Nice try, Sublimate, but torque is not work. Torque is the rotational analog of linear force. Torque x angular displacement = work, torque x angular velocity = power.

 

OK, I think I understand now. Like Mark said, going to the vette tranny really doesn't get you much, if anything unless as Brendan stated, you are looking for monster (600+?) hp.

Now who has put a tape to the vette tranny and looked at what it would take to get these gains? I was with a Sharkphile who did just that last week end and came to the conclusion that the minimal gains was not worth the trouble.
YMMV

 

We are looking into doing the Vette' transmission simply because of available gear ratios, power handling capacity and availability of replacements. Good 5-speeds are getting harder and harder to find.

BTW Mark, you must not have gotten my point even though I laid it out as simply as I could. Deny that there will be an advantage to the lower geared transmission at the same rpm and in the same gear! I easily understand the point you are trying to make but that's not what I've been saying. Do I need to lay it out more simply? I am not taking the whole acceleration distance or time into account, just each given gear and rpm. Remember when I said no if's and's or but's? If you are cruising along in 5th at 3krpm and nail it in both cars, which will accelerate quicker? Or 3rd gear at 4krpm? Your point has been made over and over again but you still fail to see my reasoning and the basis for my even responding. Can you deny WHAT I'VE SAID? Without reverting to something else? You should really look into politics the way you move the subject from one viewpoint to another without admitting thay you may have mistakenly said that gearing doesn't increase acceleration. I have proven in many ways that it does. I am not talking over a quarter mile or even light to light but in the same gear at the same rpm. Get my point yet?

 

Chris,

My GTI had the same computer, and my 928 does not.. Other cars have... However, I do notice the difference in fillup amount based on my drive to and from my office, currently 45 miles one way each day all freeway miles.. I used to drive 1 way 100 miles to my old office.. Oh, I live on a ranch out in the country even though it's in California.. In addition to that, the not knowing S%$# about BSFC could explain that you could miss the point that fuel consumption can be affected by the load placed on the engine. The higher the RPM, does not mean there is a greater LOAD placed on the engine.. The differential in drag vs increase in speed will equate to an increase in mileage if the duty cycle of the fuel injector is the same as the lower RPM point as it is at the higher point due to the LOAD being the same...

This is a differential calculation of variables in a complex equation... Still, it is solvable..

Oh, the mileage meter can be inaccurate depending on how the mileage and fuel use is measured. Yes, there are different ways to measure fuel consumption...

And no, you don't have to know S^%$ about BSFC to know that...

James,

I too was hoping to be able to use a 4L60E box in the 928 due to the increased power capability... Gear ratios are not as important to me based on the expected power output of my engine.. I am more concerned about breaking the shafts and gearbox hard parts...

Cheers guys, no pun intended,

 

Mark has no knowledge except his driving on track. READ THAT AGAIN.

 

Btw Mr Kibort: tell us about the phD's you educate on a daily basis. Tell me (as I asked before) what your job is.

Lastly Mark ... when are you going to pay the measly few bucks it takes to pay for you to waste everybody's time like this on rennlist? when are you going to pay dunkle and randy for their time?

 

Heinrich,

I really hope you delete your last post.

 

Richard,

I have some interesting spreads sheets I could send you put together by one much wiser than I. PM me your e mail if interested.

 

Ummm NO.
HP is NOT torque times speed. Where the f do you come up with this crap?????
and ummm NO again..... you did not say from the beginning that "w=Force x distance" ... what you said is, "w=torque x distance" and you also said "w=torque / distance" ... IN THE SAME BREATH.

 

Thanks for the reality check Jim.

 

It has been stated her ethat there are several rear end choices, and I can only assume that someone somewhere has machined some gears and synchros in SS or whatever Unobtanium (in the quantities requires for realistic prices) to make the vette trans the exact option needed for those choosing to race or as I would describe my own driving "every day qualifying" on 650 or above HP.

