Visit our community sponsor
Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
The latter.
94 BB Rx-7 3030lb
Well, in that case, you are saying that mass is decreasing, so the force must be decreasing also. What's going with acceleration?
Oh dear, this convo again.Originally Posted by Evan78
Best way to test it yourself: Try punching different objects with the exact same amount of effort from your arm. First punch a piece of paper held suspended in front of you, then punch your car. Feel the difference?
So does your engine and transmission. With the same throttle input but on a 1800 lb car the stress on the drivetrain is far less than on a 3300 lb car.
Why? Objects that apply dynamic force can only apply that force over a limited distance at a limited maximum rate and limited maximum change in speed. If the object being acted on requires less force to surpass the maximum acceleration and rotational velocity of the engine, then only the force required to achieve that acceleration is applied despite the higher potential for the engine/fist to apply an instantaneous force.
So a 500hp engine with 500tq simply can not apply all 500 of it's torque to a piece of paper duct taped to the outputshaft, for example.
That's why gears exist.
If you want to get more scientific about it, it's Newton's third law of motion 'every action sees an equal and opposite reaction'
Because of this, it's not the max output of your fist or engine that determines the force being applied, it's the amount of force the object being acted on is capable of also exerting back on the engine or your fist that limits the stresses seen in the system.
End of story.
Last edited by BrandonDrums; 05-05-2012 at 11:40 AM.
So is this correct in thinking?
The JDM STI 6sp is heavier and longer may stick out the back alittle but has stronger close ratio gearset?
I can live with all of that. So with all the EJxxx versionxxxx how do I tell which is what?
I would plan on something like this EJ20 version 7
http://www.ebay.com/itm/JDM-SUBARU-E...d4365f&vxp=mtr
What year would this be? I understand that 1st gear will be real low but I rather like that idea. I like to keep busy shifting.
With the STI speed I use this center diff lock kit I think?
http://www.possumbourne.co.nz/trans_diff_parts.html
Are my assumptions correct?
I would follow this Matrix build and use the 2WD conversion he used.
Tq is Tq. It doesn't care how much the object weighs. If it weighs little, it'll just move along faster in a shorter amount of time.
The only time the stress differs is from a stop and even then it's not so much about AWD/RWD but the amount of rubber on the road. A 225 tire for instance in a RWD setup is 550mm of rubber resisting movement. In AWD that becomes a whopping 1100mm of rubber. If you dumped the clutch on a RWD car with 550mm tires, it would have the same exact amount of stress as 225mm AWD tire setup.
Your analogy of punching things doesn't work either. You're methods are so way off it's not even in the same sport. The above explains why from a stop about the AWD/RWD difference in stress. When in movement it's just very simple. A lighter car with 300tq will just move along faster then a heavier car with 300tq. Weight has no affect on the stress, it just allows the car to move faster. It isn't that hard to understand.
This is not true. A tire's coefficient of friction does not have a linear relationship with it's aspect ratio or width.
Fine- then replace the numbers so the correct coefficient is used. In the end, an AWD has more rubber to fight over a RWD from a launch. Weight plays a role from a stop as well but that's where it ends as well. Once the car is in motion, 300 tq from the engine to the trans is 300 tq regardless if the car is 1000 pounds or 4000. The only "lesser stress" a lightweight platform contributes is it takes less tq to gain a desired acceleration. If(and these are just made up numbers) it takes 100 tq to get a 4000 pound car to 60mph in 20 seconds, it'll take alot less tq to get a 1000 pound car to 60 in 20 seconds. With the high tolerance of these gearsets to take some abuse, non abusive levels like that are non-issue at all.
Last edited by Etos; 05-05-2012 at 11:09 PM.
tq is an instantaneous measure of a twisting force. If that torque, for example is coming from a person standing on the end of a lever, it can only be applied at the rate at which gravity causes objects to accelerate toward earth.
Similarly, fuel only burns so quick and a engine can only change the rate in which it increases it's rotational speed so quick. It's true, just pop your car in neutral and see that when you floor the gas pedal, the engine doesn't immediately hit the rev-limiter.
I mean, just go ride a bike. You can exert x amount of torque right? Put your bike in first gear and pedal as hard as you can with a piece of cardboard between your feet and the pedal. You'll probably hardily indent the cardboard and you'll reach your max speed pretty quick.
