Manual vs. Auto speeds ... ??? ...
#1
Manual vs. Auto speeds ... ??? ...
See link: http://www.la4x4.com/gearcalc.html
I used the tire diameter as 23.6” (the loaded radius * 2) NOT 25.4” (the tire with no load on it)
<pre>
<font size=+1>
Manual Auto (MPH@7200rpm)
--------------------------------------
1st 3.933(29) 2.563(45)
2nd 2.478(46) 1.551(73)
3rd 1.700(67) 1.021(112)
4th 1.250(91) 0.653(174)
5th 0.976(117) 0.470(242)
6th 0.771(148)
</font>
</pre>
Final Ratio:
4.428
Can someone confirm the final ratio?
I used the tire diameter as 23.6” (the loaded radius * 2) NOT 25.4” (the tire with no load on it)
<pre>
<font size=+1>
Manual Auto (MPH@7200rpm)
--------------------------------------
1st 3.933(29) 2.563(45)
2nd 2.478(46) 1.551(73)
3rd 1.700(67) 1.021(112)
4th 1.250(91) 0.653(174)
5th 0.976(117) 0.470(242)
6th 0.771(148)
</font>
</pre>
Final Ratio:
4.428
Can someone confirm the final ratio?
#4
Updated with bioyuki's rear end values...
I used the tire diameter as 23.6” (the loaded radius * 2) NOT 25.4” (the tire with no load on it)
Ok – now updated with the diff ratio of 3.286 (courtesy of bioyuki – thanks)
<pre>
<font size=+1>
Manual Auto (MPH@7200rpm)
--------------------------------------
1st 3.933(39) 2.563(45)
2nd 2.478(62) 1.551(73)
3rd 1.700(91) 1.021(112)
4th 1.250(123) 0.653(174)
5th 0.976(158) 0.470(242)
6th 0.771(200)
</font>
</pre>
Final Ratio:
4.428 Auto
3.285 Manual
Well, the quarter mile guys will have to shift quick, but that now looks much better!
Ok – now updated with the diff ratio of 3.286 (courtesy of bioyuki – thanks)
<pre>
<font size=+1>
Manual Auto (MPH@7200rpm)
--------------------------------------
1st 3.933(39) 2.563(45)
2nd 2.478(62) 1.551(73)
3rd 1.700(91) 1.021(112)
4th 1.250(123) 0.653(174)
5th 0.976(158) 0.470(242)
6th 0.771(200)
</font>
</pre>
Final Ratio:
4.428 Auto
3.285 Manual
Well, the quarter mile guys will have to shift quick, but that now looks much better!
#5
Every time I look at that 4th gear ratio on the auto, it makes me say... WTF... 174 MPH ????
I wonder how many people would have complained about hitting the 7200 RPM limit -- with the top speed cut-off removed -- at 155 MPH (or less) ????
I wonder how many people would have complained about hitting the 7200 RPM limit -- with the top speed cut-off removed -- at 155 MPH (or less) ????
Trending Topics
#8
have you noticed the 62 MPH at the 7200 rpm of the 2nd gear?....
Classical text book design of gear ratio for the second!
I read in some car mag that ALL manual gear boxes of ALL makers have the gear ratio of the second gear tops at 62 MPH!
just to make 0-60 MP and 0-100 KMH numbers look good.
Classical text book design of gear ratio for the second!
I read in some car mag that ALL manual gear boxes of ALL makers have the gear ratio of the second gear tops at 62 MPH!
just to make 0-60 MP and 0-100 KMH numbers look good.
#10
Originally posted by mdaniel
I think the 5AT runs about 2500 rpm @ 80. I wonder what mpg the new one will get on the highway. Anyone seen the epa numbers?
I think the 5AT runs about 2500 rpm @ 80. I wonder what mpg the new one will get on the highway. Anyone seen the epa numbers?
The 28 figure might reflect the higher rpm in 6th gear...
#11
Originally posted by Nashua_Night_Hawk
have you noticed the 62 MPH at the 7200 rpm of the 2nd gear?....
Classical text book design of gear ratio for the second!
I read in some car mag that ALL manual gear boxes of ALL makers have the gear ratio of the second gear tops at 62 MPH!
just to make 0-60 MP and 0-100 KMH numbers look good.
have you noticed the 62 MPH at the 7200 rpm of the 2nd gear?....
