Short Gear Review

[nsxtasy]

I would have to respectfully disagree due to the (IMO) greater benefit in the lower sections of the track.

I would have to respectfully disagree. If the slower sections of the track aren't slow enough to enable the use of second gear with the shorter setup, the taller setup will almost always be faster, assuming you can still use second with that setup.

until someone back to backs both gear ratios in the same configuration car on the same day with data.

Which is not likely to happen. I know how long it takes most techs to R&R the tranny. I know a professional pit crew at the track can do things a lot faster, but still...

I will however say that a 4.23 or 4.40 will probably be better than the stock 4.06 at almost every track.

And I would respectfully disagree with that as well. The shorter R&P lowers the speeds for all the shift points by the same proportion. That may help at some tracks, hurt at others. OTOH it will help at any dragstrip, unless the shorter R&P requires an additional shift before the traps.

I've no idea which ratio might be better at a given track, but higher ratios always FEEL faster, to everyone. As humans, it's hard to get past that natural bias.

That's correct, for several reasons. One is that the shorter gears (higher ratios) lower the amount of time in a given gear before needing to shift, which makes you think it's faster (even though you're just shifting at a lower road speed). The other is that, within any given gear for two different setups at the same speed, your revs and the engine/exhaust sound are higher, which gives the perception of faster speed (even though it isn't).

VIR: 3 turns <50mph

Where the heck are you going under 50 mph other than braking into Oak Tree?

And did you ever figure out how come the numbers you posted about the drop in revs were wrong?

 

[stuntman]

Which is not likely to happen. I know how long it takes most techs to R&R the tranny. I know a professional pit crew at the track can do things a lot faster, but still...

And I would respectfully disagree with that as well. The shorter R&P lowers the speeds for all the shift points by the same proportion. That may help at some tracks, hurt at others. OTOH it will help at any dragstrip, unless the shorter R&P requires an additional shift before the traps.

I don't know why I didn't think of it before but I have an engineer whose job is to run these types of simulations on said gear ratios and final drives on a given track that he currently has data on to see the advantages of the various setups over the other. I'll see if he would run it on these gears and final drives -if he's bored one day.

Where the heck are you going under 50 mph other than braking into Oak Tree?

Grand Am GS Porsches and Mustangs (which run 275 width slicks) are running <50mph in Turn 1, Turn 4, Turn 12 (oak tree), and Turn 14a (end of back straight, the right hander going into the roller coaster).

 

[Honcho]

FWIW, I ran the different gearing setups on Forza 2. 5 laps with each stack at Road America, Laguna Seca, Tsukuba and Suzuka. At RA, the short gears were about 1 second per lap faster and at Laguna they were 2 seconds faster. At Tsukuba they were 1 second faster and Suzuka they were 2 seconds faster.

I also ran the NSX-R 4.23 and they only track where it was an advantage was Tsukuba. At Laguna it was about even with the 4.06. At RA and Suzuka, it was slower and not suited to the corners.

I don't know why I didn't think of it before but I have an engineer whose job is to run these types of simulations on said gear ratios and final drives on a given track that he currently has data on to see the advantages of the various setups over the other. I'll see if he would run it on these gears and final drives -if he's bored one day.

Grand Am GS Porsches and Mustangs (which run 275 width slicks) are running <50mph in Turn 1, Turn 4, Turn 12 (oak tree), and Turn 14a (end of back straight, the right hander going into the roller coaster).

 

[SFNSXguy]

(Comment withdrawn in the interest of civility,)

 

[Cap'n Carl]

(Comment withdrawn in the interest of civility,)

To summarize your posts:
1) NSXtasy mentions your "endless tacky insults", "juvenile phallic references", etc, and you deny having done so.
2) You challenge NSXtasy to produce such posts.
3) NSXtasy does exactly that, producing several such posts, by you, from this thread as well as others.

and
4) In the light of clear evidence, you admitted he was right, and that maybe some of your posts were a little insulting. You privately resolved to do a little better in the future.
5) NSX Prime is now a little better for having less posts like you denied ever having made.


Oops, 4 and 5 never happened. Instead, you posted something that probably confirmed NSXtasy's original point about your posts. Then you withdrew it, and NSX Prime is a little better for it.

 

[SFNSXguy]

To summarize your posts:
1) NSXtasy mentions your "endless tacky insults", "juvenile phallic references", etc, and you deny having done so.
2) You challenge NSXtasy to produce such posts.
3) NSXtasy does exactly that, producing several such posts, by you, from this thread as well as others.

and
4) In the light of clear evidence, you admitted he was right, and that maybe some of your posts were a little insulting. You privately resolved to do a little better in the future.
5) NSX Prime is now a little better for having less posts like you denied ever having made.

Oops, 4 and 5 never happened. Instead, you posted something that probably confirmed NSXtasy's original point about your posts. Then you withdrew it, and NSX Prime is a little better for it.

