View Single Post
Old 05-20-2009, 03:46 AM   #8 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicycle Bob View Post
As engines become more flexible, there's more need for wide range transmissions, but not so much for close ratios. Adding more intermediate gears adds weight for a small performance gain.
This close-ratio thing is to allow the heavy OD without acceleration penalty. IMHO people have gotten spoiled by excessive acceleration capability- you know, the whole new Civic having more power and faster accel. than older Corvettes thing. It just isn't necessary. With that in mind, I'd say I'm not impressed with more ratios; just give me wider ratios. Like Bob said, the extra gears add more weight... but the biggie to me is, at least in a stick tranny, ALL the gears are in constant mesh whether they are being "used" or not. Doesn't it stand to reason, then, more gearsets = more transmission losses? If I could have a wide ratio 3 or 4 speed stick because there is a driveline efficiency advantage vs 5 or 6 speed, that's what I would get.
  Reply With Quote