oo7spy

When Spoon maxed out their RL, they didn't touch the drive train. They had complete confidence that the stock SH-AWD system could handle much more than the engine could dish out. I'm pretty sure when Mugen concepted the Legend Max they didn't touch the SH-AWD either, just the engine and transmission.

Keep in mind when you are wondering "why" that we don't actually have any data or proof that mods won't show gains or that the system won't respond. We have justn saying "it won't just 'cause" and Heavy saying "just 'cause". There is 0 proof to back the pessimists and a few examples of RLs that responded well.

LSMKB1

By that you mean it's because they switched it to RWD configuration right? As in, they never even considered using the SH-AWD?

oo7spy

Is that what happened? Considering I joined 5 years after the concept, I'm only "pretty sure" on the details.

LSMKB1

Oh lol. Yeah I think it was configured as RWD with a manual gearbox. Which makes it even more badass hahaha. Okay sorry for going somewhat off topic. As you were!

oo7spy

I looked at 3 different press releases, and 2 of them had specification run downs. None of them mentioned the powertrain. It definitely did have a manual transmission, but they make no mention of where the power was going to end up. If you have or find info on the matter, please share.

LSMKB1

Of course, Murphy's law kicks in. The one article that says it's "FR" configuration, is down at the moment lol.

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=319284

oo7spy

I saw that article, but I don't know what "FR" stands for.

HEAVY_RL

iTrader: (1)

FF - Front Engine, Front Wheel Drive
FR - Front Engine, Rear Wheel Drive
MR - Mid-Engine, Rear Wheel Drive
RR - Rear Engine, Rear Wheel Drive
AWD or 4WD - Normally Front Engine, All Wheel Drive, but some cars use a Mid-Engine

oo7spy

Well, there we go.

nickjohnson93

New results, The new lightweight pulley helped but something else is slowing down my RL.


R/T .016
60' 2.341
330 6.623
1/8 10.096
MPH 70.41
1000 13.095
1/4 15.600
mph 90.69

oo7spy

Like, the environment?

wackjum

Honda/Acura AT's until the latest ZF batch were notorious power sappers.

In any AT, you have some issues because of the torque converter. There is no direct link between the engine and the wheels so there will always be power loss. In the Honda, two examples come to mind. Compare a CL type S 6MT vs 5AT of the same year, or a 5th gen Honda Prelude AT vs MT. The MTs are always significantly faster. In either case the reported horsepower numbers from Honda are the same, but that is because they are reporting crank numbers. The ATs put significantly less down to the wheels.

nickjohnson93

Weather was pretty optimal, 60F. Clear sky, dry pavement.


I'll do some more research to see what inexpensive mods I can do for better top end power delivery. One thing is for certain though, my city MPG is so much better than before with the new pulley. about 2-3 mpg better.

oo7spy

I was always under the impression that old AT were slower because they shifted slower. AT transmissions today are faster than their manual counterparts. Does that mean they send more power?

nickjohnson93

I don't think it has to do with the AT being slow. Mine didn't shift slow, I think it has more to do with the torque converter than anything else. It's the one that has to turn the power from the engine into usable power for the rest of the car.

oo7spy

Yes, I understand that. wack's logic seems to be that ATs produce slower times, and thus, they produce less power to the wheels. But today's AT actually put down faster times than manuals. Why are Ferraris, the car maker squeezing every ounce of power out of their cars, all AT if that's the case?

Again, if the claims are true, then there should be plenty of data to back it up.

wackjum

It is more than just manuals vs automatics. There are automatics, which use planetary gearsets and torque converters; then you have the automated manuals which use a computer actuated clutch and computer controlled gears, like BMW's SMG among others. And then now you have the dual clutch transmissions that have become 100% of Ferrari and Lamborghini's offerings, among many other makes. All of these can be lumped under the umbrella of automatics in that there's no clutch, but they are totally different.

The traditional automatic, with the torque converter and planetary gears, suffer from power loss through the torque converter and slow shifting. Modern designs like Nissan's JATCO 7AT is a very good automatic because it employs aggressive lockup. There are other good automatics out there that have closed or surpassed the performance gap between manuals and autos.

Honda's autos are notoriously crappy. Honda originally didn't want to go the way BorgWarner did, which would have meant paying royalties to BorgWarner, so they invented their own version of the automatic transmission. As time went on, Honda's design proved to be inferior and development stalled at 5 speeds while the competition went to 6 and beyond. Finally, in the current generation, Honda has recognized their transmission technology is a dead end and is now sourcing ZF designs.

The RL uses Honda's old AT "slushbox" design.

oo7spy

Thanks for explaining. Are there any estimates of how much a slush box loses versus a manual?

wackjum

I would take an educated guess of at least 5% but probably less than 10%, just based on having worked with a lot of cars over the years.

