Gears & R&P stock or Comptech
- Thread starter NSXocto
- Start date
I have the Honda NSX-R short gears and R/P (4.23).
This is all base on assumption and paper numbers.
Speed from 1-2 is great. Feels great in town. How often do you shift from 1-2 on the track or even the street?
When people post raving reviews about their new tranny mods, I think the bulk of their joy is coming from the R&P.
That being said, if I had to do it again, and had to choose between NSX-R short gears and R/P OR just Comptech 4.55 R&P, I'd go with the Comptech R&P setup. I don't value the 1-2 shift very much, and could use the $800 better elsewhere.
Cheers,
-- Chris
------------------
Chris Willson
www.ScienceofSpeed.com
www.NSXClassifieds.com
This is all base on assumption and paper numbers.
Speed from 1-2 is great. Feels great in town. How often do you shift from 1-2 on the track or even the street?
When people post raving reviews about their new tranny mods, I think the bulk of their joy is coming from the R&P.
That being said, if I had to do it again, and had to choose between NSX-R short gears and R/P OR just Comptech 4.55 R&P, I'd go with the Comptech R&P setup. I don't value the 1-2 shift very much, and could use the $800 better elsewhere.
Cheers,
-- Chris
------------------
Chris Willson
www.ScienceofSpeed.com
www.NSXClassifieds.com
I think NSXTASY hit most of the key points, but ilya was wondering why the gears and R&P don't help the NSX very much. He said the vette would improve 0-60 mph 0.4-0.5 seconds. Based on my article on this subject in the third quarter 2000 issue of NSX Driver, the NSX with 4.55 R&P and either short gears or a six-speed improve 0-60 time by 0.57 seconds. The quarter mile time improves 0.31 seconds for the 4.55/six and 0.29 seconds for the 4.55/short.
Andrie said that the 4.55 would be quicker to any speed. This is true for most practical speeds, but a stock geared car will be faster to any speed above 141 mph because the 4.55 vehicle has to shift to the "doggy" 5th gear at 132mph and the stocker catches it.
JChoice feels the 4.55 by itself is best. The 4.55 helps the launch and really helps your low speed acceleration, but by itself you would still have the dreaded RPM drop shifting to second gear. On a road course track, the 4.55 doesn't really help because you don't start any turns from a standing start. You don't care about zero to xx time, but instead how much time it takes to cover a certain distance. This is the subject of the next NSX Driver article.
Bob
Andrie said that the 4.55 would be quicker to any speed. This is true for most practical speeds, but a stock geared car will be faster to any speed above 141 mph because the 4.55 vehicle has to shift to the "doggy" 5th gear at 132mph and the stocker catches it.
JChoice feels the 4.55 by itself is best. The 4.55 helps the launch and really helps your low speed acceleration, but by itself you would still have the dreaded RPM drop shifting to second gear. On a road course track, the 4.55 doesn't really help because you don't start any turns from a standing start. You don't care about zero to xx time, but instead how much time it takes to cover a certain distance. This is the subject of the next NSX Driver article.
Bob
the NSX with 4.55 R&P and either short gears or a six-speed improve 0-60 time by 0.57 seconds.
However, this particular speed band favors the shorter gearing. The difference in 0-80 times isn't anywhere near as great - which means the 60-80 times with stock gears is faster than with the shorter gearing.
This is why one gearing may be better at one track - say, one with a lot of slow turns (40-60 mph) - while another gearing may be better at another track, where the turns are faster (60-80 mph).
Again, supporting the contention that overall, the performance differences due to gearing really aren't all that huge.
However, this particular speed band favors the shorter gearing. The difference in 0-80 times isn't anywhere near as great - which means the 60-80 times with stock gears is faster than with the shorter gearing.
This is why one gearing may be better at one track - say, one with a lot of slow turns (40-60 mph) - while another gearing may be better at another track, where the turns are faster (60-80 mph).
Again, supporting the contention that overall, the performance differences due to gearing really aren't all that huge.
Great thread!