Now tie your bike to a tree, put the bike in top gear and pedal as hard as you can with the cardboard underneath your feet. The cardboard is way more chewed up right, your tired but you haven't gone anywhere.
Torque gives a really big **** about how much weight it's toting around.
Last edited by BrandonDrums; 05-06-2012 at 06:48 PM.
I think this boils down to rate of change of input force (engine torque) vs. resistance (traction and inertia). Without some kind of resistance, there isn't much stress being put on the transmission (or any part of the drive train, for that matter). If the rate of change of the input force (the rate at which the engine applies more and more torque as revs climb) exceeds the ability to dissipate that force (the force being resistance, and dissipated via acceleration), stress on the transmission increases - presumably until there is no additional torque to be added, or until something gives (tires break free, transmission breaks, etc.). All other things being equal, as weight is lowered, resistance is lowered as well. The tires are more apt to break free, and the whole car has less inertial resistance, making it easier to dissipate the input force.
Now, some people are saying the car will just accelerate faster, causing the stress on the transmission to remain the same. This is true so long as the overall resistance remains the same. The assumption being made here is that because the input force (engine torque) is the same, the equation will balance and the output will result in whatever [faster] acceleration will keep the resistance the same. As has been pointed out, there is a limit to how much more force the engine can apply. If the weight reduction is such that the input force is able to be dissipated more quickly than the engine can increase the input force, then stress is actually reduced.
So will the stress on the transmission be the same or less? I don't think anyone can answer that at this point because no one knows for sure what impact the reduced weight will have on this car (since it's not done yet and all...). Perhaps someone with the appropriate engine data and a lot of math skills could take a crack at it, but until then I propose we stop speculating and wait until we have actual data.
Last edited by Xusia; 05-07-2012 at 02:54 AM.
Again you are taking analogies that don't apply. Tying a bike down to an immovable object doesn't represent weight, it represents RESISTANCE. Same thing with picking a lower gear vs higher gear, it's again RESISTANCE, not weight. Xusia hit the nail on the head with that one. I didn't mean that torque doesn't give a **** about weight in all aspects, just the stress it applies at it's given rating.
Where I don't agree with Xusia is that no one knows. There's plenty who know for a fact they just aren't most likely on this board and are working in the automotive industry. I'll try asking Micah what's his stance on this considering he does alot of work in the diesel industry for tractors and has many many years of experience and knowledge.
I just sent micah a PM and once he gets back to me I'll CnP it here. I believe the question is phrased very unbiasedly:
I got a question for you that's been a great debate over at FFR forums for the 818.
People are arguing about the stress the transmission gets based on the weight of the vehicle.
One side of the argument is that since the 818 is 1800 pounds and much ligther then a WRX, that while in motion the stress of the transmission will be lessened.
The other side is that the stress will be close to the same because all the lighter weight does is lower resistance to movement(acceleration) and thus the stress on the trans is the same.
Additionally your thoughts from a stop with an 1800 pound car vs a 3200 pound car(take AWD/RWD out of the equation for now).
If you could also cite your expertise as your background knowledge to what leads you to believe your thoughts.
Thanks, it's always a blast to have a conversation with you
Last edited by Etos; 05-07-2012 at 11:26 AM.
I eagerly await his response. One thing though - and I think it's paramount here - is he familiar enough with the EJ series engines to adequately answer the question? The rate at which revs build (i.e. the rate at which additional torque is applied) is different from engine to engine, and in my experience, vastly different from gas to diesel.
Brandon, I understand that there is rotational mass in the system that does not change (pistons, rods, crank, flywheel, transmission gears, etc), but I don't know if going from a 3100lb chassis to a 1800lb chassis is such a drastic change that all of those components are now the biggest part of the equation and that an 1800lb chassis represents a trivial amount of weight for the engine to push around. We're cutting chassis weight by about 40%, not 90%. As was stated earlier by someone else (Phyrram?), the amount of torque applied will be about the same, it will just be applied for less time (assuming both setups are accelerating to the same speed at full throttle).
He's one of the best when it comes to EJ motors. He knows a great deal about them. He and Dom are essentially the go to guys when it comes to EJ motors. Right now he's working with TiC race car to make a (I believe) 2.5 that revs to 10k RPM reliably. He's done alot of work in the pistons field helping JE design them for his applications. There's no question on his qualifications in the subaru world.
