Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Converter specification #3061582
07/22/22 10:39 AM
07/22/22 10:39 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 81
Sweden
M
MikeN Offline OP
member
MikeN  Offline OP
member
M

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 81
Sweden
When checking measurements before installation of torque converter all are OK except that the 0.44" converter pilot won´t fit in the 0.38" deep crankshaft, measured from crankshaft flange.
The problems seem to be common, here are a few other threads; Thread 1, Thread 2 and Thread 3.
But I can´t find an explanation for this problem. Is it stacked up tolerances, faulty (re-)manufacturing or wrong specifikation?

In my case the converter is a MP "econo" converter part no P4876870 that is used with a non lock-up 727 from 1978, part no 4058114. The recommended flexplate P5007378 did not fit the profile of the converter, instead a B&M 10231 is used.
Crankshaft is aftermarket but, as I understand, with similar dimensions as mentioned in Thread 3 (0.638 deep measured from a 0.256 tall register) so I conclude its useable.

A comparison between the MP and B&M flexplates show that the B&M is 0.480 tall and 0.126 thick, the MP is 0.377 and 0.111. The profiles are also different. This is hardly a faulty manufacturing but rather a different specification for different converters. But in litterature all non lock-up 1966- converters are described as interchangeable which they obviously not are.
An attached print out from an old Transtar catalog shows converters with thin and thick pads. Can they replace each other?

In the threads above, the converter is often replaced. But what converter specification should I use then?

20220722_130947.jpg
Attached PDF document
116.pdf (15 downloads)
Last edited by MikeN; 07/22/22 10:57 AM.
Re: Converter specification [Re: MikeN] #3061611
07/22/22 12:09 PM
07/22/22 12:09 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,894
Rio Linda, CA
John_Kunkel Offline
Too Many Posts
John_Kunkel  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,894
Rio Linda, CA
Are you relying on measurements only or have you actually tried installing the converter against the installed flex plate?


The INTERNET, the MISinformation superhighway
Re: Converter specification [Re: MikeN] #3061631
07/22/22 02:14 PM
07/22/22 02:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,232
Bend,OR USA
C
Cab_Burge Offline
I Win
Cab_Burge  Offline
I Win
C

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,232
Bend,OR USA
i have had to add harden head bolt washers on one aftermarket converter on a car years ago to get the converter to pull up to the flex plate without bowing the flex plate backwards towards the converter wrench work
On my old S/P car with a power glide behind the 400 stroker motor same drill, space the converter with harden washers wrench

Last edited by Cab_Burge; 07/22/22 02:15 PM.

Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
Re: Converter specification [Re: Cab_Burge] #3061639
07/22/22 02:45 PM
07/22/22 02:45 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,894
Rio Linda, CA
John_Kunkel Offline
Too Many Posts
John_Kunkel  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,894
Rio Linda, CA
Anything but a straight-up installation is just a band-aid approach. If the parts don't fit, find out why and correct the problem.


The INTERNET, the MISinformation superhighway
Re: Converter specification [Re: John_Kunkel] #3061795
07/23/22 09:35 AM
07/23/22 09:35 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 81
Sweden
M
MikeN Offline OP
member
MikeN  Offline OP
member
M

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 81
Sweden
Thanks for replies.

John: Both measured and test installed, unfortunately with the same result.
Cab: Installing 0.06" washers between flexplate and converter would reduce the converter clearence from recommended 0.12" to just 0.06" and risk other problems on engine and transmission.

In Thread 1 i the first post, the converter was sent back to the manufacturer to have the pilot shortened. Is this a common/simple procedure on 727 converters or will it require a complete rebuild?

Re: Converter specification [Re: MikeN] #3061877
07/23/22 03:46 PM
07/23/22 03:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,894
Rio Linda, CA
John_Kunkel Offline
Too Many Posts
John_Kunkel  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,894
Rio Linda, CA
As long as machining the nose of the pilot hub doesn't make the metal too thin, it isn't a problem. A simple "tink" test should show if the metal is thin. This is a basic lathe operation, no need to return it to the maker.


The INTERNET, the MISinformation superhighway
Re: Converter specification [Re: MikeN] #3062196
07/24/22 07:36 PM
07/24/22 07:36 PM
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,087
Michigan
A
A727Tflite Offline
master
A727Tflite  Offline
master
A

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,087
Michigan
Originally Posted by MikeN
When checking measurements before installation of torque converter all are OK except that the 0.44" converter pilot won´t fit in the 0.38" deep crankshaft, measured from crankshaft flange.
The problems seem to be common, here are a few other threads; Thread 1, Thread 2 and Thread 3.
But I can´t find an explanation for this problem. Is it stacked up tolerances, faulty (re-)manufacturing or wrong specifikation?

In my case the converter is a MP "econo" converter part no P4876870 that is used with a non lock-up 727 from 1978, part no 4058114. The recommended flexplate P5007378 did not fit the profile of the converter, instead a B&M 10231 is used.
Crankshaft is aftermarket but, as I understand, with similar dimensions as mentioned in Thread 3 (0.638 deep measured from a 0.256 tall register) so I conclude its useable.

A comparison between the MP and B&M flexplates show that the B&M is 0.480 tall and 0.126 thick, the MP is 0.377 and 0.111. The profiles are also different. This is hardly a faulty manufacturing but rather a different specification for different converters. But in litterature all non lock-up 1966- converters are described as interchangeable which they obviously not are.
An attached print out from an old Transtar catalog shows converters with thin and thick pads. Can they replace each other?

In the threads above, the converter is often replaced. But what converter specification should I use then?


Faulty manufacturing and wrong/no specifications.

ALL production converters had the same “cup to lug” specification for the 727. Because they were all built to the same print.

The aftermarket copies what they can but since every converter company does as they please the ultimate user is at the mercy of the mfg.

As for clearance between the converter lug and driveplate, by design there should be some.







Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1