My .02 worth. Since I don't care about drag racing and have little concern about the 1-2 sift under most street or track situations, I would actually like to try a TALLER 1st gear with all the rest as-is. Add the R&P and you may come out ahead under most real-world situations. I'd probably try it without the R&P first because I see no problem getting a bit more out of first, perhaps +5mph. Then if I do need to drop down to 1 it's not so low.
How 'bout it nsxtasy?
[This message has been edited by sjs (edited 24 March 2001).]
My .02 worth. Since I don't care about drag racing and have little concern about the 1-2 sift under most street or track situations, I would actually like to try a TALLER 1st gear with all the rest as-is. Add the R&P and you may come out ahead under most real-world situations. I'd probably try it without the R&P first because I see no problem getting a bit more out of first, perhaps +5mph. Then if I do need to drop down to 1 it's not so low.
How 'bout it nsxtasy?
[This message has been edited by sjs (edited 24 March 2001).]
I'm not aware of any alternatives for just first gear (shorter OR taller).
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to accomplish.
(post modified to remove an erroroneous statement I made
)
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 24 March 2001).]
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to accomplish.
(post modified to remove an erroroneous statement I made
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 24 March 2001).]
Hmmm... A taller first would shrink the gap, bringing first closer to second. Sure, you would be a bit slower off the line, which for my purposes that's irrelevant, but then you get to keep that gearing up to a higher point before shifting to second, and you would hit second in the fat part of the power band. Times when a downshift to first and back to second is necessary it just happens at a slightly higher speed, but the penalty should be less because you don't have that big gap. For those who still want a strong hole shot (seems like most everyone in this group) you can add the R&P. Now first is similar to stock (without the R&P) except that it gets you higher into the torque curve for second, which seems the main objective. I suspec that the rest is indeed mostly perception.
I realize that no such gear exists, so this is just theory, but with the exception of the 1-2 gap the stock gears are pretty well spaced to take full advantage of the VTEC. If you want to reduce the 1-2 gap and have them a bit lower overall, then a taller first plus the R&P would seem an interesting approach. And slightly cheaper if such a thing existed.
Do you follow my logic? Do the torque multiplying math and see how it looks.
Of course, I think the 6-speed is a better choice anyway. By the time you add up parts and labor to do the gears, a new box is not all that much more, and if you were patient you could probably get something back out of the old 5-speed if you didn't want the spare around.
I realize that no such gear exists, so this is just theory, but with the exception of the 1-2 gap the stock gears are pretty well spaced to take full advantage of the VTEC. If you want to reduce the 1-2 gap and have them a bit lower overall, then a taller first plus the R&P would seem an interesting approach. And slightly cheaper if such a thing existed.
Do you follow my logic? Do the torque multiplying math and see how it looks.
Of course, I think the 6-speed is a better choice anyway. By the time you add up parts and labor to do the gears, a new box is not all that much more, and if you were patient you could probably get something back out of the old 5-speed if you didn't want the spare around.
Okay, I understand what you mean - you want to make first slower so that the gap between the gears is closer together.
However, check out my post above again, where I note that the advantage of the short gears isn't primarily because of this gap between the gears being wide (alleged lack of power out of the VTEC range); it's because the gears are shorter (helping the conversion of torque at the crank to torque at the wheels). IOW making one gear taller (slower) wouldn't seem to do much for you at all.
However, check out my post above again, where I note that the advantage of the short gears isn't primarily because of this gap between the gears being wide (alleged lack of power out of the VTEC range); it's because the gears are shorter (helping the conversion of torque at the crank to torque at the wheels). IOW making one gear taller (slower) wouldn't seem to do much for you at all.
How about the 6-speed w/ 4.55 R&P and not using 1st except for 'special' occasions? In other words, start in 2nd gear. My YT has enough torque to do this already with the stock R&P.
------------------
BobsYT
2000 Red/Black #81
How about the 6-speed w/ 4.55 R&P and not using 1st except for 'special' occasions? In other words, start in 2nd gear. My YT has enough torque to do this already with the stock R&P.
