[Verdoro 68]

I've ran a 13" Continental converter for years with my 400 with 3.55s. It never really knocked my socks off as everyone said it would, but it worked well enough. Now that I'm moving up to a 461 it seems like a good time to revisit the converter.

I dropped my TH400 off at the trans shop this afternoon for a rebuild. The owner was asking about my combo and what I wanted to do for a stall. He suggested a 2300-2500 stall, which is a little higher than the Continental. I didn't want to go too nuts so I told him to stick around the 2300. He offered to restall the Continental, is there any reason not to do that?

I haven't 100% settled on a cam yet. Butler said the Kauffmann 224/230/114 I have on hand would work fine with the bigger cubes, but I think I'd like to go a little bigger to a 230/236/112. They're not radically different cams so I can't imagine the decision would have too much impact on a stall choice.

Does a 2300 stall sound about right? What else should I specify? I remember Kris at Continental used to have tight and loose converters.

[lust4speed]

I would go for the 230/236 because the additional cubes are going to eat up some of the choppiness of the cam, and that Stump Puller sized cam still has docile street manners.

My cloudy crystal ball says you will probably stall about 200 RPM higher with the Continental converter behind the 461 if you don't touch it. 2,300 isn't bad but I personally like 2,600 to 2,800. The main goal should be that the engine doesn't fight the converter when dropped in gear. Nothing worse than going a little larger on the cam and having a too-tight converter fighting the idle.

[Cliff R]

IMPOSSIBLE to recommend a converter or cam without knowing all the engine parameters.

This included CID, heads, compression ratio, etc.

Personally, unless it's a really LOW compression build I wouldn't even look at camshaft with less than 230 @ .050 and nothing tighter than 112LSA.

Below is a cam card and dyno sheet from a 455 Super Duty build with pretty close to stock compression. It idled dead smooth clear down to 600rpms making 16" vacuum at 750rpm's. Even with a 230/236 @ .050" HR cam it was done making power just past 5000rpm's.......

[25stevem]

When the 461 goes in will you be keeping the 3.55s
And please post up the info on that whole 461 combo.

[Verdoro 68]

Here is what’s planned for the combo:

‘68 GTO Hardtop
464 (4.17 bore x 4.25 stroke)
9.5:1 compression (dished pistons)
Unported Ram Air II heads (gasket matched to RA IV)
Ram Air IV intake
‘68 Q-Jet
Ram Air manifolds, 2,5” Pypes exhaust
Th400
3.55 posi

The car has A/C and power brakes.

Here’s the backstory on what got me here: http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...5888&p=6309978

It’s a little bit of an odd combo with those small cc iron heads and big cubes. The original plan was to put the RAII top end on my 400 before I tore it down and found some surprises. I figured the bigger cubes would give me more low end torque.

[JSchmitz]

I'd try the 13" Continental with the additional cubes before changing it. It should stall a little higher. Plus you don't need as much stall with more low end vs. the 400.

[Cliff R]

Agreed, I'd use the Continental 13" unit. They typically stall higher and work a LOT better behind 455's than 400's.

My old 428 sent the 13" unit to right at 2800 stall, the 455 that replaced it sent it to 3200, and it worked very well behind both of those engines.

455 CID at 9.5 to 1 for sure I'd go the larger 230/236/112 cam.........

[PAUL K]

Definetly don't let the guy re-stall the 13" converter. The odds are stacked it will get messed up in the process.

[Verdoro 68]

Although I’ve never been blown over by it, I know the Continental is a solid converter which is why I didn’t want them to crack it open.

Sounds a good plan to try it behind the new combo first since it will stall higher. Maybe it will do better behind the bigger cubes.

It’s not that hard to do a converter swap if I need to down the line. I was actually wondering if I should consider an 11” like the old Jim Hand Special.

[Tandyman]

Jim discusses both converters in this article .

https://pontiacstreetperformance.com...ingupdate.html

Glenn

[grandam1979]

Like said put it in just like it is I think you will be surprised the difference behind the extra cubes

[Tandyman]

Yes, at that point you might want to start wearing sandals whenever you drive the car .

Glenn

[Cliff R]

"Sounds a good plan to try it behind the new combo first since it will stall higher. Maybe it will do better behind the bigger cubes."

We installed a 13" once behind a 400 build making around 1hp/cid. WIth perfect traction in a 4100lb vehicle it flashed to 2400rpm's. A 13" built to the same specs behind my 455 make 1hp/cid went to 3200rpm's.

With converters, especially good ones, the more power you "hit" them with the better they work.

Kris was really good with the 13" units, but we are taking a very efficient full size piece and trying to make it less efficient. As good as they were the 10" units were better everyplace as he was taking a less efficient unit and making it more efficient.

The company making our new 9.5" converters tell me the same thing, FAR better to use a much smaller core and make changes to get it to couple better vs using super efficient 12 or 13" unit and try to kill off it's efficiency........FWIW.....

[25stevem]

Cam pick wise and even with running exh manifolds you need to know that those RAII heads in stock form have a very high exh to intake ratio .
This should be considered in the Cam pick!

[77 TRASHCAN]

What Cliff said!!!

[Cliff R]

Tks.

