Yeah there's a mid engine ITR with a prelude engine in it as well.

There's also Blake's old ITR (no idea what happened to it) which he used for Pikes Peak and then drifting. IIRC B20VTEC with a CRV (or AWD Integra, forgot which but pretty sure CRV) trans, AWD Integra rear end.. was AWD for Pikes Peak and then modified for FR for drifting.

I can't reply to this without offending Celica GTS owners ;)

Mmm, AWD Integra. I wish they made it over here to the states. That'd be my winter DD! Aren't they quite rare, even in Japan?

Oh and I'll try to find a stock-ish ITR next week at Mid Ohio. If so I'll post datalogging info of my BRZ and the ITR. Not too many stock ITRs at ITR Expo though :(

Yeah.. powered by a D series IIRC. I haven't looked into them since Blake first mentioned the project probably 9 or 10 years ago.

Can't say anything that we probably haven't already heard. Biggest problem with the GTS is it actually needs someone who knows how to drive it. My average at the track in my stock GTS was 14.85, not the best out there, but whatever. I haven't taken the BRZ up. Probably won't either, there have been tales of dealerships checking the track for people who race. My friend has long since sold his ITR. He averaged 14.7 with 2.0 60's. He drove the BRZ and loved it. Said it was nice to not have to downshift to get up hills. LOL

I thought it was something different like the ZC engine.

Mostly messing with you on the GTS. The main thing I didn't like about it when I first drove it was the horrific gearing. I thought about buying one as a DD after my track/DD GS-R suffered some side damage but the gearing made it fall flat on shifts, quite noticably. Other than that I didn't mind the car.

We don't have hills in Florida so I can't relate to that :P

Yeah just checked, ZC, which is really just a D series anyways with agressive cams or whatever.

I use to hate Hondas so my only experience with D series stuff is ripping them out for B series... :)

I know a guy with ITR here that went 13.9 sec on completly stock ITR. And ITR really isnt 2600 lbs, its below 2500 on average.

It isnt just who is faster in straight line. ITR has that special feeling of pure racecar that you can use on the street. I had modified civic before with about the same HP and it just isnt comparable. The shifting, the noise, the cornering....it really is something else.

Thats why I asked someone who owned ITR to compare them. I understand that for some its just another high reving Honda and its nothing wrong with that. But owners usually understands....

Saying that BRZ is more like RWD GSR than RWD ITR says it all to me. But I dont think you can buy a car as raw as ITR was stock nowdays, not spending some silly money for porsche GT3 or something in that class.

I guess BRZ with 300 pounds less and 20hp tune-up, with perfect suspension setup would be the right thing for me :)

Which cannot be described on paper, or experienced in other cars. It is truly unique.

Why do that? SCCA championship winner right here @ 125hp, STS class. Also placed 2nd in SCCA Pro-solo national tour. Passes Viper ACR's at Cal Speedways Roval. ETC

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto..._2622241_n.jpg

Bet it can't pass Charlie Rhyu..... JKJK Sorta!

More power on the street :)

If you think the BRZ/FRS has good gearing you are .....

Thats the first thing I notice about the BRZ and FRS when I step on it. Takes so long to get to high revs. The ITR gets to the high revs much quicker than the BRZ.

I wish the FR-S or BRZ had a better final drive. I think for a 200hp FWD to be able to hang with a 200hp RWD. That FWD has got something cool about it. Can't say that for all the new FWDs.


1998 Acura Integra Type R vs. 2010 Honda Civic Si

Revenge of the Acura Integra Type R



cool article

I saw that article a couple years ago. What I would give to have a Type R that's never been registered and with 5,500 miles on it!

It just again recently :)

Gearing is for getting out of the hole (i.e., zero-to-xx speed). Once you're over some low speed in first gear, having super low (numerically high) overall gearing doesn't really help you, as you have to upshift sooner, which then puts you at a gearing disadvantage, all else equal.

Of course an 8400rpm car is going to be differently-geared than a 7400rpm car, that's to be expected.

The Type R's engine advantage over the FR-S is that its much higher redline allows lower gearing without the disadvantage of having to upshift at lower speeds. Its engine disadvantage is 10% lower displacement. Overall, 195hp vs. 200hp = roughly equal. But the Type R is a good 150 lb. lighter-weight.

