove the cars was to a very high degree of execution to maximize fuel economy on public roads at posted speed limits. ALL of this with vehicles which were not nearly as aerodynamic as modern vehicles are. Nor electronic ignition, radial tires, and EFI.
Getting more power with an existing engine can abe possible with minimal fuel economy drop, with a modern camshaft, better-design carb venturis, electronic ignition, and better exhaust system. Even with the 2.76 rear axle. It's a huge balancing game! With any EFI, driving style can have a huge impact on ultimate mpg, too!
With a rear axle of 3.55 and up, the ease of exhaust flow becomes more important as you can also shift the engine's efficiency range upward into that cruise rpm range. Which means some good headers and 2.25-2.5 exhaust pipes/mufflers. Which can also mean some conservative cyl head porting "touch-ups" to build more flow at the lower-lift areas of the valve lift curve, to build torque rather than 6000rpm horsepower (David Vizard YouTube video series).
Gear Vendors's heritage goes back into the earlier 1980s era when diesel pickups came into existence. Diesel engines from Ford and Cummins with a top governed rpm of 3000rpm. Which meant you either geared them to "pull" or "run down the highway". Gearing "to pull" resulted in some which were maxed out at 65mph. Enter GV and others to allow higher road speeds without harming the "pulling" orientation. Then came the HD OD factory transmissions for these vehicles.
So, when I saw the mention of GV, that was an immediate "red flag" that a better understanding of what an OD installation might cause and its somewhat limited benefits for money spent. Trying t justify such an expense is not financially-justifiable on additional mpg alone, which usually leads to changes which are less expensive with a bigger benefit/dollar spent.
In the 1990s, I received a good number of calls from customers wanting to know what it would cost to change their rear axle ratio in their 1/2 ton pickups. I'd inquire as to what their concerns were. In all cases, the pickups they had bought had a 3.08 rear axle and had the factory OD automatic transmission. Constantly shifting in and out of OD on the highway, in hilly areas, as they were designed to do. Our guys ordered our stock vehicles with 3.42s and they didn't do that nearly as bad, losing some ultimate mph on the highway, but also being more able to haul a 1000lb trailer. At that tiem, a gear change (parts and labor) was about $1000.00. It would have taken LOTS of miles to justify that expense, so I advised that they know that what they thought was "defective" to be "normal" and buy their next pickup with a lower rear axle ratio. At the OEM level, that's all I could recommend. Whereas a private tranmission shop could have swapped some sensors and such or installed a shift kit.
Happy Holidays!
CBODY67
When 3spd OD transmissions were available from Chevy, the presence of OD bumped the rear axle ratio to 3.70. I mention that brand as Chrysler did not "play that game" back in the later 1950s as other brands did. That made that combination one of the higher-performing combinations, but the OD units were weak enough that such things were only with the base 6cyls and 200 horsepower V-8s.
In the earlier 1960s era, Chrysler was one of the top competitors in the Mobil Gas Fuel Economy Run competition on USA highways. Much of what they did in tuning the base 2bbl V-8s related to their dominance in that activity. How they drove the cars was to a very high degree of execution to maximize fuel economy on public roads at posted speed limits. ALL of this with vehicles which were not nearly as aerodynamic as modern vehicles are. Nor electronic ignition, radial tires, and EFI.
Getting more power with an existing engine can abe possible with minimal fuel economy drop, with a modern camshaft, better-design carb venturis, electronic ignition, and better exhaust system. Even with the 2.76 rear axle. It's a huge balancing game! With any EFI, driving style can have a huge impact on ultimate mpg, too!
With a rear axle of 3.55 and up, the ease of exhaust flow becomes more important as you can also shift the engine's efficiency range upward into that cruise rpm range. Which means some good headers and 2.25-2.5 exhaust pipes/mufflers. Which can also mean some conservative cyl head porting "touch-ups" to build more flow at the lower-lift areas of the valve lift curve, to build torque rather than 6000rpm horsepower (David Vizard YouTube video series).
Gear Vendors's heritage goes back into the earlier 1980s era when diesel pickups came into existence. Diesel engines from Ford and Cummins with a top governed rpm of 3000rpm. Which meant you either geared them to "pull" or "run down the highway". Gearing "to pull" resulted in some which were maxed out at 65mph. Enter GV and others to allow higher road speeds without harming the "pulling" orientation. Then came the HD OD factory transmissions for these vehicles.
