New Page - Calculators Input Requested

[Gary Lewis]

That looks great Gary! And thanks for that table from the ‘83 facts book. It shows 3 different possible overdrive ratios for the 4 speed overdrive. The tables on F150Hub show .78 for everything. That’s why one should ~not copy and propagate every mistake out there on the internet 😬

Well, I missed the 1st column for the 4-speed OD that shows yet-another ratio for the F100 w/the 3.8L V6. I need to revise the footnotes.

But, you are right. Too many people take what they find on the internet and assume it is correct, thereby further propagating a myth. However, I want this site to be backed up by factory documentation, like that table and, surely, others that I'll find in my quest. So, that begs the question of where to put it in order to ensure people know it is correct. And that brings us back to the discussion we had months ago about this being a quagmire. But, if I can cut and paste bits out of the factory lit then maybe it won't be so bad.

And I think that means we need a "transmission ratio" page in the "Transmission" section of Drivelines. Which means I need to revise that area a bit as it is somewhat confusing at present. Then I'll reference and link to it from the Calculator page.

[85lebaront2]

Well, I missed the 1st column for the 4-speed OD that shows yet-another ratio for the F100 w/the 3.8L V6. I need to revise the footnotes.

But, you are right. Too many people take what they find on the internet and assume it is correct, thereby further propagating a myth. However, I want this site to be backed up by factory documentation, like that table and, surely, others that I'll find in my quest. So, that begs the question of where to put it in order to ensure people know it is correct. And that brings us back to the discussion we had months ago about this being a quagmire. But, if I can cut and paste bits out of the factory lit then maybe it won't be so bad.

And I think that means we need a "transmission ratio" page in the "Transmission" section of Drivelines. Which means I need to revise that area a bit as it is somewhat confusing at present. Then I'll reference and link to it from the Calculator page.

Sounds like a good idea, I do like the format. Did some playing with it yesterday, years ago I was building a 1958 Country Squire with the idea of competing in the Cannonball Baker Sea to Shining Sea memorial trophy dash. It had an ex-NASCAR 430, a 4 speed single coupling Hydra-Matic on a Transdapt adapter. Rear end ratio was a 2.69:1 from the 1958-59 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser. Wheels were upped to 15", Front brakes redone with 1973 Galaxie front discs. Exhaust, dual 2.5" built with mandrel bends and included an "H" pipe.

We plugged the Michelin 235/75R15 tyres into a NASA landing dynamics computer that takes into account tyre growth with rpm. Top speed it was capable of in theory, in excess of 200 mph at the redline, which was estimated at 6500 rpm.

And for you, Gary, had the big throat, AKA Dayton AFB (actually a 1965 Lincoln one that I massaged for better airflow). Wouldn't idle and respond well under 650 rpm, normal idle for these was 450 rpm. Nail it from a standstill, went about one car length and then broke the rear tyres loose when the 430 hit it's power band. FWIW, 1st gear in the trans was 3.82.

Everything came up what we had when building it when I plugged the information into your calculator.

[Ford F834]

Well, I missed the 1st column for the 4-speed OD that shows yet-another ratio for the F100 w/the 3.8L V6. I need to revise the footnotes.

But, you are right. Too many people take what they find on the internet and assume it is correct, thereby further propagating a myth. However, I want this site to be backed up by factory documentation, like that table and, surely, others that I'll find in my quest. So, that begs the question of where to put it in order to ensure people know it is correct. And that brings us back to the discussion we had months ago about this being a quagmire. But, if I can cut and paste bits out of the factory lit then maybe it won't be so bad.

And I think that means we need a "transmission ratio" page in the "Transmission" section of Drivelines. Which means I need to revise that area a bit as it is somewhat confusing at present. Then I'll reference and link to it from the Calculator page.

Thanks Gary, in my opinion this is some of the most useful data hidden in the literature!

When David and I were discussing the gearing on his truck he said his overdrive gear was .71 but I could not find that ratio mentioned anywhere. Well here it is! I believe that would be the tallest overdrive ratio of any Bullnose manual transmission.

[Gary Lewis]

Thanks Gary, in my opinion this is some of the most useful data hidden in the literature!

When David and I were discussing the gearing on his truck he said his overdrive gear was .71 but I could not find that ratio mentioned anywhere. Well here it is! I believe that would be the tallest overdrive ratio of any Bullnose manual transmission.

Bill:

I'd heard rumors of an AFB with something like an 800 CFM rating, but have never seen one. Was that one of them?

As for massaging, I did that with a Q-Jet on our boat. Was able to get several more R's out of it on top end by smoothing things w/a Dremel. And, with the easily-adjustable secondary opening point I got it to come out of the hole a bit better - after causing it to bog badly a few times. Sure would have been a lot of work if it had been an AFB.

Anyway, glad the calculator seems to be working well for you. That was a good way to check it out. And, isn't it cool that you can now do that kind a thing via the internet and let some computer in the sky do the work?

Jonathan:

I agree, that is one tall OD ratio, and it explains why David can cruise at such low RPM and yet have good MPH.

And, I think the tranny info from the factory literature is going to be way cool to have. We will be poking holes in internet fable.

[85lebaront2]

Bill:

I'd heard rumors of an AFB with something like an 800 CFM rating, but have never seen one. Was that one of them?

As for massaging, I did that with a Q-Jet on our boat. Was able to get several more R's out of it on top end by smoothing things w/a Dremel. And, with the easily-adjustable secondary opening point I got it to come out of the hole a bit better - after causing it to bog badly a few times. Sure would have been a lot of work if it had been an AFB.