So his memory is a little better than mine Insults? Never! Tacky? Perhaps. All are an "eye of the beholder" kinda thing.
I still maintain that the JDM gears and 4:55 R&P are a smarter choice for the pre-six-speed transmission when doing a combination of street use and track days.
Other, experienced users, seem to agree that the stock box ain't so hot.
NSXtacy will no doubt continue to insist on the last word, regardless. This is mine.

 

[nsxtasy]

Insults? Never!

Yeah, right. Keep denying your actions instead of taking responsibility, when anyone can see the truth.

Other, experienced users, seem to agree that the stock box ain't so hot.

Some experienced users prefer the stock gears, others prefer the short gears. Some prefer the stock R&P, others prefer the short R&P. It all depends on how and where you use it, whether you prefer the perception of faster acceleration or the reality, etc.

I still prefer the stock gears with the stock R&P. I think it's a better setup for most of the racetracks I've been on, thanks to the closer spacing of the gears used on the track, and the faster acceleration at speeds above 60 mph, where most track driving takes place.

We all have our opinions, but here are FACTS, not opinions, when comparing the stock gears and stock R&P against the short gears and 4.55 R&P:

Up to 41 mph, the short gears/R&P are 12 percent shorter
From 41 mph to 45 mph, the stock gears/R&P are 40 percent shorter
From 45 mph to 65 mph, the short gears/R&P are 27 percent shorter
From 65 mph to 81 mph, the stock gears/R&P are 10 percent shorter
From 81 mph to 90 mph, the short gears/R&P are 27 percent shorter
From 90 mph to 114 mph, the stock gears/R&P are 6 percent shorter
From 114 mph to 124 mph, the short gears/R&P are 20 percent shorter
From 124 mph to 144 mph, the stock gears/R&P are 12 percent shorter
Above 144 mph, the short gears/R&P are 12 percent shorter

As you can see, once you're above 65 mph, the stock gears and R&P are faster than the short gears at wide ranges of speed ("speed bands" of 65-81, 90-114, and 124-144), whereas it's only at very narrow ranges of speed (81-90, 114-124) that the short gears with 4.55 R&P have an advantage. That's why it takes 22.33 seconds to accelerate from 60 to 140 with the stock gears and R&P, and 23.77 seconds to accelerate from 60 to 140 with the short gears and 4.55 R&P. On most tracks, 60 to 140 is what matters, and the stock gears and R&P are faster. But if you're trying to beat out people pulling away from stop lights, 0-60 is what matters, and the short gears and 4.55 R&P are faster.

NSXtacy will no doubt continue to insist on the last word, regardless.

Wrong again. Anyone can see who has insisted on having the last word in previous threads.

This is mine.

One can only hope that you're finally telling the truth here. It's about time!

 

[vf2ss]

From 41 mph to 45 mph, the stock gears/R&P are 40 percent shorter
From 45 mph to 65 mph, the short gears/R&P are 27 percent shorter
From 65 mph to 81 mph, the stock gears/R&P are 10 percent shorter

This makes me wonder then in this scenario...suppose two NSX's are cruising side by side at exactly 40mph, one w/stock gears/R&P and one w/short gears/R&P; and they both simultaneously get on it until 81...if I did my math correctly...they would tie? From 41 to 81, each car has the advantage of being shorter for 50% of the time and even the actual percent shorter seems almost identical. Is this correct?

 

[nsxtasy]

This makes me wonder then in this scenario...suppose two NSX's are cruising side by side at exactly 40mph, one w/stock gears/R&P and one w/short gears/R&P; and they both simultaneously get on it until 81...if I did my math correctly...they would tie? From 41 to 81, each car has the advantage of being shorter for 50% of the time and even the actual percent shorter seems almost identical. Is this correct?

Yes, they would be very close. Bob Butler's analysis shows that an NSX with stock gears and stock R&P takes 5.14 seconds to accelerate from 40 to 80, and one with short gears and 4.55 R&P takes 5.23 seconds to accelerate from 40 to 80. However, unlike most of the above comparisons (e.g. 60 to 140), the 40 to 80 mph range has a different number of shifts (two for the short setup, one for the stock setup) so there is an inherent advantage to the setup without the time for the extra shift. The shorter setup would have the advantage below 40 mph, with 0-40 acceleration of 2.53 seconds vs 2.84 for the stock setup (both with no shifts).

 

[stuntman]

And did you ever figure out how come the numbers you posted about the drop in revs were wrong?

They were for the 95&96's 2nd gear (1.8) and not the 1.727 from the 91-94 cars.

