The Twins better with 5 speed box?

[NOHOME]

Originally Posted by 3nl

Something like a GTI would be just fine with 5 gears since it has near full torque all the way down at 2200rpm and keep it almost up to redline - we don't even get into the powerband until we are over 4000rpm. We don't have a lot of area under our torque curve so we need a transmission that is capable of keeping the car in the pretty narrow powerband. If you wanted a grocery getter that was easy, why did you buy an FR-S? The reason we have a 6 speed is so you can keep the car in the powerband and still have a decent overdrive.

The transmission should be matched to the engine - the transmission should make the car as quick and economical as possible given the powerband with as few gears as possible. In our FR-S, that number is 6.

I am probably not as smart as you, but if I look at this graph it shows that full torque has pretty much arrived by 2500 rpm so I don't see where you get the 4000 rpm for max torque information. I also fail to see where you get that this car has a narrow power-band; the FRS actually has a very wide power-band from 2200 to 6500.



I also am not smart enough to get your "grocery getter" comment? Can you please expand on the though?

[3nl]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

I am probably not as smart as you, but if I look at this graph it shows that full torque has pretty much arrived by 2500 rpm so I don't see where you get the 4000 rpm for max torque information. I also fail to see where you get that this car has a narrow power-band; the FRS actually has a very wide power-band from 2200 to 6500.



I also am not smart enough to get your "grocery getter" comment? Can you please expand on the though?

Uhh...you see that big ol' dip between 3200 and 4500rpm? That's why...

[NOHOME]

Originally Posted by 3nl

Uhh...you see that big ol' dip between 3200 and 4500rpm? That's why...

You got's to learn some math, its still a 133 (ish) average over the whole range. Not gonna brag about it, but it gets the job done.

I beat this car every day and fail to see where every one gets their little silk panties in a twist over the "torque dip"? You would have to be one of those princesses with the pea-pod syndromes to really notice. Seems to be lot of these around n both the owner and non-owner camps.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

You got's to learn some math, its still a 133 (ish) average over the whole range. Not gonna brag about it, but it gets the job done.

I beat this car every day and fail to see where every one gets their little silk panties in a twist over the "torque dip"? You would have to be one of those princesses with the pea-pod syndromes to really notice. Seems to be lot of these around n both the owner and non-owner camps.

I pretty much agree.

If it weren't for the posted dyno graphs and all the talk ....... I figure most of the average drivers wouldn't know there was a "torque dip" .....


humfrz

[wbradley]

My previous winter car, 20111 WRX hatch 5 sod with Cobb Stg 1 flash was probably *slightly* quicker off the line than same year STI due to one less gear to shift 0-60.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by humfrz

.....


humfrz

You eat a lot of popcorn.

[Ultramaroon]

, Sir.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

You eat a lot of popcorn.

Ya, I know ...... I've been trying to cut back..... hey, I did quit smoking it .....


humfrz

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by humfrz

Ya, I know ...... I've been trying to cut back..... hey, I did quit smoking it .....


humfrz

Haha... KFCannabis

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

You got's to learn some math, its still a 133 (ish) average over the whole range. Not gonna brag about it, but it gets the job done.

I beat this car every day and fail to see where every one gets their little silk panties in a twist over the "torque dip"? You would have to be one of those princesses with the pea-pod syndromes to really notice. Seems to be lot of these around n both the owner and non-owner camps.

Originally Posted by humfrz

I pretty much agree.

If it weren't for the posted dyno graphs and all the talk ....... I figure most of the average drivers wouldn't know there was a "torque dip" .....


humfrz

Are you guys talking about that 1 second blip that may make a difference in a timed drag race?

[wheelhaus]

With the Evo VIII and IX, there was concern over the 6sp transmission in the MR melting/shearing 4th gear from heavy track usage, it happened frequently enough that anything more than 10-15% more torque over stock could cause it. Some were adding oil coolers, but the guaranteed fix was to plop in the 5sp from the standard Evo because the gears were just plain fatter, and the tranny was mechanically a little more simple. Both transmissions were the same outer size, so the 6sp gears were narrower to make them fit. While it was a better tranny in every other department, it made sacrifices in strength. The 5sp was the go-to for anyone tracking the car a lot.

Apples and oranges, but in this case the 5sp was better purely for strength. In the 86, close ratio 6sp is the way to go for all the reasons mentioned already. I just wish it was designed and built a little better.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Are you guys talking about that 1 second blip that may make a difference in a timed drag race?

Isn't that called upshifting?

[ic-racer]

Originally Posted by MikeyBatz

I was thinking would the frs/brz be better with a one less gear? I remember back in the day before the CVTs most subaru were 5 speed.

5 speed gear pros:
-better power band?
-quicker acceleration
-easier in traffic (manual)
cons
-less mpg


what do you guys think?

Do you know anything about gearing for internal combustion engines?

[ic-racer]

After a few drives I'd think anyone can tell it kick you in the back from 2 to 3k but not much happens when you floor it after that until around 5k. I don't know why people don't think the power graphs don't show this.