Forty years of racing/track work (E-production, Sports 2000, Camel Lights) tells me you're badly mistaken. To each his own.
Dealer records show a Snap Ring repair. Is it fixed for good?
- Thread starter jf308
- Start date
Forty years of racing/track work (E-production, Sports 2000, Camel Lights) tells me you're badly mistaken. To each his own.
You're welcome to your opinion. But it is a matter of fact, not opinion, that the NSX accelerates significantly quicker in the stock second gear than in third gear of the short gears, because of the gearing advantage. And it is also a matter of fact, not opinion, that the 70-80 mph speeds used in the curvy parts of many tracks will let you use the stock second gear but would exceed redline in the short gears so it forces you into third. For example, I can use second gear with NSX stock gears at Mid-Ohio from the end of the back straight all the way to the middle of the chute, but would be forced into third gear with a shorter gearing setup. Many tracks have sequences of turns like that, where the stock gears are superior - that part is opinion - because second gear can be used with the stock gears but not with the short gears, and second gear is faster - that part is fact, not opinion. The simple fact is that at the speeds used through many turns, the stock gears are quicker. That's why my opinion is that I prefer the stock gears on the track - BY FAR.
Last edited:
Let me put this as politely as I can. You're wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally, wrong.
Close ratio gears in an NSX will ALWAYS be quicker on any given track that has a significant series of turns (not an oval).
Period.
NOTE: I haven't said easier to drive, I've said quicker.
When you're in your power band more often over a given distance, you will be quicker.
Last edited:
His car looked perfect- I think you should get them. BTW my car was sitting next to DocJohn's at NSXStock last week and the height was nearly identical. He is on the NA2 Type R and I have the Comptech Sport springs. Also, as my search for a used 6-speed has turned up nil, I've decided to do the short gears but keep the 4.06 R&P.
No, Harry. YOU are wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally, wrong.
The short gears close the gap between first gear and second gear, leave the gap between second and third the same, and widen the gaps between third and fourth, and fourth and fifth. Based on your own criterion that closer ratio gears are always faster, the stock gears are quicker than the short gears, since you're never in first gear and never shifting between first and second.
There isn't much of a "power band" in the NSX. Acceleration is a function of torque at the wheels, which is a function of torque at the crank and gearing. The NSX has a flat torque curve; it's pretty low at the low end of the revband, but in the part used at the track - with each gear being used only at or above the RPM at which it redlines in the next lower gear - it varies hardly at all. As a result, the rate of acceleration is determined primarily by gearing. This is why acceleration is maximized by taking each gear up to redline, and this is why the NSX always accelerates faster in a lower gear (i.e. one with a higher numerical ratio). The stock second gear is shorter than third gear with the short gears. So at the speeds at which you can use the stock second gear but the short gears require using third, the NSX is faster with the stock gears. This happens at roughly 70-80 mph, the speeds at which you go through sequences of turns at many tracks. That's why the stock gears are faster than the short gears on the track.
You ought to go back to your "I have more track experience than you do" argument. Although I bet I have more track experience in the NSX than you do, so that argument might not fly, either.
Okay. okay... I give up. Your dick IS bigger than mine!
What is that? This is a community where people contribute with their experiences and knowledges. You have come on here having started several threads with many questions, and then you just delete them over and over again? Really, what seems to be the problem? To me, it is strange and inappropriate.
Steve
Nice notes. But this does not make sense at least to me.
I always considered lower geared cars to be quicker in acceleration everywhere until they topped out in top gear at max rpms. Then the higher gears would accelerate to their top speed.
They are.....from what I understand what makes the shorties desireable on the track for normally aspirated engine NSXs - is that now your car can keep cooler - run longer at less revs! It's easier on the car to be in 3rd gear running along at 6500 rather than in second gear at the top around 7500 to 8000. Should be better on the track - this argument is obviously gotten some fairly excited. I'm getting my info from Coz. He's a real racer! If you have an SC - then the longer gears make sense - you run out of gear and road mighty fast with an SC. That's the difference, again as I understand it.