Classical text book design of gear ratio for the second!
I read in some car mag that ALL manual gear boxes of ALL makers have the gear ratio of the second gear tops at 62 MPH!
just to make 0-60 MP and 0-100 KMH numbers look good.
#12
Originally posted by EricL
Yea, it's just that last 3-4 shift required in the 1/4 mile that some people will end up bitching about (can't please everyone)
Yea, it's just that last 3-4 shift required in the 1/4 mile that some people will end up bitching about (can't please everyone)
#13
Originally posted by Nashua_Night_Hawk
I guess in he 1/4 mile you would shift 4 times. Out of the 3d you would be a 90 MPH 2 sec later you are doing 100 MPH and finishing the 1/4 miles. I expect 1/4 miles in 14.2s at 100MPH with decent tires... those michelin should go!
I guess in he 1/4 mile you would shift 4 times. Out of the 3d you would be a 90 MPH 2 sec later you are doing 100 MPH and finishing the 1/4 miles. I expect 1/4 miles in 14.2s at 100MPH with decent tires... those michelin should go!
Er, eh... you fell for the "how many fence posts do you need question..."
1 to 2 shift = shift #1
2 to 3 shift = shift #2
3 to 4 shift = shift #3
3 shifts in manual vs. 2 in the auto
(ok, I know what you mean... I'm having some fun 'wid 'ya...)
And they should send those MXM4s to a racetrack for use as a tire wall/barrier!
#14
Originally posted by mdaniel
I think the 5AT runs about 2500 rpm @ 80. I wonder what mpg the new one will get on the highway. Anyone seen the epa numbers?
I think the 5AT runs about 2500 rpm @ 80. I wonder what mpg the new one will get on the highway. Anyone seen the epa numbers?
Close guess! The calc says 2370RPM in the auto's 5th (that presumes the converter is fully locked-up (not in brain damage mode)...
BTW -- Zapata mentioned that the "new" specs are on the Acura web site -- does anyone have the "exact" steps to get at the data @ www.acura.com?
#15
Oh boy!---I can just see it now--someone is going to start bitching about why the 6th gear isn't taller than it is in the 6 speed!
How do these ratios compare to those of the NSX?
Here are the ratios of the 2002 Ruf Turbo 911:
3.82
2.05
1.41
1.12
0.92
0.75
Final 3.44
Compared to the 2003 CLS
3.933
2.478
1.700
1.250
0.976
0.771
Final 3.285
How do these ratios compare to those of the NSX?
Here are the ratios of the 2002 Ruf Turbo 911:
3.82
2.05
1.41
1.12
0.92
0.75
Final 3.44
Compared to the 2003 CLS
3.933
2.478
1.700
1.250
0.976
0.771
Final 3.285
#16
Originally posted by EricL
BTW -- Zapata mentioned that the "new" specs are on the Acura web site -- does anyone have the "exact" steps to get at the data @ www.acura.com?
BTW -- Zapata mentioned that the "new" specs are on the Acura web site -- does anyone have the "exact" steps to get at the data @ www.acura.com?
I think this is what he was refering to:
http://hondanews.com/Forms/acura/CL/...s(r)_text.html
http://hondanews.com/forms/acura/
Click on CL then Specs on the left side.
#18
Re: EricL
Originally posted by joeandcarol2
I also do such calculations. What information do you use to assume a diameter of 23.6 for the tire loaded? Is there a rule of thumb?
I also do such calculations. What information do you use to assume a diameter of 23.6 for the tire loaded? Is there a rule of thumb?
There is going to be some "expansion" in the tire with speed, but with modern tires, this can probably be ignored on a "first cut".
So, if you look up a Toyo T1S Proxy @ www.toyo.com and search the specs for the 215/50-17, you will find a loaded radius of 11.8 inches. To get the “loaded diameter” is multiply by 2: (2 * 11.8”) = 23.6 inch loaded diameter. I would be full of it if the contact patch of the tire (from front-to-rear) was near 0!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
OculiAquilae
3G TL (2004-2008)
62
11-19-2018 02:24 PM
mugen_kid
Member Cars for Sale
7
11-13-2015 10:38 PM
prox
5G TLX Problems & Fixes
6
09-01-2015 02:03 AM