Thread: Torqueflite 727 (TF727) Questions

Originally Posted by bee utey

If you really had a fixed parasitic power loss of 40hp then the vehicle would be doing gallons-per-mile fuel consumption to even roll along. Data I remember for fuel economy for the average auto of the 70's were around 10% worse than the matching auto. You got any actual data for the RR?

Ask anyone keen on drag racing. The 727 has massive clutches to drive, it's a large load on the pump for a piddly 3.5, the 1:1 high range certainly ruins the take off aswell but 727 are not efficient considering the low horsepower running through it

Not really Beeutey.Its thw energy required to accelerate the mass up to its working speed, all the bearings frictional losses and the drag from the clutches and in this case (727) both pumps (yes you can push start a 727 just like in the old Valiant.
Its actually just like the old arguement of 2WD (100% rear)versus 4WD (50/50split) for fuel economy, The Flywhel effect overcomes the difference so they end up the same.

Now I'm even more confused. My car will take off quite nicely, and while not as quickly as I'd like, it's not at all a slug like Philip drove. I know the engine's been worked on but I don't know what's been done.

400HP, these versions don't have two pumps, though the older 727s did, with the second one on the back.

It still looks like ideally I'll need a 4.6 though.

I don't quite understand what 400hp is getting on about, however if the trans works for you leave it alone. Personally I'd find a ZF 4 speed auto from a D1 and put that in, 4 gears and the right transfer ratio make for a better vehicle.

I have driven a few RR over the years that had the 727 and I reckon that they were shockers. Every one I spoke to all said the same, the 727 sucks a lot of HP from the engine.

I looked at a RR with a 727 many years ago to buy, it was fitted with a 308 Holden engine, and I reckon for a 308 it was slow off the mark.

Dave.