Is this the same Micah that goes by Homemade WRX on nasioc and is in college or a recent graduate?
And founder of a very successful engine building business (3MI Racing) and arguably the best independent EJ builder in the country. The guy knows his stuff, and thats a grand understatement.
'03 WRX, soon to be broken I'm sure
Perfect! I can't wait to hear what he has to say. (Seriously. I'm very curious)
It is Homemade/3MI yes. I don't think he's a recent graduate. He's been in the field for a very long time.
So regaurdless of the on going math disscussion. How about the actuall difference from a turbo and non turbo 5MT. Does one have better, bigger mainshaft and wider gears or is the only difference the gear ratio's? I am looking for a WRX 5MT and they are not nearly as plentyfull as just the Naturally Aspirated Impreza 5MT. I asked on NASIOC and only got "most likely"
It's very easy to find a WRX 5MT. Go to http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=151 and search transmission. The first page alone had 5 WRX transmissions. They vary in price from $300-$800+.
I don't have an answer on the differences, but if you're hunting for a tranny alone, the biggest list I know of is maintained at NorthUrsalia.com. The transmission part number/code should be useful for verifying that a given tranny is being described properly. Ratios are in the chart as well.
Yes, I have been looking on NASIOC classifieds and useing the Rallispec sheet, so far they are Broken, old or both. On Ebay I can find 09-12 non turbo 5MT's with 8K miles for $450. If there is not a difference in the mainshafts or gear width's and it is simply the ratio, They would be the way to go.
You should be able to get answers in the transmission forum. If a search doesn't turn up anything, just post a new thread.
AndrewTech is a transmission shop that does a lot of Subaru transmission work. You might try giving them a call.
Well, with more weight comes more inertia which is resistance. Tying a bike to a tree is the same as tying the bike to a really really heavy trailer. The added weight cases additional resistance. Applying the brakes while applying throttle is adding resistance without weight.
To prove that mass has inertia, we can refer to the wiki entry on inertia here
"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces. Inertia comes from the Latin word, iners, meaning idle, or lazy...."
Yeah, it won't be that much of a difference, the only reason I brought up the rotational limits of the engine is to highlight that F=MA when considering a mechanically generated force has upper limits in the adjustability of both Force and Acceleration. F=MA remains true in a frictionless environment but there's more complicated systems to consider in this example.
Also, engine torque is only rated at peak. An engine doesn't produce 100% of it's torque all the time. Ask anyone who has experience dyno tuning, if the rollers have a variable loading servo, you can literally see an engine's output increase as load increases.
In short, think of it this way. There's a reason trucks and suv's rated for towing come with a transmission oil cooler and have a special section in the user manual about how to drive with a trailer hitched. Added weight and load to a drivetrain causes additional stress. Conversely, reducing weight reduces stress on the drivetrain/engine.
Kinda like how it's harder for you to carry around another person on your back vs. walking around normally. Just think of the 818 as walking around normally and the rest of it's life as a WRX, it would be like you carrying someone on your back all day every day. Do you think your joints will feel better, worse or the same when the jerk stops piggyback riding your butt around?
Heck, the whole reason the 818 is cool is because it's so darn light weight. It's easier to accelerate, easier to stop, the tires will last longer and the performance increases.
It's so logical that somehow people can't figure it out. Of course reducing mass will cause less stress on everything involved. It's so simple why can't people at least accept that lighter weight means less wear and tear in general?
Last edited by BrandonDrums; 05-07-2012 at 10:55 PM.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the lighter chassis is easier on the transmission in general. The instance some of us are saying is going to be similar is peak capacity. Whatever torque/hp number you feel that the trans can handle in the WRX, some of us are saying that the same number will apply in the 818. Yes, components will wear less when they have to push around less weight, but in the case of "how much power can the WRX trans take", the number will be similar regardless of what chassis it's in. This assumes no slipping anywhere in the system of course (clutch, tires).
Many have made the argument that lighter weight means less stress on the trans, often employing the f=ma equation. I don't know why so many people neglect A, as if mass is going down and somehow acceleration is being held constant. I guess they plan on building 818's that are no faster than the WRX that they are using for weight comparison.
Exidous was the most recent person to do this, so I responded with a simple question of "what's up with acceleration?", hoping for a response from him that shows what his thought process is.