IMO, it's already geared pretty sportily. Probably about right for most autoX/track work, if not for outright zero-to-xx mph acceleration. Shorter (numerically higher) gearing would require upshifts at lower speeds, not necessarily going to make it quicker overall. 0-58mph will definitely be quicker with the stock gearing than with Integra Type R overall gearing, which would require an upshift to 3rd.

The real story is power/weight: 14.36 lb/hp for the Type R is comparable to, slightly better than 14.75 lb/hp for the FR-S/BRZ (both with 200 lb driver + fuel). And they both do about the same in the 1/4 (high-14s/low-15s at ~95mph).

At this modest power/weight level, fwd isn't as much of an inherent disadvantage for acceleration performance.
But it is still "wrong-wheel drive"...

^ well said

I don't know if we are agreeing on the same thing here. I mentioned that for a FWD the ITR is one of the best and is very impressive as it hangs with many RWDs in performance comparisons. Never mentioned FWD was better. In no way is FWD superior. RWD and AWD have more advantages.

I think for a car like the BRZ and FRS (doesn't get very quick until higher rpms) a faster final drive (higher numerical number) will improve acceleration as it gets the car quicker into the powerband. I'm not sure if it's just me but slamming a 5.1 final drive into my DC5 improved my laptimes at my local 1 minute track by over a second consistently.

The BRZ and FRS don't have that much torque. If they had 200lbs of tq they would likely be much more ballsy to drive. Giving it a quicker final drive will give it more usable torque. It won't actually give you more torque but you will feel torque quicker. Does that make sense?

http://www.teammfactory.com/final-drive-gears-road-race

The weight isnt the only factor of the DC2 being successful. The chassis/suspension design is one of my favorite in Hondas design. I drive both the DC5 and DC2 closely and even though they are the same weight pretty much, the DC2 is much more engaging to drive.

I think this is one of the biggest myths about "gearing". That it will always rev up quicker and "get you into the powerband". How quickly a car accelerates from a given speed is a function of power/weight. Gearing of course plays a part, but once you're above some low speed, overall it's a wash. An FR-S with a 5:1 will accelerate much more slowly from 48mph vs. stock 4.1:1 diff, and from that speed the stock diff will "get the car into its powerband quicker". Because the geared car will have to be in 3rd gear and have WORSE overall gearing.

Gearing does not magic you superior power/weight!

Optimal gearing is dependent on the specific track or autoX layout. There are countless cases of 4.77-geared S2k's that went significantly *slower* at autoX and road courses due to no longer being in the right part of the rev range out of critical corners and/or having to either throw in an additional upshift or bounce off the rev limiter at the end of a critical straight.

Obvi!

Gearing gives more torque to the drive wheels in a given transmission gear, but it is NOT FREE. You have to upshift sooner, and then your gearing advantage turns into a gearing DISadvantage.

Most sports cars are not geared optimally for 0-60 or 1/4-mile performance, rather they are geared more for road course/autoX performance (with some consideration to fuel economy as well, of course).

Just, WOW. That site outright LIES! Gearing changes DO NOT GIVE YOU MORE POWER OR MORE ENGINE TORQUE.
They claim 12% "power gain" with 12% shorter (numerically higher) gearing. That is quite simply UTTER HORSESHIT. You do get greater torque at the wheels *in a given gear* but you get ZERO additional power (dyno would show a very slight power loss due to greater acceleration in a given gear) and ZERO additional engine torque.

Again, any GAIN you get from gearing in a given trans gear MUST be paid for by having to upshift sooner, where you will accelerate more SLOWLY vs. stock gearing which allows you to stay in the lower trans gear longer.

Overall, acceleration is all about power/weight. For acceleration from a specific speed to another specific speed, it will depend on which speeds are chosen, and the "geared" car WON'T always win.

Hmm.... Reminds me of something Tetsuya-san said about the FR-S and its competitors...

Also, I remember Edmunds did a comparo between the 2012 Si with the K24 and the 2000 Si with the B16. Same 12-year difference. And same consensus. Honda no longer has that wonderful connected-feel that they used to have. They've gone too soft, they've lost their racing heritage and it definitely shows with both comparos.

Missing a word there? I take it "happened"?

Err that's what I get for posting on the ipad right after waking up :)

Meant that "It just got sold again recently"

Oh it did? I remember there was a raffle to see who would get it the first time. Do you know how much it sold for?

