Originally on the OEM power glide transmissions, there were 2 different length input shafts. 12 5/8" for the 1.82 planetary and 12 7/8" on the 1.76 planetary. That is a 1/4" difference in lengths to match the difference in the carriers.

quote:

Originally posted by Wyatt:
Originally on the OEM power glide transmissions, there were 2 different length input shafts. 12 5/8" for the 1.82 planetary and 12 7/8" on the 1.76 planetary. That is a 1/4" difference in lengths to match the difference in the carriers.

I'm fresh out of 1.82's, I have a 1.80. Will that work?

625 hp pump gas 406 sbc saturday night street thunder 67 Chevy II on drag radials.

Ringless shaft belongs in a stator tube designed for a ringless shaft. If not it will not have the same convertor charge.

quote:

Originally posted by T/D6591:
Ringless shaft belongs in a stator tube designed for a ringless shaft. If not it will not have the same convertor charge.

I'm sure pauley would have slowed a tenth in the 60ft, if he stuck a ringless input in a regular powerglide pump stator.

It took me a few to find one but I got the measurements you ask for. The 1.82 stock input shaft from the bottom to the first ring is 4 3/4”. The 1.76 input shaft is 5”. I’m not pretending to know what is wrong with your shafts but just informing you that from the way you stacked them, the rings can be in different locations.

quote:

Originally posted by Wyatt:
It took me a few to find one but I got the measurements you ask for. The 1.82 stock input shaft from the bottom to the first ring is 4 3/4”. The 1.76 input shaft is 5”. I’m not pretending to know what is wrong with your shafts but just informing you that from the way you stacked them, the rings can be in different locations.

I understand exactly what you're trying to say. You're trying to say one of the input shafts is for a 1.82, and that's why the ring journal is located incorrectly for a 1.76 or 1.80 gear set. Originally you thought the 4340 shaft was a 1.82 input. Which one do you think is a 1.82 input now? The vasco ringed shaft or the aerospace ringless input shaft?

The one that’s cut like a 1.82 shaft is the one that measured 4.75 from the bottom to the first ring grove.

Here is a video from Pete. PG shafts 101.@ Hughes
Performance. Save it....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKo29_8xGAY

quote:

Originally posted by Wyatt:
The one that’s cut like a 1.82 shaft is the one that measured 4.75 from the bottom to the first ring grove.

So you think the vasco shaft on the left which measures 12 7/8 is a 1.82 input shaft?

I never said that.

I said if the first ring is 4.75 from the end, they are in the 1.82 location. Now if they are in the 1.82 location and the shaft is 12 7/8, someone *****ed up.

quote:

Originally posted by Wyatt:
I never said that.

I said if the first ring is 4.75 from the end, they are in the 1.82 location. Now if they are in the 1.82 location and the shaft is 12 7/8, someone *****ed up.

There you go, that's what this thread is all about. I acquired this input shaft in a trans a guy brought me that had sizzled a couple times. I stuck another input in it and the guy thought I was a genius. I've looked at a lot of input shafts over the years, I'm suggesting you look at them real closely too.

Here's another. This is a .975 diameter shaft with rings, supposedly rated to 1800 - 2000hp. Been in stock here 12-15 years.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike Rietow,

quote:

Originally posted by pauley:
I just know that one was .10 slower than the other so therefore I like a ringed shaft. may have been me or coincidence.

ep

I had the exact same experience.

quote:

Originally posted by N2Ofrog:

quote:

Originally posted by pauley:
I just know that one was .10 slower than the other so therefore I like a ringed shaft. may have been me or coincidence.

ep

I had the exact same experience.

This is a TSI or Coan ringless shaft pump design, you can see the bushings pressed in the stator tube act as rings. We've always had pressure on the high side using this ringless input shaft/pump combination of parts. That would not be an indicator of the torque converter being inadequately charged.

I don't know what ringless input system - combination of parts you or pauley were using but, I can't see this combination of parts slowing ya down due to an inadequately charged torque converter. I could see the opposite, if this is what you were using. Pressure on the high side tightening the converter possibly.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike Rietow,

Wyatt, which input shaft is usable 1.76 - 1.80 gearset? Why?

Top- .975 diameter with rings rated 1800 hp

Middle - Vasco with rings rated 1100 hp

Bottom - NASA aerospace with rings rated 2000 hp

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike Rietow,

It is impossible to tighten a converter with a ring less shaft. Its leaks 10-20% of cooler flow back to pan. It's one of the reasons you need to run higher pressures with ringless shafts. Most likely it took converter efficiency out of it.

quote:

Originally posted by 329L:
It is impossible to tighten a converter with a ring less shaft. Its leaks 10-20% of cooler flow back to pan. It's one of the reasons you need to run higher pressures with ringless shafts. Most likely it took converter efficiency out of it.

If you have a cooler line going straight to the pan, that's a one ring input shaft.

What pressure are you seeing at the out cooler line?

Depends if the convertor has a support bushing or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:

quote:

Originally posted by 329L:
It is impossible to tighten a converter with a ring less shaft. Its leaks 10-20% of cooler flow back to pan. It's one of the reasons you need to run higher pressures with ringless shafts. Most likely it took converter efficiency out of it.

If you have a cooler line going straight to the pan, that's a one ring input shaft.

What pressure are you seeing at the out cooler line?

The fluid is leaking past the bushing that is used to "seal" the shaft. The fluid just lazily pukes through the parts, back to the pan.

quote:

Originally posted by 329L:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:

quote:

Originally posted by 329L:
It is impossible to tighten a converter with a ring less shaft. Its leaks 10-20% of cooler flow back to pan. It's one of the reasons you need to run higher pressures with ringless shafts. Most likely it took converter efficiency out of it.

If you have a cooler line going straight to the pan, that's a one ring input shaft.

What pressure are you seeing at the out cooler line?

The fluid is leaking past the bushing that is used to "seal" the shaft. The fluid just lazily pukes through the parts, back to the pan.

I get that , it's common knowledge. But you're saying because of this phenomenon, a converter always loosens. When in reality it depends soley on the converter pressure, not the system.

Like I said previously, I've seen converter pressures on the high side with a TSI ringless shaft and matching ringless pump. Converter pressure on the high tightens, not loosens a converter. I've done quite a bit of work with ringless input shafts in play.

I didn't work with just one ringless and come to a rudimentary conclusion, concerning ringless input shafts.