Anyway, glad the calculator seems to be working well for you. That was a good way to check it out. And, isn't it cool that you can now do that kind a thing via the internet and let some computer in the sky do the work?

Jonathan:

I agree, that is one tall OD ratio, and it explains why David can cruise at such low RPM and yet have good MPH.

And, I think the tranny info from the factory literature is going to be way cool to have. We will be poking holes in internet fable.

Don't actually know, The "Daytona" AFB was for the 409 Chevy engines originally, the Lincoln had one with throttle bores much like the later AVS had, noticeable size difference between primary and secondary bores.

[Gary Lewis]

Don't actually know, The "Daytona" AFB was for the 409 Chevy engines originally, the Lincoln had one with throttle bores much like the later AVS had, noticeable size difference between primary and secondary bores.

Guys - PLEASE don't think that I want to cut off the conversation about the intake on a 300 six. You know me, I'll chase rabbits all day long, and a multi-carb'd six sounds like something I'd really like to do - and see.

However, I've made some changes to the calculator on which I'd like your input. Then go back to the 300 and the intake discussion.

I've added a page which has the transmission, and in the case of 1986, the transfer case gear ratios for every year. This info is from the Light Trucks Facts Book for each year, and should be accurate. It is at Driveline/Transmissions/Transmissions & Transfer Case Ratios. (I ducked the cleanup of the whole transmission set of pages - for now. )

And, I've put a link to that page on the calculator page (Driveline/Calculators) so people can see that the ratios listed are from Ford. And, along the way, I did some formatting, although I'm not done, and I added the close-ratio/diesel T-19 ratio in the Other column and added notes to that effect. (I also added an IF statement that shows a blank cell as a result of the calculations in the Other column if someone enters only 3 or 4 gear ratios. Otherwise the results showed ERROR. )

And, I have some questions for y'all:

1. Are the pages legible enough? They are MUCH sharper via the file itself and I'm not happy

2. Does this answer the question(s) about the source of the gear ratios well enough?

3. Are the notes simple enough?

4. Is it ok to treat the diesel T-19 that way? I really don't want to add a column as I'm afraid the width will be too much and cause people to have to scroll.

[1986F150Six]

Guys - PLEASE don't think that I want to cut off the conversation about the intake on a 300 six. You know me, I'll chase rabbits all day long, and a multi-carb'd six sounds like something I'd really like to do - and see.

However, I've made some changes to the calculator on which I'd like your input. Then go back to the 300 and the intake discussion.

I've added a page which has the transmission, and in the case of 1986, the transfer case gear ratios for every year. This info is from the Light Trucks Facts Book for each year, and should be accurate. It is at Driveline/Transmissions/Transmissions & Transfer Case Ratios. (I ducked the cleanup of the whole transmission set of pages - for now. )

And, I've put a link to that page on the calculator page (Driveline/Calculators) so people can see that the ratios listed are from Ford. And, along the way, I did some formatting, although I'm not done, and I added the close-ratio/diesel T-19 ratio in the Other column and added notes to that effect. (I also added an IF statement that shows a blank cell as a result of the calculations in the Other column if someone enters only 3 or 4 gear ratios. Otherwise the results showed ERROR. )

And, I have some questions for y'all:

1. Are the pages legible enough? They are MUCH sharper via the file itself and I'm not happy

2. Does this answer the question(s) about the source of the gear ratios well enough?

3. Are the notes simple enough?

4. Is it ok to treat the diesel T-19 that way? I really don't want to add a column as I'm afraid the width will be too much and cause people to have to scroll.

Yes, sorry for the hijack!

[Gary Lewis]

Yes, sorry for the hijack!

No! NO! That’s not what I was saying. Not at all. 😢

I just want some feedback - and not from a carb. 😉

Please, give me some feedback and then go back to the intake/carb discussion.

[85lebaront2]

No! NO! That’s not what I was saying. Not at all. 😢

I just want some feedback - and not from a carb. 😉

Please, give me some feedback and then go back to the intake/carb discussion.

Item, converter slippage, I did some research, the general drift seems that slippage at cruise conditions is on the order of 1% rather than a fixed rpm difference, also it gets less at higher RPM, say over 2400. This was specifically one I am familiar with, 460 W/C6. Maybe a little more research on that subject could be in order.

[Gary Lewis]

Item, converter slippage, I did some research, the general drift seems that slippage at cruise conditions is on the order of 1% rather than a fixed rpm difference, also it gets less at higher RPM, say over 2400. This was specifically one I am familiar with, 460 W/C6. Maybe a little more research on that subject could be in order.

Yes, saying the slippage will be suchandso is a huge over-simplification. Slippage is dependent upon so may variables that it becomes quite complex. Those variables include: the stall RPM of the converter, and even the stock converters had different stall points; the load on the vehicle, as the slippage goes up with the load; and the RPM, as slippage decreases as the RPM goes up, assuming a constant load.

On the torque converter, I found the table below in the 1986 Light Truck Facts Book today. Note the different multiplication #'s for the different applications. And there is no multiplication w/o slippage.

So, while we could do a lot more research on the subject, I don't know that I'm smart enough to incorporate the findings into this spreadsheet.

But, for those wanting to read, here are a couple of things I've perused:

• Wikipedia: Oddly enough, this is a fairly informative write-up.

• Hot Rod: This provides info from a different angle. And, it suggests that slippage is probably in the range of 3 to 5% of the RPM.

So, should we change to a percentage slippage? Or, if I can figure out how to do it, give the user the ability to use either % or a fixed RPM?