So, when I saw the mention of GV, that was an immediate "red flag" that a better understanding of what an OD installation might cause and its somewhat limited benefits for money spent. Trying t justify such an expense is not financially-justifiable on additional mpg alone, which usually leads to changes which are less expensive with a bigger benefit/dollar spent.
In the 1990s, I received a good number of calls from customers wanting to know what it would cost to change their rear axle ratio in their 1/2 ton pickups. I'd inquire as to what their concerns were. In all cases, the pickups they had bought had a 3.08 rear axle and had the factory OD automatic transmission. Constantly shifting in and out of OD on the highway, in hilly areas, as they were designed to do. Our guys ordered our stock vehicles with 3.42s and they didn't do that nearly as bad, losing some ultimate mph on the highway, but also being more able to haul a 1000lb trailer. At that tiem, a gear change (parts and labor) was about $1000.00. It would have taken LOTS of miles to justify that expense, so I advised that they know that what they thought was "defective" to be "normal" and buy their next pickup with a lower rear axle ratio. At the OEM level, that's all I could recommend. Whereas a private tranmission shop could have swapped some sensors and such or installed a shift kit.
Happy Holidays!
CBODY67
Sir Dodge alot
Active Member
Fantastic write-up.
Regarding the mpg,
(or the estimates I was able to calculate)
Most of the driving I do was mostly in a straight line, with minimal traffic lights and around 45 to 60 MPH, I guess this fits into the 2.76 gear's potential & was potentially the max mpg/mph I was able to achieve without lugging the engine at higher RPM's.
The mobil fuel economy run, I believe Chrysler did that with their 62' 63' ? Newyorker/Newport Wagons, the 20 ish mpg achieved in the magazine article was quite accurate in terms of long distances cruising, mostly flat roads.
Was a great read.
I just read some tidbits, on the article and I believe the mpg estimates I calculated may be skewed or are flat out incorrect unfortunately,
According to the article.
I'll have to do another long distance calculations again sometime.
fury fan
Senior Member
I did a LOT of OD research about 15-20 years ago when I drove one of my cars a lot of miles each year.
Looked at GV, A518s, the GM 4L60 and 4L80, etc.
Unless you drive ~10k miles on it, year after year, the MPG savings of an OD isn't worth it for $$ spent. Esp if paying someone to perform the installation.
You also really need to swap rearend gears to get the highway RPM in a sweet spot, and that sweet spot is the same as you'd get with 2.76 or 2.94 gears.
And the GV has a much different OD ratio vs most everythign else. It's around .82 IIRC, while most of the RWD car AT-ODs are around .69 in OD.
To me, the GV just wasn't a good fit considering cost, installation (it makes the trans *really* long) and OD ratio. Other options were better.
In the past I read lots of comments from guys who believed if they kept reducing engine RPM that MPG would assuredly increase.
But lugging an old-school carbureted engine isn't always beneficial, they don't perform well with low airflow -- but a modern engine with swirl and tumble heads, VVT, and active intake manifolds can.
I was driving a new-to-me 2012 V6 sedan over the weekend and reset the MPG readout before heading on a cross-town highway trip.
On the way home, I slowed from 75 down to 65 (over several miles) to see how the avg mpg might increase (it had been reset, so the avg was moving responsively).
I noticed as I got around 67 or so the MPG started ticking down in .1 mpg increments.
As I slowly sped back up, I noticed around 69-71mph it started ticking back upward again.
Aero and rolling drag increase non-linearly with speed - there's no denying physics.
So theoretically, as I slowed down those losses were guaranteed to decrease. But the engine's 'curve' is a variable.
55-60 mph would surely make reduced drag losses, but I suspect I'd need to travel in 5th gear (6 speed trans) to get better MPG numbers.
And ~30mpg at 71mph is good enough for me.
In a heavy wagon like this, and with a small 361, I think lugging the engine will suck fuel.
Installing a lower gearset in the 727 (gives 10% deeper 1st and 2nd gear) while keeping the highway gears is interesting to consider, but I don't know if those aftermarket planetaries would match a trans this old. And those planetaries aren't cheap, either.
But it would turn a 2.76 into a 3.04 in gears 1 and 2, or the 2.94 into 3.23, and that would help in city driving.
Looked at GV, A518s, the GM 4L60 and 4L80, etc.
