Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
The lower weight of a manual transmission and the absence of the torque converter slip should be taken into account for the final results, but what about the gear spread of the 4-speed automatic and this 6-speed manual? Is it the same transmission used in the Wrangler and the Sprinter, right?
|
The Jeep Wrangler used this transmission on the 3.8L V6 engine (which was what made this swap possible - the 3.5L and the 3.8L V6 bellhousing bolt patterns are nearly identical). The Chrysler Crossfire also used this transmission, but with a radically different bellhousing bolt pattern.
42RLE gears
| 1st | 2.80 |
| 2nd | 1.55 |
| 3rd | 1.00 |
| 4th | 0.69 |
NSG370 gears
| 1st | 4.46 |
| 2nd | 2.61 |
| 3rd | 1.72 |
| 4th | 1.25 |
| 5th | 1.00 |
| 6th | 0.84 |
The gearing appears to be more closely spaced together on the 6-speed. That would help with fuel economy during acceleration, particularly with city driving.
I think that the two largest power drains were torque converter slippage and pumping losses through the transmission oil pump.
Not sure if transmission weight itself would have played much of a part. I lost maybe 50 lbs or so from the swap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksa8907
Plus now you're essentially doing mini pulse and glides whule shifting.
|
Heh, that's true, too.