    
Brett Bonner ( - 199.82.243.72)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:40 pm: | 
|
I pressed my Model 700 to the second (inner) snap ring position. I'm not sure if I moved the drive ratio to engine speed relationship or just elimited a inadequate final drive ratio limitation. I'm just asking your opinion here.
Benefits of change - 1) It greatly improved the speed of my Max. 2) More importantly, the new ungoverned engine doesn't float valves anymore when going really fast. 3) The torque convertor doesn't make as much noise (slapping certainly and less squeking). 4) As the drive pully still starts in the open position, I could not tell if hurt the lower end much if at all. The way the system used to work, as soon as the engine speed would rise, the pully would close immediately ("slap") and futher increases in the throttle would decrease the drive ratio. In this case, it seems that the same situation occurs, and the ratio to engine speed is the same except toward the upper end it continues to decrease the drive ratio.
Logically, it had to have shifted the drive ratio to engine speed relationship AND/OR it eliminated a maximum inadequate final drive ratio.
Drawback - The only issue is that the Max has more of a tendancy to creep forward when at idle and the drive pully is NOT engaged. Depending on the circumstances, it would do this with the torque convertor set to the first width anyway. The torque convertor is not engaged, but with the decrease in the pully width is now at minimum. It is a new stiff belt. Now, there is only a hair between either side. Frankly, it was was unsafe operation to leave it idling in gear anyway. I'm glad it forced me to stop that.
What do you think? Any of you guys performed this operation? Do you do it so commonly, you don't post it? Which change did the snap ring affect - shift the engine speed/drive relationship, eliminate the inadequate final drive ratio, or both? |
Shop Talk: Tech Tips and Q&A section