The one on the right and only unusable because it’s a stock shaft and not strong enough

Middle one, don't know why/have a clue as to what's usable or not.

Does the left shaft have any numbers? I "think" it would be my choice because of the dual sealing rings but I would like to know if it can be identified.

Also, what power/performance range will this be?

Mike, after rechecking I now see it is a trick question.

I was going after "which one is usable"

None of them, the are being unused as they are pictured.

I don't want the ringless shaft therefore it is unuseable to me.

ep

quote:

Originally posted by pauley:
I don't want the ringless shaft therefore it is unuseable to me.

ep

Why is that?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Woodfin:
Does the left shaft have any numbers? I "think" it would be my choice because of the dual sealing rings but I would like to know if it can be identified.

Also, what power/performance range will this be?

No numbers Larry, it's an input shaft I've had for years, I use as a fixture to lay any new input I receive next too, in order to judge the new shafts worth. The input on the left is what you don't want. Look at the placement of the top ring journal.

Unless the middle one is ATI super shaft they are all unusable to me. Ringless super shafts and ATI Super Pumps in both cars here.....

quote:

Originally posted by Triple Nickel:
Unless the middle one is ATI super shaft they are all unusable to me. Ringless super shafts and ATI Super Pumps in both cars here.....

Hmmm, yeah that's a successful combination of parts. I use the shaft on the left as a rudimentary standard to compare any new shaft I receive. The shaft on the left top ring journal obstructs lube orifice in the stator (in cooler).It's what you don't want to see in a input shaft.

BTE high volume pump and ringless input shaft here.....

TSI Pro mod pump and ringless shaft. Done

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:

quote:

Originally posted by pauley:
I don't want the ringless shaft therefore it is unuseable to me.

ep

Why is that?

ran one years ago and found that it did not charge the converter as well as a ringed shaft. .10 difference between a ringed vs ringless is what I found on my stuff.

ep

quote:

Originally posted by pauley:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rietow:

quote:

Originally posted by pauley:
I don't want the ringless shaft therefore it is unuseable to me.

ep

Why is that?

ran one years ago and found that it did not charge the converter as well as a ringed shaft. .10 difference between a ringed vs ringless is what I found on my stuff.

ep

That's a good point but for future it wasn't how the converter was charged which made the difference. It was the oil flow exiting the converter. If it slowed a tenth it most likely made more converter pressure with the ringless and tightened the converter. This would be a circumstance proprietary to the specific torque converter in play only.

For example I do the engine and transmission on a heads up car we have a high flow ringless input shaft and pump, and we have a high flow ringed input and pump. Until we discover through testing and modifications, we won't know exactly which combination of parts will result in the quickest incremental times and et's.

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 only run a Sniper Quad Core Damascus Steel with Quad Bi Directional Rings.

Are the two shafts for the same application? I thinking one is for a factory 1.82 and one for a factory 1.76. That would put the rings in different locations when measured from that end because the 1.82 and the 1.76 carriers are different.

quote:

Originally posted by Wyatt:
Are the two shafts for the same application? I thinking one is for a factory 1.82 and one for a factory 1.76. That would put the rings in different locations when measured from that end because the 1.82 and the 1.76 carriers are different.

Are you sure about that? What's a 1.76 measure?