Last edited by Evan78; 05-08-2012 at 12:49 PM.
Ugh, ok let's try this again. By your own citation that "Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest" a lighter car would be more stressful on the trans in a vacuum. Why? The lighter car has less force behind it. Going back to your F=MA, Force = Mass x Acceleration. So if the 818 is 1800 pounds going at 60mph, and a WRX at 3200 pounds at 60mph, which is going to have more force? The WRX. So if it has MORE FORCE, it takes LESS power to keep it moving in it's direction. Ofcourse that's all BS cause it doesn't take gravity into account. But see how easy it is to spin and twist logic? That is all you're doing for your F=MA cause you CONSTANTLY take A out of your equation just like I took gravity out of my BS example.
Ofcourse an engine doesn't produce 100% of it's torque all the time, that's why we aren't hitting top speed every time we put a car into drive. You don't need a dyno to show this, jump in a car, go WOT, go half throttle. There ya go, difference in torque output.
Trucks that tow have a trans cooler cause you're going OVER or VERY CLOSE what an automatic trans can handle in weight. Auto transes use a combination of planetary gears and clutchpacks. Those clutchpacks when at their limit start producing ALOT of heat. Heat is the biggest enemy of an auto trans. This is an invalid argument toward weight again. Look at even RACE CARS that reduce a TON of weight. They too, light as they maybe, use trans coolers. FACTORY STI'S COME WITH TRANS COOLERS!
Again with the analogies that don't work with the piggy back. Like you said before a car doesn't put out 100% constant torque, it's controlled by the throttle. Let's use that piggy back in an analogy that does work. Take a back pack that weighs 10 pounds. See what you're top speed is as well as how long it takes you to run a 4 miles at your fastest, never slowing down. Do the same with now 50 pounds. Again top speed you can go, give it EVERYTHING you go, go WOT! Guess
what, you're gonna be just as tired, only difference is you won't move as fast. Again, you never take acceleration into account, you just constantly throw it out the window.
Lighter weight does give less wear in tear in alot of places. Engine/trans is NOT one of them on say a track. They are being pushed just the same. They don't care what the weight is minus being tied down by a tree(read, extreme resistance). On the street, yes you'll have less wear and tear but it's so negligible how little difference there will be. Once you go WOT, 300tq is 300tq. Engine don't care, trans don't care.
I'm still waiting to hear back from Micah.
think of it in reverse too...
which will require bigger/beefier brakes to bring it to a stop in the same distance: a 4000lb lux, or a 2800 compact?
I didn't make the laws of physics. Newton is the one that defined the basic laws of motion including defining the relationship of mass and inertia.
You're pretty dense yourself to be arguing with universally accepted scientific truths.
Also, I don't throw acceleration out the window, I've done more to highlight the limits of a mechanical system's acceleration than you have. Seems to me you went to the Sarah Palin School of Going Rogue Against Common Sense University.
"Scientific truths" don't apply directly. There is a transmission and multiple gears involved. Gears multply and divide torque. There are many other forces and variables to deal with than simply Mass and Acceleration. You can't take a simple formula layed out 100s of years ago and directly apply it to this "conversation". The basics are great for teaching, understanding and learning, but in the real world rarely apply without further scrutiny. Space is a vacuum, thet's where you can study basics.
The answer will be forthcoming sometime after the first cars are built and trounced on. Not before, regardless of how many words we put in this thread.
Last edited by PhyrraM; 05-08-2012 at 11:15 AM.
Your logic is correct, but not relevant to the discussion. Brandon is starting to forget the origin of the discussion. See my post #144 above yours.
F=MA is all fine and dandy when your are talking about an object in linear motion.... but all this transmission/engine/wheel stuff isn't in linear motion. its all in rotational motion... tau = I*alpha , tau = Torque, I = mass moment of inertia, and alpha = angular acceleration.... second law still applies, you guys are just using the wrong units...
05 Outback XT - DD
94 Integra GSR - Track Car
97 Legacy Brighton - EG33 Swap Project
03 Silverado 2500HD Duramax - Tow Rig
97 Integra GS - Future Track Car
noted...
So I guess just driving it until it won't move won't tell us anything?
Of course I bring nothing to the discussion table.