Yeah all the school/tech cars do the raffle. Gary R. (PR guy @ Honda) won it. IIRC somewhere around 25K but I'm not 100% sure. That's about what any mint extremely low mileage ITR is worth still. (20-25)

I don't think MFactory is implying that a final drive actually gives you any increase in torque. I guess it just shows that that final drive can give you more usable torque quickly. There really is no way to calculate it. I'm not sure how they came out with those numbers. Just from personal experience by acceleration increased quite a bit going from by stock final drive to a 5.1. I also find that I don't need to downshift to go up hills as it gets up to rev easier without bogging down. There is no point debating about this. Only time will tell i f the BRZ and FRS benefit from a quicker final drive in a straight line and around a track. From what I've done to my own car. The final drive helped me more than all my bolt ons and tuning. It was cheap too. But hey what do I know.

That's exactly what they're doing in the "ETE" column. They say that if you have 122 lb-ft of torque with factory Type R 4.4 gears, you'll effectively have 137 lb-ft with 4.928 gears. NOT TRUE. With those gears you'll only have a gearing advantage over specific, limited ranges of speed. Over other speed ranges, you'll have the advantage with the stock gears! On average, no difference!
Putting in 12% lower (numerically higher) gears is NOT THE SAME THING as having 12% more engine torque!

Worse, they actually say that you will have a POWER GAIN of 12%! While you could make the argument that *in a given gear* (a MAJOR qualifier, which leaves out the fact that often you'll have to be in a taller transmissino gear with the 4.928s) you'll have 12% more torque, implying that you'll effectively make 12% more POWER is utter and total bullshit. There's no dancing around it with this claim, it's simply a LIE. You will NOT enjoy a "power gain" of any kind, in any transmission gear, whatsoever, with the 4.928 gears.

Yes there IS a way to calculate it. It's dirt simple!

If you're able to go 60mph in 2nd gear in a stock Type R with 4.4:1 gears, you're only going to be able to go 60*(4.4/4.928) = 53.6mph in 2nd with 4.928 gears.

Yes, in 2nd gear you will enjoy greater acceleration, but ONLY up to ~54mph, then you'll have to upshift to 3rd.

From 54mph up to 60mph, you'll have a *significant* gearing advantage and quicker acceleration with the stock 4.4 gearing in 2nd gear than with the 4.928 gears in 3rd.
2nd gear ratio is 2.105, 3rd is 1.458.
4.4 * 2.105 = 9.262
4.928 * 1.458 = 7.185

To put it in the linked site's highly misleading terms, you'll effectively have 29% greater torque with the STOCK 4.4 gears from 54mph up to 60mph (9.262/7.185 = 1.29). And to outright lie in the same way that they do, you'll have a 29% "power gain" in that speed range with 4.4s vs. 4.928s!

Simple ratio. 4.928/4.4 = 1.12. They multiplied the stock torque by 1.12 giving more "effective" torque, more torque at the wheels, *but only in a given gear*. They failed to say that there is a LOSS in "effective" torque, less torque at the wheels, in some speed ranges, and that on average there is NO gain (or loss) in "effective" torque. Then, worse, they claim a 12% "power gain", which is an unmitigated falsehood.

Torque at the wheels is engine torque multiplied by the trans ratio and the diff ratio (minus frictional and other losses). POWER at the wheels is the same as engine power (also minus frictional and power losses).

Only in some speed ranges. I *guarantee* that you are now slower accelerating from 52mph up to 60mph with 5.1 gearing vs. stock 4.4 gearing (we are talking about an Integra Type R, right?). At 52mph you'll have to be in 3rd gear with 5.1 gears, whereas with stock 4.4 you'll be in 2nd all the way up to 60. Stock 4.4s will SLAY 5.1s over that speed range.

Absolutely, with lower (numerically higher) gears you'll be higher up in the rev range and have greater mechanical advantage and enjoy much greater acceleration from cruising speed in top gear. But the transmission is there to allow you to be in an appropriate ratio for whatever situation. For cruising at 75mph, taller stock gearing is better for mpg and reduced noise, and a quick downshift to 4th will give you much better acceleration than 5.1 gears in 5th.

