BD's new X convertor

[BRoth]

Dodge Torque convertor technology has just made a big leap!

We are now building the new 7X torque convertor which contains;

1. BD’s X stator that is machined from a solid piece of aluminum. We are releasing 2 stator designs that have Fin length, Fin angle and Fin curvature designs to meet the torque of the Cummins Stock to 300 rear wheel Hp and for the 300 to 500 rear Hp plus market.

2. A new double clutch surfaced piston was designed to replace the stock single clutch surface to meet the torque load and has been tested to 850 lbs. Ft. of torque.

3. A new heavy billet front cover was built for the double clutch surface piston and to prevent the cover from heat warping and ballooning.

# 1070215LX for the ’94-’01 140-300 rear wheel Hp trucks

# 1070215LSX for the ’94-01’ 300-500 rear wheel Hp trucks, these competition torque convertors require BD competition series transmissions to handle the torque being transferred.

#1070210X for the ‘89-’93 140-300 rear wheel Hp trucks

Brian@bd-power.com



------------------
Brian Roth, President
BD Engine Brake

 

[rich m]

yahooo!---been waiting for this. .

# 1070215LX for the ’94-’01 140-300 rear wheel Hp trucks-----that's my power neighborhood!

Is this the one with the ~95% stall efficiency?-- If so, I'd like a price on it (can e-mail me)... D. Mason at Diesel Specialists in Las Vegas is my "pit crew chief/therapist/powerbroker"
Currently, the truck (on a Dynojet) delivers about 250HP, and unless I misfigured a reading from the graph and did bad math, the torque peak's about 720 @ 1800 rpm... "stall" happens about 2400-2500(hits governor) but won't "power-brake" the tires.

Side issue: from power/delivery to slow-down control... I've got a BD brake and the "old" BD valvebody... would like to be able to get "lock" in 2nd for lowspeed use of the ebrake (read: traffic jams-always in "slip", makes transmission get warm (230*F,pre-cooler)
Any discount if I trade the old one back? (better yet, can Darryl modify the one that's in there?)----rich

------------------
mildly BOMBed 98. 4 1B7KF23D4WJxxxxxx-- BD's #5 plate and 210HP injectors--BD Brake and the associated transmission bomb goodies (except for TC,currently), 4" open exhaust (short),Psychotty, camper shell, Warn front receiver, G159Unisteels on Rickson 19. 5's. . CD player is bone stock, so are the seats. PrimeLoc, also remote spin-on filter for the auto trans... Pyro,Boost and Trans temp from Isspro,
Westin nerf rails(black),
bent welding rod to hang celphone on dashboard...
240HP on Dynojet from 75-105mph drumspeed.
calculated 721 lbft @ 1800rpm

 

[Archive]

Hmmmmmm... . Decisions... . Decisions... .....

 

[BRoth]

Rich

We have measured the efficiency at different rpm's and hp. The most amazing numbers are found down at 1700 rpm where we see 80% efficiency compared 30% with our 6L and 0 with stock stator. At 2200 we have a 97% efficiency%

The heat concern has evaporated! We did not get temperatures over 180 at the outlet under worst conditions.

Secound gear lock up is going to be in every valve body. You just have to wire it up perferably with a TORQLOC. When leaving the trany in Drive or O/D it will shift through all the gears in lock up as you slow down to the speed you set on the TorqLoc. We are building new v/b seperator plates and many other enhancments into our valve bodies that just did not exist before.

Those that are concerned about the TorqLoc use and want to have the convertor clutch disengage can simply put in a normally closed boost pressure sensor so the lock up disengages at high boost/power.

The new BD convertor clutch will not slip though!

You fellas will have to build your trany's better to match this convertor.

Prices are on our web page as is our new ecommerce.

Brian@bd-power

 

[Bill Kondolay]

B. Roth

I have a couple of simple questions for you,
about 2 months back you advertised on the tdr website that your 6L converter was 95% efficient. Now you are saying it was only 30% and the new one is 95% efficient. Very interesting. (lol)

If the oem converter is 0% efficient at 1700rpms as you stated, does that mean the vehicle will not move until after they reach 1700 rpms?