In general in the nsx on track with an experienced driver you are almost always in vtec and so the shorties have nothing to do with engine temps.The shorties and various R&P's can provide slightly better times on certain tracks depending on the track configuration.The fact that the stock 2nd gear on the 5 speed redlines at about 80 mph can leave you hunting/experimenting between 2-3 gears for many corners in the 70-90 mph zone,and could leave you out of the optimal power band ie lower revs in 2nd gear in the slower corners.
Doc, I was merely repeating what Coz told me, but it makes sense that if you are hunting as you say at around 70 - 90 then when you shift into third you are going to be a little low, contrary to that if you have short gears with the stock R&P then when you shift into third, instead of being at 7500 t0 8 grand in second with the long gears you surely won't be there in third with short gears - you will be in the vtech - just not blasting your car at the top of the rev range therefore it stands to reason that you car will naturally stay cooler with less revs - pretty simple math I think. Makes sense to me when Coz explained it. I don't know how much track time you have and I hate trying to recap a conversation from another person cause I'm surely no racer and have never been on a track - but I understand revs cause I've owned a multitude of sports cars and I do drive hard sometimes.
Have Coz explain what he was saying about temps.I'm sure he would agree that any fast track driver will be maxing revs in every gear depending on the configuration,regardless of gearing and R&P.The only time I would alter my driving style would be if the car needed to cool down or the brakes were toast.
Will do Doc, thanks....
What you are saying is basically true - which explains why the stock gears can be faster than the so-called "short gears". At some speeds, the stock gears provide shorter gearing than the short gears.
Let's go back to basics. Acceleration is a function of torque at the wheels. Torque at the wheels equals torque at the crank (engine torque), less drivetrain losses (what's lost in the transmission), times gearing (a multiplier based on the gear ratio, in which shorter gearing means greater acceleration). I assume you're with me so far, but if you'd like to read more, this is a great write-up.
On a lot of cars, the torque curve varies with RPM. It does on the NSX, too, but - thanks to VTEC - the useful part of the torque curve (5000-8000 RPM) is pretty darn level, not much variation throughout that range. You will be in that part of the torque curve for almost all speeds and gear setups over 25 mph, which means anywhere on the track, so you can ignore the lower torque at lower revs.
Since engine torque is flat above 25 mph, and drivetrain losses are basically constant (around 11-12 percent in the case of the NSX), the rate of acceleration in the NSX is determined by gearing. Lower/shorter gearing results in greater acceleration. Just as you stated.
However, at some road speeds the NSX with stock gears has lower/shorter gearing than the NSX with "short gears". Why? Because you need to be in a higher gear with the short gears than with the stock gears. Between roughly 70 and 80 mph - the exact speeds depend on your choice of individual gears as well as the R&P gear through which all gears also go - you can stay in second gear with the stock gears, but you must upshift to third gear with the short gears. And third gear in the short gears is taller/longer than second gear in the stock gears. So the stock gears provide shorter gearing, and better acceleration, at those speeds than the so-called "short gears".
Last edited:
Ok I gotta bite on this one NSXtasy - now if you are between 70 and 80 in second reving like oh I guess pretty close to red line and you shift into 3rd having short gears - of course you'd be shifting sooner cause you'd run out of room in second and be in third but if you are hovering around 70 - 80 you are still going to be above 6grand - probably more like 6500rpms with shorties which is well within max torque and vtech - so tell me about this advantage with long gears again - how does that work?
I mean while you are screaming along stressing your engine to the max and I'm in third hovering around 6500 to 7000 how is that a bad thing and why wouldn't I be right on your tail on a track and while keeping my engine in a cooler rev range without as much stress on my engine and now with track time coming on the clock in terms of hours of time on my engine how am I not saving my engine - cooler and less revs in vtec = happier engine and longer life. I don't think in any scenario with short gears vs long ones in a naturally aspirated NSX are you going to be faster. I'm not convinced. Maximum torque is reached way before redline in any car - we all know the torque curve starts flattening out after max torque is reached. I'm not getting this at all.