Worth noting that top speed potential is reduced to 123mph with 5.1s, but if you're not tracking it at pretty high-speed courses, this shouldn't be an issue, really.

Yes there is. Greater understanding of the REAL ramifications of changing gearing.

Going with numerically higher gearing does NOT improve acceleration over all speed ranges. SO many people have this misconception at S2ki, and with the placebo effect (I expect it to be quicker/faster ALL the time, therefore I observe that it is!), the misconception is reinforced.

Your car is quicker over some speed ranges with gears. It is also significantly SLOWER over other speed ranges.

Please don't say "quicker final drive"! Again, it's ONLY quicker over some speed ranges, it'll be slower over others.

Gears will almost always help with acceleration from a dead stop or some low speed below, say, ~25-30mph. Zero-to-XXmph and 1/4-mile ET will generally improve (not necessarily trap speed, though).
From a stoplight, gears RULE. From a roll? Totally depends on what the starting speed is. From 52mph, stock 4.4 gears in a Type R will KILL 5.1 gears.

Optimal diff gearing will be HIGHLY dependent on the specific track. Generally, what's best for zero-to-XXmph or 1/4-mile times will be too short (numerically high) for most autoX/track work. Stock gearing is usually a big compromise between decent acceleration off the line and fuel economy. This often works out to make *stock* gearing pretty good for autoX and track work. But again, TOTALLY dependent on the specific course or track.

Can't restate this enough: ONLY OVER CERTAIN SPEED RANGES. From a stoplight, yeah, big improvement. From 52mph, you're slower with 5.1s.

I appreciate the effort and knowledge ZDan but I still stand to believe that the BRZ and FRS would benefit from a final drive swap. This is just what I believe. I find the car takes too long to rev up to the optimal RPM range and through the two tracks that I've driven a BRZ I could really see that the gearing didn't work well for those tracks. One set of gears that works for one track may not work for another. In the case of the Integra I've found that having the 5.1 gave me a noticeable advantage over my other Integras on the track. This was just on my local track though. With my old gearing I found myself in a undesired rpm range when leaving a tight hairpin. The new final drive seems to have shifted the gearing around so that doesn't happen anymore as well as give me an advantage in acceleration in second gear out of a turn. I understand that having to shift more often is a disadvantage. I see you own a 01 AP1. The guy sitting beside me has a BB AP1 with a 4.77 final drive. In his experience of installing the 4.77 he definitely noticed that his acceleration in all of this gears improved. From a roll we use to be neck in neck up to 4th. After he installed the 4.77 he now gains a slight half car advantage over me. In mexico of course. The S2000 or RSX or ITR or any Honda for that matter is gutless below 5000rpm. To me the quicker I can get to 5000rpm into the powerband the better. That's just me though. Another good example is the RSX vs the DC5-R. I've raced DC5s with Type R transmissions and I can definitely see them pull away from me on the back straights. After I swapped a Type R trans in I could finally keep up with them. In the case of the FRS and BRZ I also find the car to be gutless below 4000rpm. The quicker I can get to the powerband the better I find it would be. That's just for me though. If you feel like the stock gearing is perfect - just keep the stock final drive. They make aftermarket final drives for a reason. Just to be clear the new FD2 comes with a 5.1 final drive stock. Many FA5 and DC owners are swapping the oem FD2 or CRV 5.1 final drives into their transmissions and noticing improvements.

edit: BTW you don't have to repeat that a higher numerical final drive will improve the acceleration in some ranges and hurt it in others. I understand this concept. But that doesn't change the fact that it does help acceleration in a specific range. For tight technical tracks if that specific range is beneficial to you than the swap might work out. Everyone has their own needs for gearing depending on what other modifications they have. I have noticed that my 4th gear acceleration seems to have gotten worse. It's not as noticeable now as I've moved the VTEC engagement around.

It will benefit in some speed ranges, but lose performance in others. Generally, most production cars will see some benefit with modest gearing changes at many tracks. But not always...

I just *hate* to see people advertise more torque and (worse!) more POWER with a gearing change. You do NOT get more torque and you *certainly* don't get more POWER! LIES!

In performance driving at the track, you're going to be keeping the revs spun up all the time, so it's not a question of tooling around at low rpm and then "getting on it". It's only a question of what speed you're going exiting the most critical corners, and what gearing will put you closer to optimal rpm range at that speed.