I have driven lots of dodge rams with Stock converters , aftermarket converters, not one of them failed to move until 1700rpms.

You guys out there with the oem tc's , how do you guys even get to work, the truck cant move if you believe Mr. Roth's numbers. (lol)

I feel sorry for the guys that faithfully bought the 6L converters based on your numbers.

Or did you just make up the numbers again?

What is your defination of billet steel?

Brian you have always been a master of marketing.

I dont think you even have any idea what you are doing to the transmission as described in the above propoganda.

I am definately looking forward to the roundtable discussion at May Madness, remember no marketing stunts will be held there, it is a technical session.

It will be very interesting as i promise i will give you my undivided attention, i hear through the grape vine you arent going to show up? Is that true?

Bill Kondolay
Diesel Transmission Technology

 

[arlan]

I wonder if Brian does show up at May Madness if he will have a truck available for everyone to test drive, as Bill always does. It would be interesting! I would have to wonder what converter would be it that truck though. Sorry, but I've been suckered before.

And what is with those efficenty numbers, something just doesn't add up.

 

[BRoth]

#ad
#ad
#ad

 

[Bob Wagner]

Originally posted by BRoth:
#ad
#ad
#ad

Brian, What kinda answer is that #ad

 

[Diesel Freak]

97%? WOW that is unreal for an unlocked TC under full load.
A fluid coupling ie Hydrokinetic Drive (that is what a TC is) is not capable of this even if it was filled with 90wt transmission grease. Even a hydrostatic drive can not even achieve this due to heat/frictional losses. If a full heat ballance were to be done on the transmission, I would bet no more than 80% MAX on a good day where ambient temp is about 60F and oil temp at 150F.

((Win-Qout+Wfriction)/Win)x100=%efficiency

Win= work input from engine

Qout= heat lost through the transmition oil cooler and lost through the transmition housing to ambient circulating air

Wfriction= losses due to friction in the gearsets in the transmition (we are adding this since we are just measuring TC efficiency and not overall transmition efficiency)

Looks like I will stick with my slipping ETH clutch for now..... it still X-fers more than 97%
Just my $200
-Cliff


------------------
2001 ETH-DEE, Diablo Power Puck, Bosch 275's, Practical Solutions Boost Module and Elbow, LFT Silencer Ring Eliminator, K&N, Straight Piped http://www.mudrunner.sites.cc

[This message has been edited by cdaledh (edited 05-04-2001). ]

[This message has been edited by cdaledh (edited 05-04-2001). ]

[This message has been edited by cdaledh (edited 05-04-2001). ]

[This message has been edited by cdaledh (edited 05-04-2001). ]

 

[BRoth]

We are going to have so much fun at may Madness!

Convertor efficiency certainly can be measured different ways. Most can only measure it by the seat of there pants. For those we will have trucks at May Madness.

Those that want to keep pace with my figures attend the event or load your truck down so you develop 10 psi of boost. We are targeting 100 Hp when you are in a fluid coupling at 1700 rpm, and then force a lock up. Write both figures down and calculate the percentage.


With a high 300+ hp engine loaded down for 25 lbs of boost at 2400 rpm, and force a lock up. Careful though most lock up clutches will slip under this test. If you can achieve a 50-rpm drop from lock up(no slipping!) What does that work out to percentage wize? 98% ??

May Madness will be a technical exchange that will be very entertaining, as Vegas should be.


brian@bd-power

 

[Diesel Freak]

Originally posted by BRoth:

Convertor efficiency certainly can be measured different ways. Most can only measure it by the seat of there pants. For those we will have trucks at May Madness.
With a high 300+ hp engine loaded down for 25 lbs of boost at 2400 rpm, and force a lock up. Careful though most lock up clutches will slip under this test. If you can achieve a 50-rpm drop from lock up(no slipping!) What does that work out to percentage wize? 98% ??

brian@bd-power

Sorry, but you are admitting variables that you are not accounting for. If you change engine rpm you are changing the power input into the TC. A locked TC is no longer a TC and is now a direct drive. A 2% drop in engine rpm IS NOT the same as a 2% drop in power transmition efficiency!
Here is the test.

