Questions & Concerns Regarding ATS Triple-Lok

[Mackie007]

Knowing nothing about nothing I'm going to throw out my opinion here



In my mind the extra wear encountered on the added clutches is a non-issue. They are housed in the TC in which everything is spinning the same direction, clutches, fluid, everything. The spinning creates centrifical force which will keep everything very stable (think of a gyroscope). As the free floating clutches move closer toward the faster spinning surface, they would be repelled away by the fluid pressure built up from the close contact. Remember these are clutches, designed to handle a certain amount of slippage under exstream pressure while the differential speed equalizes. The force from only their own weight should be negligible.



Anyway thats how I imagine it to work in my mind.



I would be more concerned on what keeps the clutches in alignment, they appear to free float between lock and unlock.

 

[Strick-9]

I hate waiting an entire day for each person to respond. Ahh, the joys of internet forums.



I'm waiting for the fluid flow diagram that Don mentioned much earlier in this thread.



I'm not buying the gyroscope idea because I've heard too many rattling Ford Torque converters with multi-disc clutches. Parts are definately not stable in there.



Another thing that keeps sticking in the back of my mind is this.

Take any two slick surfaces and coat them with oil. For instance two very thin thrust washers out of a transmission. Once they get close to one another, they automatically stick together and you have to pry them apart. Or if you drop one on a slick steel table, you have to slide it off the edge because you can't pick it up otherwise.



So when you take a TC friction lining that has to be slick and put it next to a slick steel plate coated in oil, wouldn't this same law apply? What is forcing these things apart?



Lets just call this a fluid bond for argument's sake. In a multi-disc application, you are going to have 3 or more of these so called bonds. If the release oil forces the piston off the cover and one of these bonds breaks free. What is pulling apart the other two?



I wish we could get a bunch of vendors on a stage somewhere and let them answer questions and discuss topics like this. I know of at least one vendor that is afraid of discussions like this and won't post on TDR about his products. I commend ATS for taking the time out of their schedule to discuss technical merits of their design.



Whether or not the torque converter in my truck is the best on the market, I don't care. I've learned from this thread and that's what's important to me. And I'm looking forward to more.



Thank you,

Chris

 

[Shovelhead]

Strick-9

I'm no transmission whiz, but regarding your issue of the separating discs..... The film of fluid is between the "Washer" and the table.

Wouldn't this achieve a form of separation?

You can slide the disc due to the film of oil.

Do we really need to fully separate the discs?

Now if some one stands on the disc,(apply pressure)... . will it still move?

 

[Mackie007]

Originally posted by Strick-9



I'm not buying the gyroscope idea because I've heard too many rattling Ford Torque converters with multi-disc clutches. Parts are definately not stable in there.



Another thing that keeps sticking in the back of my mind is this.

Take any two slick surfaces and coat them with oil. For instance two very thin thrust washers out of a transmission. Once they get close to one another, they automatically stick together and you have to pry them apart. Or if you drop one on a slick steel table, you have to slide it off the edge because you can't pick it up otherwise.



So when you take a TC friction lining that has to be slick and put it next to a slick steel plate coated in oil, wouldn't this same law apply? What is forcing these things apart?



Lets just call this a fluid bond for argument's sake. In a multi-disc application, you are going to have 3 or more of these so called bonds. If the release oil forces the piston off the cover and one of these bonds breaks free. What is pulling apart the other two?



Thank you,

Chris

Yes the "rattling" as you put it would be my main concern with the multi-disc's. Meaning are the disks going to play nice together or chatter, when they come in contact with a surface spinning at a different speed?



I see what you mean about the fluid bond, but I'm not sure it would come into play because everything is surrounded by the same fluid or pressure. Also if 2 of the disks did stick together after release, I could see that as a potential benefit, meaning less chance of chatter.



I think we can all agree that more disks would be a benefit, providing they can be designed to work within the TC. But then thats what this whole discusion is about right



I'm in the same boat as many others:

My transmission only has 38k with fluid changes every 15K. I'd like to beef it up to add some more ponies, but there is no middle ground. The only options are turn up my stock pressures a bit, or get the complete upgrade. Meaning I'd love to get rid of my stock TC, but I can't do that without a valve body, but wait you can't add the valve body without upgrading seals to handle the higher pressure, etc, ect, ect. By the time all is said and done I'm looking at about $2300. I could swallow that or even more if my transmission wasn't so fresh. That being the case it would be cool if I could add just a TC with minimal line pressure increases, that could take care of the weak link stock TC, for the next 100k my transmission should last.

