Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey
|
Yeah, I've been to that website. Some good info there but some of it is incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey
Yes. I said the fluid coupling slips. My point being, a torque converter slips, but also has the ability to increase torque while it's slipping. In fact, the greater the percentage of slip, the greater the torque multiplication; typically a maximum of 2.x times the input torque when the slippage is 100%. The torque increase is a primary benefit. Slippage in the converter also produces heat, which is "wasted" energy. The fluid coupling slips, therefore it wastes some amount of energy, but does not provide any increased torque.
|
The coupling momentary slips which quickly dissipates above idle once RPM increases. It does not slip and slide through the entire gear. The dual coupling in my '59 takes off quicker in first gear than a 400 behind a later 389, which also had a significant increase in torque/horsepower for later years compared to the earlier 389 in my '59 Catalina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey
The "Torque Splitting" feature also included would minimize slip, it functioned in 3rd and 4th.
|
Torque splitting occurs in 2nd and 4th. The rear band is engaged in 3rd gear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey
"Documented" by who, and when? Given that Studebaker and Packard each had production automotive transmissions with lockup torque converters (Packard in '49, Stude in '50) I think your claim is not valid.
|
There are several articles where it was mentioned that these old hydros were efficient. Here's one of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydramatic
"Controlled Coupling HydraMatic and Roto HydraMatic both have the "Split Torque feature" whereby, in high gear, the torque is divided 40% through the fluid coupling and 60% through mechanical connection, which made these transmissions more efficient than any other automatics before the lock-up torque converter was used."
"The shift from third to fourth gear locked the forward gear assembly, producing 1.00:1 transmission.[5] The fluid coupling now only handled about 25 percent of the engine torque, reducing slippage to a negligible amount. The result was a remarkably efficient level of power transfer at highway speeds, something that torque converter equipped automatics could not achieve without the benefit of a converter clutch."
Yes, torque converter clutches existed before the 70's but was not widely used until the late 70's/early 80's. Chrysler incorporated a TC in 1978, Ford in 1979 (shaft driven), GM in 1981.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey
Also smoother-shifting. And more-durable, even with much-longer service intervals. With hugely-increased torque capacity. In short, more sophisticated, even though they may be less-complex.
|
A 400 does not shift smoother than a dual coupling transmission, I can guarantee you that! It sounds like you never driven one. It's smoother than the earlier dual band though. The durability increase was mainly due to better fluids. A dual band needs occasional band adjustments just like a 350/400. The dual coupling only has one band (rear) and generally requires no adjustment throughout the life of the transmission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey
Further, Earl A. Thompson did not invent the fluid coupling. That was "borrowed" from
Hermann Föttinger, who patented fluid couplings and torque converters on or before 1905.
|
Nowhere did I mention that Earl invented the fluid coupling. He did invent the first mass prodeced automatic transmission using the fluid coupling, tweaking it to his own design.