torque converters: locker vs non lock up

[slant6billy]

Revisit in a sorts.

Lock up type: better fuel economy/ emissions

Non lock up: Able to handle gobbs of power

Now the question is for my friends in he know......

Could a lock up trans from say 1981 or newer get a non locker converter? Are they easily interchanged?

Can you go with one and not the other? What about balance weights? Engines internally balanced or externally balanced come into play.

Inquiring minds want to know

Thanks

 

[Jack Meoff]

I've heard you can disable the lockup....
That's the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

 

[BHA43]

Can't swap them, plumbed & machined diff!

 

[kkritsilas]

I think the number of splines on the input shaft of the transmission is different between lock up and non-lock up versions. There are plumbing differences as well.

Kostas

 

[MiradaMegacab]

You can disable the lockup function.
I did this when I melted the lockup clutch material in the converter, after toping off the fluid with dexron....

The valve bodies are different (lockup has a tube)
The input shafts are different, so converters will not interchange.

The converters weights can be knocked off and B&M has a offset weighted flexplate for balance issues(internal and externally ballanced engines)

 

[Jack Meoff]

You can disable the lockup function.
I did this when I melted the lockup clutch material in the converter, after toping off the fluid with dexron....

Would you mind educating the uneducated?
I thought you were supposed to use dexron.....?

 

[MiradaMegacab]

I topped it off with dexron or mercon and within one week I had an extreme amount of chatter during lockup.
The filter would clog with red clutch particles, so bad that the pump would cavitate resulting in no vehicle movement.
I did a couple of filter/ fluid changes but the damage was done and the clutch particles kept covering the filter.
I jambed the lockup function valve, rendering it inoperable.
Then I drove the car that way for years....
It ran fine on Mopar7176 fluid.
Now I just use Mooar ATF+4 on my daily drivers.
Type F on my non lockup 727's

 

[Jack Meoff]

I topped it off with dexron or mercon and within one week I had an extreme amount of chatter during lockup.
The filter would clog with red clutch particles, so bad that the pump would cavitate resulting in no vehicle movement.
I did a couple of filter/ fluid changes but the damage was done and the clutch particles kept covering the filter.
I jambed the lockup function valve, rendering it inoperable.
Then I drove the car that way for years....
It ran fine on Mopar7176 fluid.
Now I just use Mooar ATF+4 on my daily drivers.
Type F on my non lockup 727's

I ask because I've always known torqueflites to use dexron/mercron
So I'm trying to wrap my head around how that would damage it.
ATF 4 is synthetic isn't it. Meaning you'd have to do a full flush to change over to it...correct?
The other reason I'm asking is because now you're giving me the willies about using dexron to top mine up. Would you recommend strictly Mopar 7176?

 

[MiradaMegacab]

7176 was superseded with ATF4.
Ive always used Mopar 7176 or MoparATF4 but with this particular car, the previous owner flushed it with dexron and had left a spare quart in the trunk. The trans functioned fine until I topoed it off......
Dont get the willies, relax. Drink a Coca-Cola....lol I mean a Tim Hortens cup of coffee and use ATF4 in the future.
There has been plenty of debate on what fluid to use, but Id recommend to stick with Mopar spec ATF4
Non lockup transmissions can use TypeF for firmer shifts. Again, plenty of opinions on this.

 

[Jack Meoff]

Just to put the last nail in this one.....
Me thinks me's gonna do a tranny flush and refill with ATF+4.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/transmissions/fluids.html

And thanks to Robert I already have the procedure...

http://www.forfmjbodiesonly.com/cla...ice-Fluid-Change&p=31719&viewfull=1#post31719


Sorry for the hijack.....

 

[kkritsilas]

7176 was superseded by ATF+3. ATF+4 superseded ATF+3. Performance is the same between ATF+3 and ATF+4. ATF+4 is better long term at maintaining performance. I'm pretty sure that they have all been designed to intermix with no issues, so topping up a 7176 or ATF+3 containing tranmission with ATF+4 should not present an issue. I don't know what would happen with transmissions containing type F or Dexron fluid. I have no doubt that Chrysler engineering very carefully engineered both ATF+3 to work properly with 7176, and ATF+4 to work properly with ATF+3, I'm pretty sure they didn't consider either type F or Dexron much in regards to how they would mix with either ATF+3 or ATF+4, so this is an unknown.

Kostas

P.S. ATF+3 is 7176D, and ATF+4 is 7176E (so they are all part of the same 7176 family) accirding to the Allpar article above.