 

[ATSDiesel]

I am glad to see everyone understands the concept and workings of the Triple-Lok converter. The only other question I see here about our converter is the rattling problem that Ford has with their converter and HOW the clutches are centered. We solved both of these problems with very expensive product cost. Ford uses stamped steel pieces and a spring mechanism to center the thin stock production clutch plate in the cover. The ATS Triple-Lok converters are all designed with one common design, billet cover. The billet converter cover centers part of it and the turbine centers the other. All of the pieces are individually balanced and all clearances are set independently of each other before the converter is welded together. We have been developing and testing this product in a variety of diesel converters of different makes for some time now, Long-term durability is key to the success of our customers along with ours, And yes, we do honor a money back guarantee on you products. I would like to apologize for the delayed responses to the threads; we are very busy during the day, and play hard at night. Please continue to comment and ask question.



Clint Cannon

www.Dieseltorqueconverters.com

 

[Jim Fulmer]

To Everyone

This is good stuff for us to hear, keep it coming.



Jim

 

[Bill Kondolay]

This post has been moved for review by Power Wagon

 

[StakeMan]

There could be a 4th reason they haven't answered your question. Maybe they know something you don't and don't feel they need to educate you.

 

[Diesel Freak]

Here is my question.



Lets say I am driving down the road at 3000 rpm, and I want to go into lockup. what happens when(or if) the piston (which holds the first friction) makes contact with the steel disc. Keep in mind that the frictions are solid, and have no passage for oil flow. If my line pressures are still stock will there be enough force exerted on the piston to squish out the remaining oil that is being held there by centrifugal force, and direct it to the clutch hub for removal, or will the oil just stay there and cause the clutch to slip?





just a question

 

[Jetpilot]

What happened to Bill K's post from above? I know Bill can sometimes be a little rough around the edges but what he states is the facts! I am in hopes that his reply was not removed just because it was not within the political views of the moderator... .



Have you members noticed the lack of posts form the vendors? Seems to me like there are less and less. Maybe they are deciding to bow out of posting because somebody doesn't like what they said.



We the members, are going to be the loosing bunch if the folks with the knowledge stop posting. BTW this is just my $. 02 worth.



Doug

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

Actually, all of the vendors that are no longer posting here that have contacted us have said the reason they no longer post is because of the bashing from other vendors and in some cases from users. None of them that I am aware of have told us that they left because of too much moderating and what they can and can't say - just exactly the opposite, they want more moderating and more restrictions so they can feel safe posting on here and not get bashed. Bill's post was removed by PW because it was a direct violation of the guidelines. I've been told by many vendors that they are watching closely how well the new vendor guidelines work and how well they are enforced. You can read up on the thoughts behind the new guidelines at the announcement at the top of the product/accessories forum page - https://www.turbodieselregister.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32448 .



Also, if you have an issue with actions taken by any moderator please send a private email to that moderator themselves, to me at -- email address removed -- , or to Robin Patton at rpatton@ix.netcom.com to discuss it rather than jumping to conclusions.



-Steve St. Laurent

Lead Moderator

 

[High Voltage]

:--)

 

[Steve Roseman]

Originally posted by Mackie007





Yes the "rattling" as you put it would be my main concern with the multi-disc's. Meaning are the disks going to play nice together or chatter, when they come in contact with a surface spinning at a different speed?



I see what you mean about the fluid bond, but I'm not sure it would come into play because everything is surrounded by the same fluid or pressure. Also if 2 of the disks did stick together after release, I could see that as a potential benefit, meaning less chance of chatter.



I think we can all agree that more disks would be a benefit, providing they can be designed to work within the TC. But then thats what this whole discusion is about right



I'm in the same boat as many others:

My transmission only has 38k with fluid changes every 15K. I'd like to beef it up to add some more ponies, but there is no middle ground. The only options are turn up my stock pressures a bit, or get the complete upgrade. Meaning I'd love to get rid of my stock TC, but I can't do that without a valve body, but wait you can't add the valve body without upgrading seals to handle the higher pressure, etc, ect, ect. By the time all is said and done I'm looking at about $2300. I could swallow that or even more if my transmission wasn't so fresh. That being the case it would be cool if I could add just a TC with minimal line pressure increases, that could take care of the weak link stock TC, for the next 100k my transmission should last.