For an Integra Type R accelerating out of a 52mph corner, you will be in 2nd gear at 7300rpm with stock gearing, and you will be in 3rd gear at 5800rpm with 5.1 gearing.
Just getting into optimal rpm range with stock gearing, WAY below it with 5.1s, making WAY less power.
Needless to say, out of this particular corner, stock gears will have a significant advantage and will accelerate away much more quickly.

Out of a 45mph corner, both cars will be in 2nd gear, and the advantage will be with the 5.1 gears. Until it gets to 52mph where it has to go to 3rd...

If 5.1s suit the track(s) you go to, that's great. But there are tracks where 5.1s will put you at a disadvantage.

Absolutely true. But of course changes to the car will affect optimal gearing. With stickier tires, more front camber and other mods that increase cornering speeds, the optimal gearing will go TALLER (numerically lower, closer to the stock diff ratio) vs. stock suspension on Prius tires.

That said, if your tracks favor a ton more gear for the Type R, they will probably favor it for the FR-S/BRZ.

It's not just having to shift "more often". In fact, at some tracks you might find that you have to shift more often with the stock gears.

The POINT I'm trying to hammer home is that lower (numerically higher) diff gearing will not always give you an overall gearing advantage. In some speeds, they will put you at an overall gearing disadvantage.

There is no free lunch with gearing. That said, stock gearing is usually compromimsed a bit more on the tall (numerically low) side than would be optimal for most enthusiasts.

I have to restate it YET AGAIN!
YES, acceleration in all gears is greater. BUT, acceleration *from a given speed* will be WORSE, SLOWER from some speeds.
At a track, it is not "acceleration in a given gear" that matters. It is "acceleration from a given corner exit speed". The exit speed from the most critical corners may or may not favor 4.77s over 4.10s in a particular AP1 (also dependent on other factors as noted above).

Again, it is HUGELY CRITICAL what rolling speed you start from. Starting from 56mph, 4.77 gears will be WAY slower than stock 4.10s! Because with 4.77s, you'll have to be in 3rd gear, vs. 2nd gear with 4.10.

No free lunch! Get it?

Appropriate downshift and you're above 5000rpm at *any* speed, whatever the diff ratio.

I don't know why people persist in thinking that gears will "get them into the powerband quicker". From a standing start or low low speed roll in 1st, yeah, you'll get there quicker. From 25-30mph on up it's only a question of choosing the best gear for your speed and gearing.

For damn sure, starting at 56mph, stock gears in an AP1 will get you there MUCH quicker than if you had 4.77s. See above^^^

That is a DIFFERENT SUBJECT. A transmission with closer ratios will allow you to stay closer to the power peak at all times (at the expense of more shifting required). Changing the diff ratio does not make the trans ratios any closer! You will have the EXACT same rpm drop on every upshift with 4.77s as with 4.1s (or with 5.1s vs 4.4s in the Type R).

So who's forcing you to keep the revs below 4000rpm? You can be above 4000rpm for any speed above 19mph in the FR-S/BRZ. Don't wanna be below 4000rpm, you don't hafta be.

Above some pretty low speed, being in the powerband is just an appropriate downshift away even with stock gearing. I don't know why "gearing" fans think that gears will mean they're always revving in a higher range. Nothing's keeping you from revving out the engine with the stock gears! The only difference is that in 1st gear, at low speeds, you will necessarily be at lower revs with stock. Above ~25-30mph, the "revs" advantage will depend entirely about what specific speed you're talking about, and again, for the thousandth time, at some speeds you will have the gearing/revs advantage with the taller stock gearing.

I know it's not perfect. No gearset is! But in as many cases as not, a BIG gearing change (like 4.1 to 4.77 on the AP1) is going to hurt you more than help you at many tracks.

To make money. And if they can convince people that MOAR GEAR is ALWAYS better, and equivalent to more engine torque and power (LIES!), they'll sell more. Increased acceleration in every gear (but NOT from every speed) + placebo effect just confirms what most people WANT to believe.
But again, gearing doesn't miracle you better power/weight, and depending on the track or what speed you roll from, gears can make you slower.

6-speed gives closer-ratios while maintaining the same overall ratio in top gear.

And many people have put 4.77s into AP1s and gone slower...