Unless you drive ~10k miles on it, year after year, the MPG savings of an OD isn't worth it for $$ spent. Esp if paying someone to perform the installation.
You also really need to swap rearend gears to get the highway RPM in a sweet spot, and that sweet spot is the same as you'd get with 2.76 or 2.94 gears.
And the GV has a much different OD ratio vs most everythign else. It's around .82 IIRC, while most of the RWD car AT-ODs are around .69 in OD.
To me, the GV just wasn't a good fit considering cost, installation (it makes the trans *really* long) and OD ratio. Other options were better.
This. ^^^
In the past I read lots of comments from guys who believed if they kept reducing engine RPM that MPG would assuredly increase.
But lugging an old-school carbureted engine isn't always beneficial, they don't perform well with low airflow -- but a modern engine with swirl and tumble heads, VVT, and active intake manifolds can.
I was driving a new-to-me 2012 V6 sedan over the weekend and reset the MPG readout before heading on a cross-town highway trip.
On the way home, I slowed from 75 down to 65 (over several miles) to see how the avg mpg might increase (it had been reset, so the avg was moving responsively).
I noticed as I got around 67 or so the MPG started ticking down in .1 mpg increments.
As I slowly sped back up, I noticed around 69-71mph it started ticking back upward again.
Aero and rolling drag increase non-linearly with speed - there's no denying physics.
So theoretically, as I slowed down those losses were guaranteed to decrease. But the engine's 'curve' is a variable.
55-60 mph would surely make reduced drag losses, but I suspect I'd need to travel in 5th gear (6 speed trans) to get better MPG numbers.
And ~30mpg at 71mph is good enough for me.
In a heavy wagon like this, and with a small 361, I think lugging the engine will suck fuel.
Installing a lower gearset in the 727 (gives 10% deeper 1st and 2nd gear) while keeping the highway gears is interesting to consider, but I don't know if those aftermarket planetaries would match a trans this old. And those planetaries aren't cheap, either.
But it would turn a 2.76 into a 3.04 in gears 1 and 2, or the 2.94 into 3.23, and that would help in city driving.
fury fan
Senior Member
I would agree with that in general.
But this 361 shares a near-identical cam with what was used in 383-2 and the 350hp 440s - so as-is, I doubt the exhaust lobe is hindering it with the factory cam.
I would love to know how much a Lunati Voodoo cam (one of the smaller sizes) would help a 361.
They provide a lot more area under the curve vs other similar-duration cams.
We really don't hear much about folks working with a 361. It's the 413 of the B-series.
The reason that we don't see or hear of many people upgrading 361s is that their 4bbl versions were in the 1962-64 era, with their later years being as 2bbls only. 383 4bbls were the power upgrade motor in Plymouths and Dodges so that's where everybody went.
Once Chrysler got away from their 1958-era cams, the exhaust duration and lift was greater than the intakes in the performance options, 99% of the time. Kind of weird to think that the '66 383/270 2bbl cam's specs basically started with the 350 2x4bbl 1958 Fury and later Chrysler 413s.
If you start to look at Chrysler 383 horsepower specs, cam specs, carb sizes, etc. starting in about 1960, it's kind of hard to compare the 383/330 motor (as to justifying that power level) with the 1970 383/330 4bbl (1.74" exhaust valves and more "cam"). The little things like distributor advance, exhaust manifold and pipe sizes, and such tend to add to the mess. Now that I have more time, I could possibly get more into what's what, but I'm not sure I could prove anything rational. And THEN to determine the "size of the horses" between the decades!
Happy Holidays,
CBODY67
Once Chrysler got away from their 1958-era cams, the exhaust duration and lift was greater than the intakes in the performance options, 99% of the time. Kind of weird to think that the '66 383/270 2bbl cam's specs basically started with the 350 2x4bbl 1958 Fury and later Chrysler 413s.
If you start to look at Chrysler 383 horsepower specs, cam specs, carb sizes, etc. starting in about 1960, it's kind of hard to compare the 383/330 motor (as to justifying that power level) with the 1970 383/330 4bbl (1.74" exhaust valves and more "cam"). The little things like distributor advance, exhaust manifold and pipe sizes, and such tend to add to the mess. Now that I have more time, I could possibly get more into what's what, but I'm not sure I could prove anything rational. And THEN to determine the "size of the horses" between the decades!
Happy Holidays,
CBODY67
Similar threads