The fundamental problem in transmission design is, how to allow the engine to keep turning when the car comes to a complete stop. If there was a direct mechanical connection between the wheels and the engine, the engine would stall every time the car came to a complete stop.

In a manual, the solution is the clutch which is human operated.

The most widespread automatic solution is the torque converter, which is basically a device with aggressive blades attached to the crankshaft that drive a thick fluid (ATF). The swirling ATF drives a second set of blades attached to the driveshaft of the vehicle. This all fluid connection means when the car is stopped, the low flow of the fluid is easily withstood by the brakes of the car holding it in place, while still allow the engine to turn at a slow pace. This all fluid connection is the nature of the inefficiency problem. Traditionally the torque converter locked up once the speed of the vehicle got above 40 mph. This direct connection made them a lot more efficient.

Newer designs lockup almost immediately and just have the fluid coupling at stopped and slow speeds. There's also a beneficial torque multiplier effect that torque converters can do, but this only occurs at extreme slip (when one component like the engine is spinning significantly faster than the other component, like the wheels).

Modern automatics ("slushbox" style ones) have come a long way. They are probably 95% as good as a dual clutch transmission but with the added bonus of being much more reliable and economical to produce and maintain. But this doesn't apply to the Honda 5AT, one of the worse examples of its class.

oo7spy

I understand torque converters, I had just never heard of a significant enough loss to really hurt track times. Then again, not many people track the RL, so it is kind of out of my league.

Always appreciate good information though.

EL19

iTrader: (4)

The AT loss is relative to the same car with a MT. Both cars lose power through the drivetrain. One is just more than the other due to more parts the power has to be sent through.

To the gent tracking the RL, you need to decrease you 60'. There are numerous ways of doing this. One way is to launch really hard (from a higher RPM) and have a sticky rubber, track tire on the wheels. You might break something though

After a good amount of seat time in the RL, I was convinced that only forced induction or nitrous could break it into the 13s. When I raced my TL-S we used to say 100lbs lost or 10whp gained was a 10th of a second off of the 1/4 mile time (I was much younger so I don't know how true that holds) but if it is true you'd either need to shave 1600lbs off of the RL or add 160whp to the engine to hit 14 flat with a 15.6 1/4 mile time you have (or a combination of the two).

nickjohnson93

Maybe when I have time, I'll remove the back seats and passenger seat, see if that helps any. I have yet to get my new tires to spin at all, so If at any point I do get them to spin, then I know I've either lost enough of weight or I've gained more power!! Depending on when then happens under a specific scenario of course. As far as launching from a really high rpm. I don't think I want to push it with a 230K mile car.

nickjohnson93

Well guys after a long week of thought and decision making, I have decided to part ways with my RL. I found a good deal on a Fully Loaded 2015 Ford Focus ST and decided to pull the trigger. So we can consider this thread officially closed now. I thank everyone for joining the thread and wish you all a good one. If you guys want to see some pictures I'll be more than happy to share.

MtMan1020

Sorry I'm late to the party...

I don't know if it's the altitude or my 06 is just a little off (like it's owner ) but I don't get any real power until 5k, so to get any kind of decent times you would need to chip it to shift at 7k instead of 6k, or put it in manumatic mode and wait until 7k to shift, that should keep you in the power band all the time instead of only 50% of the time....

I don't suppose there are any chips out there for the RLs?

oo7spy

None that are worth your time. At 3500 RPM the butterfly valve in the throttle body opens from 50 to 100% IIRC. If you aren't seeing any noticeable acceleration at 3500k versus 3000k, something may be limiting your air intake.

MtMan1020

Everything seems fine, I have a K&N....

JDMCRX

I ran my car against a few cars this weekend on some highway pulls . Two turbo VW and a budget build civic and rolling on 2nd gear at 4500rpm pulled on them with a 205lb passenger and some plumbing tools in the trunk.

I'm gonna toss on my 17"s and the 68mm throttle body and run the car next weekend at the track ! I'll take a bid and hope I can nail a 13.9 at 100mph

shahram72

Careful, I'm getting serious grief for considering a Ford in another thread here!

But seriously, I remember running my car with friends at practice night at the strip. It is great fun. But then I saw this video and it has me wondering. Anything can happen, even in a car like an RL. The other car can crash and hit you, and insurance won't save you. Check out this vid. Retard with no brains and over 500hp and it's obvious he turned off the traction control.

oo7spy

You're only catching flak from me for considering a V6 when 420 ponies are available in the car two spots over, not because it's a Ford.

An RL won't do that even with VSA off nor will an AWD Focus RS. That guy had no driving skills, and I'm willing to bet he was driving an AT. Also, plenty of tracks have a barrier between lanes to keep the rewards out of yours.

Türk

Are you serious?

Edit: Sorry. You got the answer.

oo7spy

I was serious. I'll be the first to tell you that I don't know drivetrains like I know electronics.

(Per your edit reason, I already understood torque converters when I asked that. )