Honda Manual Transmission Specifications & Gear Ratios

[Bense]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

That question has already been answered and I have nothing to add to my former answer. Thanks for stopping by.

Originally Posted by California98Civic

That question has already been answered and I have nothing to add to my former answer.

Nice post edit.

[Bense]

Lol

[Bense]

Originally Posted by darcane

Wrong.

D17A2 in a '95 Civic using D16 tranny

There is very little reason to do this swap, so very few people do it. Shift linkages are very different (cables vs. rods), so you can't easily swap one to the other. But, if you try putting a D16 in a 7th gen Civic or a D17 in a 6th gen Civic, the engines and tranny will bolt up fine.

There's a lot of misinformation on this out there, so it's hard to find out the details. The link above includes pictures of the D17 with a D16 tranny.

Don't bother wasting your time on him. He's got a bad attitude, as if he's some sort of expert on these transmissions, and modifying hondas for efficiency. Except he's not the expert. I am.

Reverse engineering D trans. My trans shop in 2008.




I've spent over 60 hours this past week sifting through tons of honda data specifically for F/H trans. If anyone else has any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.

Except for you California98Civic. Your attitude sucks too much.

[California98Civic]

Bense, I answered your original question completely and kindly. And I invited any corrections you might have. I didn't want to answer the same question twice. I am no expert and I have said that repeatedly in these forums. I am a guy with a car who is interested in a community of like minded people. I researched this post for community benefit, and my own reference. I'm glad if you have lots of knowledge. If you don't want to add any of it here, that is your choice. You needn't try to ban me from communicating with you. I have not tried and I am not going to try. Good luck. Success. I hope you get lots of inquiries. I am sure you can help them.

[Mista Bone]

Bense, these folks like to argue about lugging the engine even though You, Aquafina, and I have gotten insane MPG by spinning these little motors at higher rpms.

Close ratio ZC trans getting 48 mpg for example.

OH yeah, google search brought me back to ecomodder

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Mista Bone

Close ratio ZC trans getting 48 mpg for example

I am no expert but 48mpg is at the low end, the guy above you has 60+ mpg in his garage.

If we wanted under 50 I guess your right

[Gasoline Fumes]

48 MPG is horrible!

[elhigh]

GF, your example is one we couldn't easily apply to the circumstances. I don't know what witchcraft you're bringing to the party but 70+ mppg on a Wagovan is one of those outliers that would have to be thrown out just because it ruins the rest of the curve.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by Mista Bone

...these folks like to argue about lugging the engine even though You, Aquafina, and I have gotten insane MPG by spinning these little motors at higher rpms. Close ratio ZC trans getting 48 mpg for example. ...

48 is pretty good. Congrats. But is that tank-to-tank? And do you have a fuel log?

I think sometimes you close ratio, high RPM, guys have forgotten what lugging an engine means. We don't lug these engines. We operate them at their more efficient RPMs. And the lower RPMs are associated with better FE all else being equal. Here is a test I did ("quick and dirty") a few years ago and posted in my modding thread at the time:

My stock 1998 DX tranmission had almost the same rpm/speed in 5th gear as my current 1993 CX transmission has in 4th gear. So I did a quick and dirty test just now, out of curiosity. In the below list, 4th gear is what my old DX transmission would have produced in fifth gear, while the displayed 5th gear number are for the super-tall 1993 CX (also VX) gearing that I now have. I welcome any ideas for a more rigorous test. I do not have cruise control on this car.

4th: 34.9 %Engine load, 2031rpm, approx 50mph, 59.5mpg
5th: 37.6 %Engine load, 1639rpm, approx 50mph, 66.8mpg

4th: 37.6 %Ld, 1891rpm, approx 45mph, 51.0mpg
5th: 47.5 %Ld, 1568rpm, approx 45mph, 53.3mpg

4th: 42.7 Ld, 2090rpm, 50mph, 48.0mpg
5th: 45.5 Ld, 1710rpm, 50mph, 56.3mpg

3: 37.3 ld, 2579rpm, 50mph, 45.7mpg
4: 35.7 ld, 2080rpm, 50mph, 58.3mpg
5: 34.1 ld, 1708rpm, 50mph, 75.1mpg

3: 36.5 ld, 2547rpm, 50mph, 45.9mpg
4: 40.5 ld, 2074rpm, 50mph, 48.9mpg
5: 47.5 ld, 1723rpm, 50mph, 55.8mpg

[Chrysler kid]

I went back 3 pages but still didn't see the topic of conversation.


Are we talking gearing again. I've had an s20 trans in an hx, and a factory s40 trans in an hx. For my driving style the shorter gearing was more efficient and easier to drive.

The worst hx I've ever had, had the original s40 long gear with an aftermarket store brand clutch and flywheel. I would have to red line the car just to keep up with traffic merging into the freeway

It's been discussed to death, the extra gearing can help, but it's a marginal difference.