Smitty
Not sure if this was meant to be a serious example. I see the whole BS thing but using an 1800lb vehicle at 60mph is a bad example due to the acceleration being zero. The force required is a product of drag, friction and heat at a constant velocity. The WRX requires more force due to increased drag coefficient and increased friction(maybe, we'll see what it looks like once the 818 is released).
I do see what you are saying here. Given half the mass, the acceleration should double given the same force with all other influences being equal. It seems that at the very moment that the rotational force begins applying pressure to the wheels would be the same in the heavy vehicle as it is the light one. Once motion is achieved with the reduced mass of the 818, the acceleration is increased given the force created by the motor is equal. I was thinking the torque of the motor would vary based on the weight of the vehicle. Obviously flawed.
Last edited by Exidous; 05-09-2012 at 02:16 AM.
94 BB Rx-7 3030lb
So I guess I stand corrected. I should stop weight lifting, apparently I'll get the same amount of exercise if I just flap my arms around without any dumbbells because they'll accelerate so much faster my arms will be equally sore.
Thanks guys!
If lifting 500 lbs at a rate of 1g breaks your arm, lifting 250 lbs at 2g will also break your arm.
Nobody said it isn't more work to carry around 3000 lbs than 1800 lbs. We were talking about the upper limit of how much peak power a transmission can handle.
Last edited by Evan78; 05-09-2012 at 05:32 PM.
Weight lifting is different and refers to work being done by applying a force times the distance traveled. We are looking at the force required to snap the humerus by accelerating the weights too fast. :-)
94 BB Rx-7 3030lb
wow, this is getting ridiculous. Phyrram said it, with all the rotational forces going on F=MA isn't a linear equation. He happens to think of it differently than I do but my point is, the peak "A" of F=MA in a dynamic, mechanical system has upper limits.
Now, a rocket makes thrust, it's speed cannot change the amount of force being exerted and the object will accelerate in accordance with the mass of the object because the force is always equal.
On a car, the engine has to make enough power to spin the wheels at the same rate as the car is moving over the pavement IN ADDITION to applying a net force above and beyond to accelerate the whole vehicle. Regardless of weight, there's a consistent loss in net force as the car gains speed across the ground. Adding weight makes it harder to maintain speed AND harder to accelerate. Removing weight takes a lot of friction out of the equation but the acceleration is still limited to how fast the engine can turn to get the wheels to spin fast enough to maintain it's speed so Acceleration isn't proportionate to the decrease in mass. Even in a vacuum absent of all friction, gears are required to get a car to hit a high speed and acceleration decreases as you shift up through the gears because the mechanical disadvantage increases in higher gears. Torque is reduced at the wheels in higher gears.
Another example might be a lever. Gears are simply mechanical levers that allow varying degrees of mechanical advantage/disadvantage in a rotating system. Say you're on a see-saw with your twin who, like you weights exactly 150 lbs and the see-saw's fulcrum is exactly in the middle. You and your twin will be balanced at that point. Now say, your 8 year old, 75-lb cousin swaps place with your identical 150-lb twin. You fall to the ground while your cousin is are lifted up but only at 50% of the speed of gravity would pull you down (the fastest you can fall is only the rate at which gravity works on earth which is 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, an engine has a max rate that it can increase it's rotational speed but that's besides the point for this example). However, if you move the fulcrum towards yourself by 50% (halfway between you and the original fulcrum), the system becomes balanced again right? 2 different weights on the see-saw adding up to less overall mass but you're both balanced on the board like before.
Don't say Acceleration is absent from that example as it's there, acceleration is equal to 0. We could make the same case using a Trebuchet or a catapult instead of a see saw and have nonzero acceleration numbers.
Similarly, in order for the gears to experience the same load as they did before the weight is reduced, the ratios will have to be increased to place more mechanical DISadvantage on the engine than it does in stock form. Reducing the weight of the vehicle from 3300 lbs to 1800 lbs is about a 45% decrease in mass. I would argue that the gear ratios would have to increase by a similar percentage to have the same amount of load as before the reduction in weight took place.
Make sense?
Bringing this back on topic, I believe the 5mt will be able to handle probably about 20% more power than before as Acceleration will increase but only by about half of what some of the others would suggest. There is merit to the argument that putting all the torque through 2 wheels vs. all 4 could make the ring and pinion gears get closer to their breaking point so on that argument only I could see the transmission handling even less than 20% of an increase of torque but still a strong jump. I believe the ring and pinion were designed to handle 100% of the torque for reasons we won't get into.