Mackie,

Don't be afraid to change your torque converter without the other mods. My transmission has one of the older BD converters(no # rating) with everything else stock. I use synthetic transmission fluid and drive with common sense and don't have a lick of trouble. The heaviest I've grossed GCVW was 17k. The factory transmission is really a good design with mild upgrades to the motor, the converter is the weakest link.

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Jetpilot

What happened to Bill K's post from above? I know Bill can sometimes be a little rough around the edges but what he states is the facts!

Just to help clear things up, I do not make judgements about the technical merits of what's said. As Steve stated above, there are specific guidelines about how vendors interact. We all value the participation of vendors on the forums. It is, in my view, one of the most unique and valuable things that happens here.



Some vendors run feedback or discussion forums on their sites, but this particular forum is attempting to be "neutral ground", where there is give and take and back and forth discussion between users, suppliers and between suppliers. Our moderating the way vendors interact, and to some degree, how users interact with vendors is meant to ensure the participation of as many as possible. Only those vendors that pay to advertise "get" to participate, and only if they are so inclined. Many of these people find that the only way to participate here is to do so at the expense of family time, free time, or even sleep.



By keeping things polite and reasonably professional, we've found that vendors are more inclined to participate and share their experience and knowledge. Frankly, it would be pointless for someone to take their time to give away "freebies" of advice or knowledge here, only to find themselve the target of endless verbal barrages. Thus, the participation guidelines we try to enforce.



I moved Bill K's post only because I believed it prudent to do so. Moving it prevented official complaints, and I have put the decisions of what precisely to do in the hands of higher ups, someone who hasn't participated in this thread. I have. I wish to avoid even the possible appearance of being biased toward or against any vendor, regardless of whatever I may happen to think about the topic. And in this case, I felt it better others make the decisions for that reason. Unfortunately, this was a long weekend, and there has been a delay due to people being out of town and out of touch.







Thanks for your understanding

Mark

 

[Bob Wagner]

well...

should this thread just die on the vine?



Or ________________.

 

[juicedcummins]

Re: well...

Originally posted by Bob Wagner

should this thread just die on the vine?



Or ________________.

I'd have to agree with BOB. This was a real good thread it would be a shame to cut it off!:{

 

[Cummins Corvette]

Well, it looks like whatever rule that Bill broke must be a big no-no to break. I think, with the exception of the picture I want, that this thread has already answered most people's queations.

 

[Strick-9]

Well, it hasn't answered my questions yet. I'm not happy with "it doesn't happen with ours" or "we tested it for 2 years" answers. I would also like to see that flow diagram.



There are supposed to be two engineers on staff according to an earlier post. I don't see why it is difficult to answer technical questions.



Oh well, maybe next time, eh?



-Chris

 

[JConley]

Thanks to this thread, I now understand the design of the tripple clutch TC. Prior to this thread, I had no idea what a tripple lock converter was.



My question is this. In line with what Strick-9 said regarding the "Fluid Bond" between the clutch plates. Is there a continous supply of fluid to these plates in order to keep the plates seperated when the TC is unlocked? If not, would'nt centrifigal force cause the fluid to fly out between the plates and therefore put you in a lockup situation on at least 2 of the plates as soon as the fluid was lost?? This might bave been asked by Bill or others, but I havent understood everything in this thread.

 

[fest3er]

Originally posted by JConley

Thanks to this thread, I now understand the design of the tripple clutch TC. Prior to this thread, I had no idea what a tripple lock converter was.



My question is this. In line with what Strick-9 said regarding the "Fluid Bond" between the clutch plates. Is there a continous supply of fluid to these plates in order to keep the plates seperated when the TC is unlocked? If not, would'nt centrifigal force cause the fluid to fly out between the plates and therefore put you in a lockup situation on at least 2 of the plates as soon as the fluid was lost?? This might bave been asked by Bill or others, but I havent understood everything in this thread.

According to the Service Manual fluid schematics, when locked up, there is a supply of 57-94 PSI to the TC. When unlocked, there is a 5-57 PSI flow of lube through the TC. So there should be a decent flow of oil through the plate(s) to keep them lubed and separated.



Dunno if this helps at all, since schematics are very symbolic and static, not necessarily trivial to read, and are not necessarily correct. There *is* one small error in my '98 schematics; the student is encouraged to practice reading these schematics in order to find it.



Fest3er