View Single Post
Old 01-06-2016, 02:01 AM   #10 (permalink)
t vago
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,808

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 831
Thanked 709 Times in 457 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr View Post
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
1st2.80
2nd1.55
3rd1.00
4th0.69


NSG370 gears
1st4.46
2nd2.61
3rd1.72
4th1.25
5th1.00
6th0.84


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 View Post
Plus now you're essentially doing mini pulse and glides whule shifting.
Heh, that's true, too.
  Reply With Quote