And to speak to the ongoing NW group list banter - I'm NOT going to get a 4spd. Even my MDX has a freaking 5spd auto now.

Yes Jim - I agree - someone needs to get access to the C5 and C6 transmissions and look at thier dimentions.

 

Brendan I hear a rumour that someone very knowledgeable has been doing that .... and that someone else very knowledgeable just bought an entire C6 drivetrain.

 

So according to the statement above, I have a question...

Acceleration to what target speed? It would seem physically impossible, to accelerate past redline in either car. Therefore, if you are claiming to accelerate only to redline, then yes, the car with the shorter rear end will accelerate to redline in gear 1 VS gear 1 of the other car.. 2 VS 2 etc....to 5 VS 5..

However, it seems to me that the major disconnect is that if you pick a target speed, the car with the redline matched to the target speed will get there the quickest. Reason being, that it will be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the engine to exceed the limitation of redline, as it will void the condition of the test. Car A with the shorter Ratio, will NOT be able to achieve the terminal rate of speed as Car B, if the TERMINAL SPEED IS GREATER THAN THAT ALLOWED BY THE SHORTER RATIO OF CAR B... Anti Matter, Worm holes, and Black Holes aside.

Now, I am not a scientist, but Logic, and simple mathematics will make this easy to prove.. All of the above is of course with identical cars, just using a modified drive ratio.

You are all correct, just that there is a major disconnect in the definition of the parameters.. One says acceleration to redline, while another says acceleration to target speed... Both correct, but the outcome based on the same test will be different for both using different targets..

Hope I helped to make some mud a little clearer...

Why can't we all just get along and use a little math, be on the same page, and enjoy our wonderful cars....

Cheers,

 

Richard we may all be correct but we do not all make our own scientific theorems up as we go. It's not about terminal speed. It's about the RATE of acceleration. In a car with shorter gears, its RATE of acceleration is FASTER than the car with the taller gears. This is really not at all complicated.

If a car is faster 0-10, faster 10-20, faster 20-30, faster 30-40, faster 40-50, then it will get to the speed of 50 faster than the other car. SIMPLE

 

Chris,
Love you right back!

Hey, your right, i do have a skewed view of the world now with the race car, certainly wasnt the case before i destroyed my beautiful beast in to a track *****. I too loved the chug a lug on my 5 hour drives to tahoe or skiing at Mammoth mt. (at 100mph ave speed!)

as far as the vet transmission, ill admit, i only found the spec and saw that there it was close to the GTS box, with one more gear. however, now that ive done some more looking, there are all sorts of combinations for the vet box.
based on our GTS specs, 5th gear 2.72:1 with 25.5" diameter tires will run 2900rpm at 80mph. If you dont see this, then there could be errors in your speedo or tach. (in fact, my old 84 ran 2000rpm at 70mph and my S4 runs 2200 at 70 mph. which is correct? im supposed to be at 78mph at 2250rpm, but it doesnt read this. we do know the tire diameter and the gears are correct, so the chart is right and the speedo and tach is wrong. (by a lot too!)
the tach seems to be off by 250 rpms. as the speedo is not nearly that far off (radar checked too).

I do believe, that the S4 has a great all purpose gear box for the reasons you mention. first, i can race up to 155mph with the best tuned Cup cars at most tracks accross america (as long as a top clubber is not at the wheel) then, i can put it in 5th driving home from the event, getting a noisy, but good MPG all the way home. the GTS box (and i have experience driving and racing this gear box as well, as my 79 even had one), is nice for racing too. you get a little busier shifing at some tracks, but mostly, you are actually able to ignor 2nd gear and just use 3-4-and some 5th. (where the S4 is 2-3 and some 4th)

anyway, this discussion has worn even me out. I hope, at least, it produced some curiousity about how the gears actually effect 0- whatever speed.
In a nut shell, as i said years ago, its all about maximizing hp to the wheels (area under the curve.) the more time you spend near max HP, the faster you will be in any type of use of our cars.

as always, looking to help others go faster!

MK