However, if the acceleration will increase proportionately to mass decrease were true which this entire post is meant to prove incorrect, we'd be looking at a about a 2.75 sec 0-60 (roughly a 45% improvement in proportion to the 45% decrease in weight) with a stock 2.0L wrx engine which we all know won't quite be the case.
I hope no one thinks I'm disregarding acceleration anymore after this one.
I'm totally kicking a super rotten long-dead horse here but this thread is a good example that we ALL know the acceleration won't increase proportionately to the 818's loss of weight vs. the wrx.
http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showt...e-Expectations
I see no posts assuming the 818 will go 0-60 in less than 3 seconds with a stock motor. That alone proves that we instinctively know acceleration isn't going to be so fast that the transmission will break as often as before.
/endlongassrant
Last edited by BrandonDrums; 05-10-2012 at 02:58 PM.
Should we have a separate thread on vehicle dynamics and implications for transmission strength?
To the best of my knowledge the consensus among Subaru folks is that the WRX trans is not particularly strong, and a cost-effective way to make it strong is not known at this time. It is generally recommended to go with STI trans for STI swaps, because it's a completely different trans altogether. STI trans are rare, big, heavy and cost a lot of money. To my knowledge both WRX and STI are all wheel drive cars, so the Subaru trans will need to be modified, which is not free.
Why not use a Porsche 944/Audi 5000 "type 016" transaxle? Rumor has it that they are good for something to the tune of 400 Hp. I know for a fact that they are relatively inexpensive (300-500 used, 1500 rebuilt) and readily available, because many a Porsche 944 got parted after the timing belt broke (known weakness of interference design M44 engine). An adapter would need to be made for the WRX engine, but modifying an AWD trans to a FWD configuration is not free either, so it's a wash.
Using a Porsche trans enables all kinds of interesting options. I would actually prefer GM Ecotec engine to the subaru. The Ecotec LNF is good for 290 Hp in practically stock configuration (mild tune and a couple of bolt-ons from GM). Used LNF can be had for a 2-3 grand, a brand new crate engine can be had for 3500 (without ancillaries). Even with the best rubber available today, an 1800 lb car with 300 Hp will likely have traction problems. For a budget build one could use an LK9 engine out of a turbo Saab (220 Hp) which can be had used for a grand. Even more budget-conscious could use a 2.2 or a 2.4 N/A Ecotec, these are dirt cheap used (500 bucks). With a little under 200 Hp an 1800 lb car will still have the power-to weight ratio to beat the crap out of most 4 wheeled things on the road.
Reason they went with subi is because of the boxer engines low COG. Yes subi's are awd, the 5spd can be converted to 2wd fairly easily whereas the 6spd I believe can't be converted to 2wd. Mating another transmission to an engine it wasn't originally designed for increases the cost. I'm sure it would have pushed the cost goal of the 818 well beyond 15k.
There is a company (out of Australia I believe) that makes stronger gears for the 5spd but it isn't cheap, I think it's to the tune of 2-4k. Also the Ej205 from what I've read can handle up to 300whp on stock internals beyond that you have to go with forged pistons ect... 300whp in a 1800 pound car IMO is more than enough to get you into trouble.
Also, A donor wrx can be had for cheap, I've seen them sell for 2k on copart.com (not including fees and shipping) FF's goal is to have a one donor car swap not have bits and pieces from 8 different cars.
With all of their goals in mind it makes complete sense why they went with 02-07 impreza or wrx
Last edited by shim2; 06-01-2012 at 10:04 AM.
From my recollection in a previous thread, the 6 speed can be converted to 2wd fairly easily as well (don't take my word, though -I'm no expert). The main issue is fit. the 6 speed is bigger, and - most importantly - much longer (about 8") than the 5 speed.
The inherent limitations of stock transmission (I don't know that I would term is at weak) is one reason why my ultimate target hp is around 300. That's easily obtainable from the engine without much hassle or having to go with forged internals (or if we can figure out how to use an H6, it would be close enough stock), and the transmission should be fine as long as I don't do anything stupid. It's the path of least resistance...
Posting Permissions
Visit our community sponsor
Reply With Quote