One more small detail to add when it comes to converters. Above, and I quote "With converters, especially good ones, the more power you "hit" them with the better they work.". Exactly the OPPOSITE with a POS converter. The harder you hit a junk or "loose" converter the WORSE it gets. You can actually "push" right thru one with an engine that makes tons of low end and mid-range power.

Even with that said some engines absolutely LOVE a converter with a lot of torque multiplication and "loose" characteristics. These engines will be lower compression and poorly chosen camshaft where they really don't "hit" the converter very hard or are they trying to split it in halve with butt-tons of mid-range power.

I've been selling custom built converters now over 23 years. Almost 20 years we sold Continental custom built units (I actually tested several variants of their 10" units for them). In all those years we had 2 complaints, the customers actually hated them. When I went back over their engine specs they had smaller CID engines, one was a 400, the other a 428, just a tad over 9 to 1 compression, and HUGE camshafts on either 108 or 110LSA's. I'm guessing herek, but locking either of those engines down hard at lower RPM's just didn't work well, they needed converters that were much less efficient to allow those engines to spin up quickly to much higher RPM's where they were making decent power.

Coincidentally I have seen the EXACT same thing now with the TSP units we've been selling. Two major complaints to date, and both of them were near mirror images of the engines that hated the Continental units.

I put that out there as food for thought. IF you are coming up with a "recipe" for your new engine build, and buying into the complete nonsense about 9.5 to 1 compression for pump gas, or trying to keep the compression really low, then buying heavily ported heads and trying to cam the engine to effectively use them, plus wanting "menacing" idle quality from really tight LSA, a super-tight/efficient converter should NOT be on your wish list anyplace.

On the flip side, IF you are using optimum compression for pump gas, very well chosen camshaft, efficient cylinder heads, and it's going to be making over 500ft lbs torque clear across the loaded RPM range, the most important item on your wish list should be a converter that has good torque multiplication, efficient for "normal" driving, flashes high enough to launch your car into the high 1.5/low 1.6 60' times with traction, plus locked nearly solid above the stall speed to effectively use all that power (torque).......FWIW........Cliff

[Verdoro 68]

I'm guessing herek, but locking either of those engines down hard at lower RPM's just didn't work well, they needed converters that were much less efficient to allow those engines to spin up quickly to much higher RPM's where they were making decent power.

This describes what I experienced - I found myself downshifting quite a bit to get it in the power band. First with a Crower 60916 (112 LSA) and the with a Lunati 702 (110 LSA). It was ok with the 916, but not a lot of fun to drive with the 702.

I’m leaning towards the 230/236 on a 114 for this build. I’ll put the Continental behind it and see how it goes.

[rohrt]

Originally Posted by Verdoro 68

I've ran a 13" Continental converter for years with my 400 with 3.55s. It never really knocked my socks off as everyone said it would, but it worked well enough. Now that I'm moving up to a 461 it seems like a good time to revisit the converter.

I dropped my TH400 off at the trans shop this afternoon for a rebuild. The owner was asking about my combo and what I wanted to do for a stall. He suggested a 2300-2500 stall, which is a little higher than the Continental. I didn't want to go too nuts so I told him to stick around the 2300. He offered to restall the Continental, is there any reason not to do that?

I haven't 100% settled on a cam yet. Butler said the Kauffmann 224/230/114 I have on hand would work fine with the bigger cubes, but I think I'd like to go a little bigger to a 230/236/112. They're not radically different cams so I can't imagine the decision would have too much impact on a stall choice.

Does a 2300 stall sound about right? What else should I specify? I remember Kris at Continental used to have tight and loose converters.

Verdoro

My experience was much like yours. My 13" Continental didn't perform great at all with my 468 build. I could maybe get at most 2200 flash stall out of it. I still have it down in my basement (no its not for sale). I don't recall if it had a P1, P2 or P3 stamped on it.

I the changed things up. Cliff sold me one of the last three 10" converters that Continental had. WOW that was a night and day difference. Now would flash to 26,7,8 hundred and still drive like a normal converter. Most performance cams I have ran in the past don't make great power until they get to closer to 3k rpm. The stump puller and old faithfull cams even more so.

Just my experience.

[Verdoro 68]

One thing I'm taking away here is that I shouldn't be afraid of a 2500+ stall. Since cam and converters are tied together, and the stump puller comes up a lot with strokers...

I noticed Butler's version (and Kauffman's) is more conservative on the lift than SD. Example:

Butler's 230/236, .510/.521 114 vs. the SD's stump puller @ 230/236, .590"/.592" 112

That's a decent amount of difference in lift. WIth unported round port heads, RA manifolds and stock intake, am I leaving much on table with the lower lift and tighter LSA? I ask because the stump puller sure does seem popular.

[Steve C.]

I just now ran across this thread.

A tid bit for interest, there is a mystery that developed.

A personal friend sent back his 9.5-inch custom Tri-Shield Performance (TSP) torque converter for adjustment, it was stalling much higher than expected. It was not spot on for his specific combination. His converter was painted Pontiac Blue. After the work was performed he received back another converter painted a different color. In addition the new or reworked converter was shipped back directly to him from another company, not from TSP.

A FWIW if interested, John who helps maintain my car works with Ultimate Converter Concepts for custom torque converter. Lenny who started that company was good friends years ago with Kriss at Continental converters

https://www.ultimateconverter.com/