 

[jasperjacko]

I use atf 4 also

 

[80mirada]

I have had good luck with ATF-3 and -4. I would only use ATF -4 in lockup and modern mopar transmissions. I have seen too many trans fry while using the generic "Dexron".

 

[M_Body_Coupe]

You could swap the valve bodies, or block off the lock-up valve from engaging...however, the trans input shaft is the bigger problem. If I remember correctly the non-lockup has splines machined all the way to the end, whereas the lockup units have about 1/2" of the shaft left as the very end with no splines on it...

What I'm actually curious about is whether you could mount a non-lockup converter on a lockup trans input shaft??? Presumably the non-machined shaft piece would simply slide into the converter and simply NOT engage.

 

[80mirada]

Splines are different to prevent installing the wrong converter. TCI had non lockup converters for lock up trans at one time. They have since came out with hi-performance lock up ones, as have Hughes and ACC

 

[Master M]

I ask because I've always known torqueflites to use dexron/mercron
So I'm trying to wrap my head around how that would damage it.
ATF 4 is synthetic isn't it. Meaning you'd have to do a full flush to change over to it...correct?
The other reason I'm asking is because now you're giving me the willies about using dexron to top mine up. Would you recommend strictly Mopar 7176?

I use non synthetic ATF 4.

 

[NoCar340]

It depends on how you want the transmission to behave. If you want a soft-shifting luxury transmission, run ATF+4. If you want the "spec" fluid, use Dexron II, which as far as I know is not available anymore since the supercession to Dexron III/Mercon. If you don't mind feeling the transmission shifting and actually want it to last, then you run Type F or FA (old-school Ford fluid). Yes, the transmission will shift harder. It will also run cooler and last much longer. Harder-shifting automatics last longer, period. Type F/FA has been a well-known "speed secret" openly embraced by Chrysler Engineering for 50 years, recommended by Chrysler to their racers during that time, and used by both racers and street freaks in non-electric transmissions (anything that doesn't end in RE) for longer than I've been alive. It's the only thing I've ever used, and I've never burned up a transmission in a Mopar. Tom Hoover would've told you the same thing.

As far as ATF+4 being better than Dex II/III, there are hundreds of thousands of Chrysler truck and car owners who'd beg to differ. Other than the A-Slip04, Chrysler never had automatic transmission issues until the switch to +3/+4. Chrysler suddenly had enormous transmission woes with trucks and the LH cars that they'd never had previously. Whether it was directly the fault of +3/+4 is open to question since it could be that people just want transmissions that slip so they can't feel them shift. I, on the other hand, like to feel a positive engagement and maybe even a 1-2 squeal under hard acceleration, so Type F it is.

 

[Darth-Car]

As far as ATF+4 being better than Dex II/III, there are hundreds of thousands of Chrysler truck and car owners who'd beg to differ. Other than the A-Slip04, Chrysler never had automatic transmission issues until the switch to +3/+4. Chrysler suddenly had enormous transmission woes with trucks and the LH cars that they'd never had previously. Whether it was directly the fault of +3/+4 is open to question since it could be that people just want transmissions that slip so they can't feel them shift. I, on the other hand, like to feel a positive engagement and maybe even a 1-2 squeal under hard acceleration, so Type F it is.

I dispute none of what you speak about the type F fluid. It was how I was taught. Then as the late 80's the A604 Ultradrive showed up on the front drive cars, and dealers had to have a special tech in the shop just to swap dead trany's, because so many came in every week. Their eventual solution was a reprogram map for the computer, and the introduction the Chrysler spec'ed sythetic +4 fluid. So now I am really confused what to put in a modern Chrysler trany. Plus the use of Synthetic fluids is suposed to reduce friction which in turn causes cooler running conditions for machinery like engines, and trany's. I'm so confused!

 

[kkritsilas]

I think the baseline to everything, on all parts, is: If in doubt, do what is recommended in the factory manual. The manual may not be optimal in all circumstances, but it shouldn't damage anything to follow recommendations.

The A604 was a bad design. Simple as that. The fact that ATF +3/+4 was the fluid recommended really wasn't a factor. Those transmissions, especially when used in the first mini-vans, was not up to the task; a van that was a lot heavier than the K car (transmission was sort of marginal on that car), which could also carry a lot more (i.e. weight), yet the transmission is the same. Any wonder the mini-vans ate those transmissions lie a fat guy eating potato chips?

 

[7T8 Custom]

Hey now. I like potato chips too.