I'd love to hear from another experienced track NSX owner and see if he had shorties installed after he had track time and tell me if he's not faster with short gears - I don't buy it. Now if you add a SC to the equation I would think you'd need longer gears - that's at least my understanding.
Flame pants on!
I mean while you are screaming along stressing your engine to the max and I'm in third hovering around 6500 to 7000 how is that a bad thing and why wouldn't I be right on your tail on a track and while keeping my engine in a cooler rev range without as much stress on my engine and now with track time coming on the clock in terms of hours of time on my engine how am I not saving my engine - cooler and less revs in vtec = happier engine and longer life. I don't think in any scenario with short gears vs long ones in a naturally aspirated NSX are you going to be faster. I'm not convinced. Maximum torque is reached way before redline in any car - we all know the torque curve starts flattening out after max torque is reached. I'm not getting this at all.
I'd love to hear from another experienced track NSX owner and see if he had shorties installed after he had track time and tell me if he's not faster with short gears - I don't buy it. Now if you add a SC to the equation I would think you'd need longer gears - that's at least my understanding.
Flame pants on!
Sounds like you haven't driven on the track - and maybe you haven't even tried accelerating your NSX as fast as it can, by accelerating all the way to redline before shifting. This is why some people think that the NSX doesn't accelerate all that fast - because they try accelerating and shifting around 4-5000 RPM and never actually experience the acceleration of which the car is capable.
In most cases, on the racetrack, you want to be in whatever gear gives you maximum acceleration wherever possible. Which means, in the NSX, the lowest gear without exceeding redline (8000 RPM for all manual transmission NSXs). There are exceptions but only brief ones, because you would need to shift into a gear and right out again, and lose more time doing the two shifts than you would gain from shifting; for example, where you could downshift for a turn but you would need to upshift again before you even reach the track-out point. Anyway, for all practical purposes, you want to be in the lowest gear without exceeding redline. Yes, that means you spend most of your time on the track with the revs way up in the revband (which is not overly stressful on the engine; it's actually designed to be used that way). It's very different from driving on the street (for most of us, anyway) where we care about things like fuel economy. (When appropriately used on the racetrack, an NSX may get 9 miles per gallon or less.)
I don't understand your first paragraph, in which you state that between 70 and 80 mph, you will be at 6500 RPM in second gear with the short gears. This is simply not true. In second gear with the short gears, you will hit the 8000 RPM redline (and be forced to upshift) at 71 mph if you have the stock R&P, 68 mph with the 4.235 R&P, and 64 mph with the 4.55 R&P. Whereas you can continue up to 81 mph before hitting the 8000 RPM redline with the stock gears.
Again, the reason that the stock gears are faster between roughly 70 and 80 mph is because you can use shorter gearing; you can use second gear with the stock gears, which is shorter than the third gear you would be forced to use with the short gears.
Most owners who spend money on any mod will swear that it makes their car faster, regardless of whether it actually does or not. People don't like to admit that something they have done has not improved things; psychologists have a field day with this concept, which they call "cognitive dissonance". The fact is, some mods do make the car faster, some mods make the car faster but not for reasons related to the aftermarket part itself (like replacing worn shocks with new shocks), some mods make the car slower, and some mods may vary depending on the particular racetrack (race teams actually calibrate some car components for one track differently from another).
It's also a fact that some mods can create the perception of improved performance rather than any actual improvement. For example, you can replace an exhaust with one that is louder but doesn't change the engine's power/torque/acceleration, and ten out of ten owners will swear up and down that their car accelerates faster. The short gears (and, to an even greater extent, the shorter R&P gear) are mostly like this because much of the perception of speed is how long it takes before you reach redline, and they reduce this duration; however, they reach redline at a lower road speed, and the actual rate of acceleration, as measured by the time it takes to reach a given road speed, experiences only a minimal improvement (and actually declines above 70 mph). And there's nothing wrong with an improvement in the perception of speed, either; if that's what you're looking for, go for it!