Engine at 2500 rpm loaded to a constant 25 psi boost. (TC locked and unlocked)

oil cooler inlet (T1) and outlet temp(T2)

mass flow rate of oil through oil cooler(m)

Specific heat of the oil (Cp)

Qoil cooler=mCp(T1-T2)

Test for Q1
Run the engine and transmition loaded with the TC locked untill oil cooler inlet and outlet temps stabilize (less than 1F/min change for 10 minutes). Record the results.

Test for Q2
Run the engine and transmition loaded with the TC unlocked untill oil cooler inlet and outlet temps stabilize (less than 1F/min change for 10 minutes). Record the results.

using the above equation calculate the energy lost through the oil cooler.

Qoil cooler can be directly related to TC efficiency.

((Win-(Q2-Q1))/Win)x100=%TC efficiency

98% I think not!


------------------
2001 ETH-DEE, Diablo Power Puck, Bosch 275's, Practical Solutions Boost Module and Elbow, LFT Silencer Ring Eliminator, K&N, Straight Piped http://www.mudrunner.sites.cc

[This message has been edited by cdaledh (edited 05-04-2001). ]

 

[BRoth]

cdaledh, i would agree we did not do the test as per your directions we did them by our directions.

The test I listed above is a rough way for the driver to do a comparison.

We do the test on a dyno loaded to a specified hp at spefied rpm and can repeat the process as any one that has a Mustang Dyno.

brian@bd-power

 

[arlan]

All this numbers talk may be great for those that are into the #'s game so I will reserve my comments on that crap as I am out gunned. I am happy to here that B-D will be at May Madness and I hope that they have a product that is competitive with the other/others?. I am always more than willing to purchase the BEST available.

 

[Diesel Freak]

BRoth:
I am just pointing out that a 98% efficient unlocked TC is at most a perpetual motion machine. If I am wrong I will shut up.
I understand that you are getting a RPM drop of 2% in unlocked TC operation vs. locked TC operation. However this does not indicate a TC with a 98% energy transfer rating.

Using the information that is previously available in this thread I have found that a TC with a 98% power transfer efficiency attached to an engine with 300 SAE net HP at the flywheel would only lose six horsepower in the TC, or approximately 16000 BTU/hr more in the oil cooler and transmition housing with respect to a locked TC.

I do not think so.

These are just cold facts from cold equations. You can not argue with Physics.

I am challenging you to prove me wrong!
I welcome it, and if I am incorrect I will drive to Abbotsford and buy you dinner.

-Cliff


------------------
2001 ETH-DEE, Diablo Power Puck, Bosch 275's, Practical Solutions Boost Module and Elbow, LFT Silencer Ring Eliminator, K&N, Straight Piped http://www.mudrunner.sites.cc

[This message has been edited by cdaledh (edited 05-04-2001). ]

 

[BRoth]

Cliff,

Drive up here any way and I'll buy you dinner!

I think I understand what you are stating but we are limited as to the method of testing so that every one can participate.

The test we are doing can be duplicated in other shops as well as a rough test on the road.

If we get to complicated we elminate players.

Brian@bd-power

 

[Diesel Freak]

WOW, but who will pay for my fuel? #ad

Now all I have to do is figure out how to spell transmission correctly.

[This message has been edited by cdaledh (edited 05-04-2001). ]

 

[csutton7]

#'s are good/bad, testing is good/bad--you never know how tests are run unless you are there to see 'em and know what's shaking, but I would say most of us want a transmission that gets power to the ground, is effiecient in doing so, don't have to hit some switch to lock up and will stand up to the rigors we put them thru--what does lock up do anyway & why would we need a switch to do it?? I've sure heard of more failures with these lock up devices vs. no lock up devices. I've never even seen a lock up device nor even heard of such a thing before I came on the TDR. My truck runs in lock up or not, so enlighten me please!!! My common sense tells me that when we have tc lockup we are in direct drive from engine to diffs where as out of lockup the transmission is assisting big time to move the vehicle. How it does it is beyond me, well I understand a little what happens , but not a great deal. Am i on the right track or way off. Seat of the pants and time proven use are the only tests that are truly 100% believable in my book. #'s help us make decisions as to what we want or need to buy , but I never fully believe they are 100% correct as they are done in test site conditions and we all know that out on the road is where the real truth lies. . my 1/2 cent... chris

 

[BRoth]

csutton7

You are on the right track.