Totally dependent on the track, but while stock gearing is often a little on the tall side, a BIG change in gearing will often put you a little on the short side vs. optimal at many tracks.

Anyway, your earlier posts and your link reinforce a total MYTH about gearing, that it is equivalent to having more engine torque and/or power. It isn't. That's my main point.

I under ZDan. I don't think anyone would believe the gearing will give you measurable power increase of torque increase. I never stated that. The gearing does just that. GEARS. Different speeds at different gears. You get what is suited for your tastes. Messing with the gears will give you better acceleration if you know what you want. I'm still playing with the gears in my car and I'm thinking about swapping different gears out for the type r gearset while keeping some USDM gears. For my rsx they gave us a 4.3 final drive while giving the 05-06 a 4.7 just like the type r version in japan. The civic type r received a 5.062 final drive. There is no wrong or right final drive. The civic type r, rsx type s, dc5-r all have pretty much the same motor. Why did Honda give them all different final drives? I'm sure they had their reasons. I have the opportunity to drive cars with these motors using the 3 different transmissions and I enjoy using the 5.062 and 4.7 transmissions the most. The stock 4.3 final drive just doesn't work for me. They really stuck the stick up our ass over here. Gave us a 4.3 FD and an open differential.

It will be worse in some areas, but those areas are smaller than the areas it has an advantage. I've run with cars using the 4.9FD, and they pull me constantly, I'm faster in corners and am a late braker/trailer braker so I catch up every turn, but stock vs stock the 4.9 car is faster in a straight line based on my experience. Yes, I will pull from 54-59mph, but then I won't pull again until 82-92 or so, but the 4.9FD car has pulled enough that I'm not catching up anyways.

To clarify, the 4.9-geared Type R will indeed have the advantage over a wider range of speeds, BUT, that advantage will be MUCH SMALLER.

I.e., the 4.9-geared car will have a (4.928/4.4) or 1.12x advantage in 2nd up to 54mph, but THEN the stock 4.4 geared car will have a 1.29x advantage up to 60mph.

On average it evens out. Who wins depends entirely on what the starting speed is and where the finish line is. Starting from zero mph, the geared car will win up to some pretty high speed.

Starting from rolling speeds, depends... Generally, one car will start to pull away, then will have to shift sooner and the other car will catch up, until *it* has to shift. Back and forth. Absolutely equal driving (never happens), with identical cars other than gearing (hardly ever the case), winner will depend entirely on the starting speed and where the finish line is.

Trailing driver will *always* catch up going into turns due to "concertina effect", even if braking and cornering speeds are identical (smaller physical gap at lower speed for the same time gap).

77/78mph
As I think about it, it's probably worse for the 4.9-geared car to start in 2nd at some speed below 54mph, say 49mph. Then he outaccelerates you for a very short time, and has to shift, whereupon you'd catch and pass him (depending on start speed and shift time) and pull steadily away up to 60. Then you shift and he gains big-time.
Anyway, back-and-forth.

For sure, from a dead stop or low-speed roll, the 4.9 car pulls ahead and you only get close when he has to shift. From other speeds, depends...

Without doing the math, that longer duration but smaller advantage still wins, at least in the real world in my experience.

Since I knew you have track experience I didn't think you'd misunderstand me there. By catch up I didn't simply mean under braking. I've passed a friends geared car under braking or just post track out, and would be passed again before the next turn. Datalogging, if he had it in his car, would show he doesn't brake as hard and has lower cornering speeds (obvious from behind by braking points). I have enough experience on track to realize if I'm actually closing a gap or not :)

I don't shift my car at 7,900.. come on now :) Assuming stock ECU at redline it's 82mph 4.928/91 4.400. At fuel cut, that bumps up 1mph each.

I'd agree that given the right specific situation the stock gearing car would win. If nothing else, the ability to pass without downshifting on the highway is worth the 4.9 ;)

IMO, overall and in general, same power/weight vs. same power/weight is going to be close, and be dependent on starting speed and finishing distance. Of course if a car pulls ahead, he can simply end it when he gets to redline and claim victory rather than suffer being caught when he upshifts!

Except from zero or low low speed roll, where gears will pretty much win every time, general overall acceleration performance is going to be the same, dictated by power/weight.

Sorry, I'm a condescending ass by nature!

I gotcha. But still, two different cars, two different drivers, and it's entirely possible he ekes out an exit speed advantage by being slower on entry and at apex... In any case, room for doubt!