But the simple fact remains, the stock gears accelerate faster between 70 mph and 80 mph than the short gears.
Also not true. A supercharger doesn't change anything about the gearing or the speeds at which you can use one gear vs another. It simply gets you to any given speed sooner. (Which is very desirable, needless to say!)
Last edited:
Sounds a little more convincing - but the reason you didn't understand my first paragraph is that you misquoted it......my point was that when you shift out of second at redline into third with short gears you'll still be at around 6500 rpms and in vtech and at max torque. So I'm still not sure how less stress on an engine under track loads wouldn't be desirable?
I mean you talk about being in second - where are you in third - with short gears no matter what speed red line is when you shift into 3rd you'll be in the sweet spot of the rev range - no???
I mean you talk about being in second - where are you in third - with short gears no matter what speed red line is when you shift into 3rd you'll be in the sweet spot of the rev range - no???
Tim...
Don't try reason, logic, math, experience or any other approach -- won't get you anywhere (see earlier posts).
Don't try reason, logic, math, experience or any other approach -- won't get you anywhere (see earlier posts).
Actually, when you shift out of second at redline into third gear with short gears, you'll be at 5738 RPM, whereas with the stock gears you'll be at 5698 RPM. Not a big difference.
But your statement about VTEC and max torque ignores the fact that (a) VTEC does not create increased torque; it maintains the torque at a higher RPM level, and (b) the torque curve of the NSX hardly varies at all from the RPM you reach when you shift at redline up to about 7000 RPM, and doesn't drop off all that much above 7000 RPM, either, as you can see in this diagram:
Stress on the engine is not a concern in track driving, because there is no unusually high stress as long as you keep the engine under redline. (That's why there's a rev limiter.)
No. As noted above, there is no "sweet spot of the rev range" where it's dramatically higher than at other revs. Torque is virtually flat between 4000 RPM and 7000 RPM, and doesn't drop all that much above 7000 RPM either. This is why the rate of acceleration in the NSX is determined by gearing rather than by revs. (This is not necessarily true in other cars, where there may be a more dramatic torque peak at a certain RPM, and where this may even dictate optimal shift points at revs other than redline.)
Oh, and what he says:
What he means:
:biggrin:
Last edited:
OK, I'll bite.
Any track, any time. Stopwatches win. Graphs lose.
I've got an idea! How about we let the folks at Honda decide who's right... in November, at NSX Fiesta.
"Which car would be faster on a track, say Suzuka... one with American gears or one with Japanese gears?"
Any track, any time. Stopwatches win. Graphs lose.
I've got an idea! How about we let the folks at Honda decide who's right... in November, at NSX Fiesta.
"Which car would be faster on a track, say Suzuka... one with American gears or one with Japanese gears?"
Last edited:
This thread has gone completely off the chart but I have some knowledge on the thread title so I'll interrupt.
I got Acura to give me a new housing and snap ring for my 91 for free in 2008. They made me pay for labor. Mine didn't fail but I was replacing the clutch already so I figured I might as well do it. I thought that was pretty good considering it was 17 years old at the time.
I'm almost positive that they told me it was Warranted For Life against future failure.
If it really matters, I'll go dig up the paperwork.
I got Acura to give me a new housing and snap ring for my 91 for free in 2008. They made me pay for labor. Mine didn't fail but I was replacing the clutch already so I figured I might as well do it. I thought that was pretty good considering it was 17 years old at the time.
I'm almost positive that they told me it was Warranted For Life against future failure.
If it really matters, I'll go dig up the paperwork.
If you can examine the dealer's records for the snap ring repair, it's fairly easy to tell whether it's fixed for good. Examine the parts on the repair ticket. If they replaced the entire transmission, it's fixed for good. If they replaced the snap ring and the upper transmission case, then it's fixed for good. There are reports in which some mechanics replaced only the snap ring, without replacing the upper transmission case; in such cases, it's not fixed for good, since the source of the problem is improperly cut upper transmission cases. For more information, see the FAQ/Wiki.
:biggrin:
Similar threads