The lock up clutch's in the convertor and transmission are the weak links. Pressure can improve their holding ability by a small percentage but the stock clutch surface area is not enough to prevent slippage.

Increasing the transmission pressure only increases the torque holding power by 10-20%. Not enough for the Cummins engines torque.

Your obersavation is correct the Convertor lock up devices do cause the convertor clutch to stay engaged more than stock and thus more failures occur to the convertor clutch.

The convertor clutch has been the weakest link. Untill now. The Double clutch surface and cover we have designed with the efficient X stator will keep the trany temperature low under any test we can give it and the clutch does not slip. As I mentioned earlier the stock transmission will now become the weak link not the torque convertor.


brian@bd-power

 

[rich m]

**trying to step thru the puddles that invariably result from the pi$$in' contests that arise between Brian R and Bill K. **

Cdaledh and Csutton7 -- Physics equations are lots of fun. Numeric manipulations can, by inclusion of favorables and/or exclusion of unfavorables, show whatever result desired to meet a purpose.
Anyone who's observed politics and polls for any length of time can attest to this. (F'r instance, if a population stays stable, and if total # of available jobs also stays stable, you can use the numbers to come up with a percentage of unemployment. Now, if you change the definition of "unemployed" to include some ethereal consideration of time or some other measurement, you can alter the numbers of persons included in the equation, and, by smoke-n-mirrors, increase or decrease the unemployment figures (or any other) to suit your political position... . )

Now, let's return from "left field" for a minute.
For a stock-power-level truck engine, the stock TC is adequate, presumably up to GCWR on predominantly flat land.
Not excellent. Just adequate. Stalls (at whatever efficiency percentage) happen at about 1800rpm. Then the truck's ECM triggers lockup.
Now for some real-world variables. If the power level goes up (BOMBing!), or if the load being towed or hauled goes much beyond GCWR (violating!), or both, the "stall" rpms increase (TC's efficiency drops from its previous level)
This will be evidenced by 3 things, observable by those of us that aren't engineers.
1. your transmission temp guage will show fluid temp rising (sometimes drastically #ad
)
2. "seat of pants" and dashboard readings will indicate more RPMs,fewer MPH and for more seconds/minutes than previous relationship (unlocked)
3. RPM drop when "lockup" happens will be more drastic (old conditions would be 2000rpm pre-lock/1800 post-lock) and would happen even at WOT. Now, (using my truck as example) WOT yields 2400+ with little -50rpm twitches as the shifts (all unlocked from 1-4) occur. When the ECM sends the "lock" signal, my R's drop all the way to 2000, and, I suspect, a fair amount of flex/stress goes thru the whole driveline until the truck's speed comes up to match the fuel being sent.

A TC that's designed to conserve more rpms and send them to the wheels is a good thing. If you want to make numbers look very nasty from a theoretical standpoint, you could probably derive an efficiency of 10%. If an improvement yields a result of 11%, that's still 10% better than before, right?

180*F beats 230+
a "lock/unlock" difference of 50-100 rpms beats 400-500rpms

a greater amount of clutch surface, fully contacted, is always a bonus. If you want constant unlock, snag a transmission from a 1st-generation truck and get re-acquainted with a comparatively mushy throttle/seat o'pants relationship at highway speed. Since the newer ones were designed for a lockup, take the opportunity to optimize it.
DTT and BD, and some others, have made their attempts at exactly that. Some of their engineering philosophies [weak link(s) and how to rectify it/them] and marketing philosophies differ.
Choose who suits your driving needs and wants. (like I gotta remind you of that! #ad
)

 

[Koa Man]

I think it is good that different people are taking the time and effort to improve the stock TC. We (the consumers) are the ones who benefit. But the proof is in the driving and seeing how it performs. Hopefully, when I am ready to replace the Dunrite I currently have (in about a year), the ultimate TC will have been created, tested and proven to be the best.