That said, some cars will need a lot more gear than others. Wouldn't be surprising if the Type R (5-spd, 8400rpm 1.8 liter) is one. So yeah, I can see it....

In my experience with my bone-stock AP1, it's been pretty decently-geared for most tracks I go to (NHMS, Lime Rock, Watkins Glen, Mosport, Mont Tremblant). The one curve that it SUCKED at is the toe of the boot at WGI, where it's bogged down in 3rd going up the hill. Then again I probably wasn't going fast enough around it on street tires...

Speedo might say one thing, reality is another!
On stock diameter tires, 890 revs per mile, 2nd gear = 1.458 (izzat right?), I'm getting 8400rpm => 88mph with 4.4s, 79mph with 4.928s

8400/(1.458*4.4) = 1309 wheel rpm = 78563 wheel revs/hr, divided by 890 revs/mile = 88.3

88.3*(4.4/4.928) = 78.8

Ah, well, close enough!

What I tell the AP1 guys eager to go to 4.77's for this reason:
If you just don't use 6th gear and keep it in 5th on the highway, you get the exact same effect for a LOT less effort!

860 revs/mile.. 195/55/15, ~890 would be 195/50/15 unless my math is wrong..

(((195*.55)*2)+(15*25.4)/25.4) = 23.44"

23.44*3.1415 = 73.64" circum

63,360/73.64 = 860.4 revs/mile

So 8400/(1.458*4.4) = 1309.4 = 78563 / 860 = 91.35mph


And damn, this has gone off topic :)

Your math's not wrong, but you left something out. The effective rolling circumference is somewhat less than the max inflated OD of the tire suggests. Usually by a factor of 0.97 which is what I use for performance estimations.

Tire Rack shows 890 revs per mile for a 195/55-15 tire, pretty consistent with the rule-o-thumb 0.97 factor, so that's what I used.

And that still doesn't account for percentage *slip* of the driven wheels/tires under hard acceleration, which will knock actual speed down quite a bit more vs. indicated.

Indeed it has :D

Forget the math.. The final drive worked for me in my experience and I'm willing to try it on the FR-S. Gears do make a difference. The gears that the car comes factory doesn't suit everyone. ESPECIALLY when you start to modify the car. You could argue stock the gearing is best stock. Well if the car isn't stock (more power) it could benefit from different gearing. The next step for my car is to hit up the valvetrain. New springs+retainers. Going to tune the car to rev higher. I feel like it would benefit me at the track.

Not everyone goes for a quicker final drive (yes I just used the word quicker - I don't want to type out HIGHER NUMERICAL VALUE FINAL DRIVE) try showing up to a car meet and go "HEY GUYS CHECK IT OUT I JUST INSTALLED MY HIGHER NUMERICAL VALUE FINAL DRIVE"

Tons of boost guys go the other way and get final drives that make their gears longer. No traction FTL.

Forget the math? It's only the language of the universe, the language of God Almighty!

Not always a difference in the desired direction, though... Not at all saying that you didn't experience an improvement at the tracks you got to. Only saying that "gears" don't always give people what they really wanted, which was a legitimately faster car for their usage.

Opposite is often true. If you add torque to add power, subtract weight, and add lateral grip, optimal gearing will be *taller*. However if you take a given displacement and tweak it more for higher-rpm performance, optimal gearing is shorter (numerically higher).

See above.

The FR-S or the Type R? In either case, you should consider two things:
1. with the same cam profiles, same valve sizes, same intake/exhaust ports, you're not going to make any more power by revving higher
2. simply going to new springs and retainers does NOTHING to beef up the bottom end, which may well already near its limit for reliability at the existing redline/rev-limiter

We used to just call it "LOWER" gearing, but somewhere along the line (late 90s?) newbs couldn't grasp the concept that 4.77 gearing is LOWER than 4.10 gearing.

Calling lower (numerically higher) gearing "quicker" can be false advertising!

Yup. Adding power via adding torque means optimal gearing becomes taller (numerically lower!).

True but I prefer to stick with numbers I can quantify, inflation and specific tires will change that, kind of shooting in the dark too much for me there :)

Indicated is worthless, especially in a Honda. I could go datalog it through GPS but I'm not running OEM size tires anyways.