So does the stock NSX with the stock gearing.
So does the stock NSX with the stock gearing.
I just passed my hunderdth post! ok, now that that's out of the way.
I'm not someone that goes to the track a lot (yet) because I can't afford the costs involved. Street and freeway driving are of chief importance to me. Most of my fun is had in 1st and 2nd gear. I've never been able to redline in third around here. Too much traffic. There are some windy roads here in LA like Sepulveda and Laurel Canyon with light traffic on weekends. Even then I have to watch the speed because cops are everywhere. As of a couple days ago, they were ordered to give out 25% more tickets during the next year.
What is my point? 2nd gear acceleration is important to me so I'm becoming set on doing this gear/r&p deal. However, I don't have 6K to blow on all this work. Therefore, I can't do a 6 speed conversion or a Jap. 5speed and 4.55 R&P plus flywheel. My car already has an RM clutch.
I am forced to fit within a $2-3K max budget. That makes the Jap5speed and 4.235 a possibility, maybe add the flywheel if I have a bit extra cash. I see the gears are 800 and the 4.235 is 900 from RM. I'm hoping with work I can fit that in a $2500 budget. Larry will hook me up.
OR, I can go with a straight 4.55R&P and stock gears. Remember, street driving 80 and below is where it's at for me until I can afford the track. When I can afford that, I'll be able to afford some more gearing changes too.
I've seen the numbers. Any personal opinions or suggestions on which may be a better combo. Or is there a third variable I am missing I can consider in that budget? I would love the 4.55 R&P and the gears, but that would put me past 3K and closer to 4K.
I am hoping to get a good deal on the gears and R&P plus work and stay in the low 2Ks.
I'm still doing headers which is key, because I already have exhaust and intake, so that is were the rest of some money is going. I'm also fiddling with some cost effective weight reduvction ideas like
-100lbs. for AC.
For my specific uses, any suggestions on which of my two options, or a third, would be a good idea within my aformentoined budget. That $450/month college payment hurts.
Now that I have all this information, and know my budget, I need to make a decision which gearing combo to go with.
I'm not someone that goes to the track a lot (yet) because I can't afford the costs involved. Street and freeway driving are of chief importance to me. Most of my fun is had in 1st and 2nd gear. I've never been able to redline in third around here. Too much traffic. There are some windy roads here in LA like Sepulveda and Laurel Canyon with light traffic on weekends. Even then I have to watch the speed because cops are everywhere. As of a couple days ago, they were ordered to give out 25% more tickets during the next year.
What is my point? 2nd gear acceleration is important to me so I'm becoming set on doing this gear/r&p deal. However, I don't have 6K to blow on all this work. Therefore, I can't do a 6 speed conversion or a Jap. 5speed and 4.55 R&P plus flywheel. My car already has an RM clutch.
I am forced to fit within a $2-3K max budget. That makes the Jap5speed and 4.235 a possibility, maybe add the flywheel if I have a bit extra cash. I see the gears are 800 and the 4.235 is 900 from RM. I'm hoping with work I can fit that in a $2500 budget. Larry will hook me up.
OR, I can go with a straight 4.55R&P and stock gears. Remember, street driving 80 and below is where it's at for me until I can afford the track. When I can afford that, I'll be able to afford some more gearing changes too.
I've seen the numbers. Any personal opinions or suggestions on which may be a better combo. Or is there a third variable I am missing I can consider in that budget? I would love the 4.55 R&P and the gears, but that would put me past 3K and closer to 4K.
I am hoping to get a good deal on the gears and R&P plus work and stay in the low 2Ks.
I'm still doing headers which is key, because I already have exhaust and intake, so that is were the rest of some money is going. I'm also fiddling with some cost effective weight reduvction ideas like
-100lbs. for AC.
For my specific uses, any suggestions on which of my two options, or a third, would be a good idea within my aformentoined budget. That $450/month college payment hurts.
Now that I have all this information, and know my budget, I need to make a decision which gearing combo to go with.
Similar threads
- Locked
