Hey man, there's no need to get you pantys in a bunch In your first post you told me that the torque multiplication of a torque converter is a misnomer which is wrong. A torque converter is a torque multilpication device. That's all. Slipping the clutch from a high rpm in a manual tranny has the same acceleration effect, but it's not the same as what a torque converter does to result in the same acceleration effect. If you were to throw a 3500rpm stall converter behind a VQ35, these autos would be significantly quicker in the 1/4 mile. The problem is they would be lethargic around town under normal driving and the tranny would generate a ton of heat.

BTW, yes, you can see large torque spikes on autos when dynoing. Typically you'll see it when the torque converter slips between shifts. I've seen spikes as high as 350wtq on my friend's NA 96 Maxima auto (190whp@6200rpms and 185wtq@4500rpms, 3rd gear) and 450wtq on my friend's 03 G35 sedan auto (215whp/210wtq).

For those want to know more about how a torque converter works and how it really can significantly multiply torque, check out this link http://www.tciauto.com/tech_info/tor..._explained.htm

".....The torque multiplier effect means that a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission and torque converter will output more torque to the drive wheels than the engine is actually producing. This occurs while the converter is in its "stall mode" (when the turbine is spinning considerably slower than the pump) and during vehicle acceleration. Torque multiplication rapidly decreases until it reaches a ratio of 1:1 (no torque increase over crankshaft torque.) A typical torque converter will have a torque multiplication ratio in the area of 2.5:1. The main point to remember is that all properly functioning torque converters do indeed multiply torque during initial acceleration. The more drastic the change in fluid path caused by the stator from its "natural" return path, the higher the torque multiplication ratio a given converter will have. Torque multiplication does not occur with a manual transmission clutch and pressure plate; hence the need for heavy flywheels, very high numerical gear ratios, and high launch rpm. A more detailed discussion of torque multiplication can get very confusing to the layman as high multiplication ratios can be easily considered the best choice when in fact more variables must be included in the decision. Remember, the ratio is still a factor of the engine torque in the relevant range of the torque converter stall speed, i.e.: a converter with a multiplication ratio of 2.5:1 that stalls 3000 rpm will produce 500 ft.-lbs. of torque at the instance of full throttle acceleration if its coupled to an engine producing 200 ft.-lbs. of torque at 3000 rpm. However, if this same engine produces 300 ft.-lbs. of torque at 4000 rpm, we would be better off with a converter that stalled 4000 rpm with only a 2.0:1 torque multiplication ratio, i.e.: 300 x 2.0 = 600 ft.-lbs. at initial acceleration. Of course it would be better yet to have a 2.5:1 ratio with the 4000 rpm in this example (provided his combination still allows the suspension to work and the tires don't spin.)"

 

Anyone notice the breaking distance in the Motor Trend article? The 2005 G35 was the worst of the 3 cars being compared (121 feet from 60 mph if I'm recalling correctly). Obviously this is only one data point, but the 2003 to 2004 G35s were consistently much better than that (around 110 feet). I wonder if this will be born out on further testing.