It's fixed on the original post now:

EDITED with US 91-94 & 95-96

According to my gear chart (using a 245/40-17 tire)

a) US (91-94)/4.06
b) US (95-96)/4.06
c) JDM/4.06
d) JDM/4.235



MPH @ 8,000RPM:

a) 47 - 84 - 118 - 150 - 188
b) 47 - 80 - 118 - 150 - 188
c) 47 - 74 - 103 - 140 - 188
d) 45 - 71 - 99 - 134 - 180


MPH @ 6,100RPM (V-tec crossover):

a) 36 - 64 - 90 - 114 - 143
b) 36 - 61 - 90 - 114 - 143
c) 36 - 57 - 79 - 107 - 143
d) 34 - 54 - 76 - 103 - 137


MPH @ 3,200RPM:

a) 19 - 34 - 47 -60 -75
b) 19 - 32 - 47 - 60 -75
c) 19 - 30 - 41 - 56 - 75
d) 18 - 28 - 40 - 54 - 72


RPM after Redline Up-shift:

a) - 4,499 - 5,698 - 6,289 - 6,378
b) - 4,689 - 5,467 - 6,289 - 6,378
c) - 5,085 - 5,738 - 5,903 - 5,971
d) - 5,085 - 5,738 - 5,903 - 5,971


RPM Drop

a) - 3,501 - 2,302 - 1,711 - 1,622
a) - 3,311 - 2,533 - 1,711 - 1,622
b) - 2,915 - 2,262 - 2,097 - 2,029
c) - 2,915 - 2,262 - 2,097 - 2,029



The RPM drop and gear spread of the JDM gear set is more even than the US gear set which has a much larger RPM drop from 1-2, similar 2-3, then shorter 3-4 and 4-5 shifts (keep in mind for most tracks the 4-5 shift is probably irrelevant since there aren't a ton of tracks where a stock NSX would get up over 150mph). Because of this, the JDM gear set should be faster in the first 3 gears (up to 118mph) and then start to lose ground above 118 slightly. I like the JDM gear ratio.


Billy

 

[tbromley]

So has Billy got the last word here???? I can't believe it. I'm sure we'll hear more....:wink:

I for one would tend to think Billy has gotten right, but then I haven't got anything but stats to base that on. :redface:

 

[Ty B]

This discussion reminds me of one I had years ago regarding another honda product, the RC30. They had to bring in 200 of them as a homologation special, so that honda could use it as their superbike entry here in the states.

1st gear was good for 85 mph, then all the other gears were spaced closely together. It was great for the track, but well it sucked for the street. Slipping the clutch like crazy to start off from a stop every block at lights, or goodness forbid, stop and go traffic on the freeway.

So, how am i tying this to this nsx discussion you are wondering? What is the point of having gearing that sets you above most freeway speed limits by the time you are shifting out of 2nd gear. Not to mention final gearing for 180mph, when most, if but a few, rarely see a quick glance of 100mph once in a blue moon?

For the track, sure, the gearing might work very well for you. On the street, well, it reminds me decidedly of the RC30. An 8000 rpm redline jaunt has you approaching freeway on-ramp speeds and 2nd gets you into Neg 2 territory anywhere past the v-tech point inside city limits. I would also add that in comparison to the nsx and the nsx-r, the japanese testers (jgtc pro's) all prefered the nsx-r gearing at the track in back to back testing. Just stirring the pot there.:smile:

I look forward, with much anticipation, to the day when I can install the nsx-r gearing and shorten up the shift points. I'm leaning towards the 4.4 ring and pinion, an extra 250 rpm at 70mph is a small price to pay. For reference, my daily driver is a 2005 subaru sti and it has some pretty short gears from the factory. A ton more fun around town and in the twisties at speeds well under 100mph. I just don't enjoy stringing out 1 gear, from way down low to way up high. Only to shift just one time more and then.... set the cruise control at the speed limit. You might as well have an automatic, you aren't shifting any more with the US gearing.

The sti, however, is much more interactive. Definately more smiles per mile from the user involvement meter. Sadly it is a bit hideous to look at, and the feedback and handling are lacking the NSX level of perfection that we all luv and appreciate.

My $.02.

 

[tbromley]

Good post TyB....I was wondering where you were these days....glad to see you post a bit! This ought to set things into motion again....:wink:

I like the way you put it. For those of us that really do all our driving on the street and not that we're "racing" out there but there are surely times when one gets to push on the "loud" pedal. I find my times and pick them carefully and if we didn't find those times well like you say we might as well have an automatic. I took that slightly out of context I realize that.

I would think that around town and in the twisties on those mountain roads lightly traveled, etc....we would enjoy perhaps a little tighter gearing. Although for the GA mountains - with the really tight twisties up our small mountain switch backs you rarely would ever get out of second gear and using the tall gear would offer a fine gearing almost exclusively - but would you benefit from better torque under the short gears - an interesting thought. I'm actually thinking you would. Cause you'd still be in second most of the time anyway and be a little zippier....correct?

That's what it sounds like to me anyway....maybe one day I can dig deep for the shorties...I can always dream. Right now I'm trying to dig deep and put on the Swifts and bilstiens I have. It never really ends does it?

 

[goldNSX]

For reference, my daily driver is a 2005 subaru sti and it has some pretty short gears from the factory. A ton more fun around town and in the twisties at speeds well under 100mph.

Now as you mention it. The NSX is the only Honda car I recall which had such long gears. Integra's and S2000's have a much shorter gearing.
I know, nsxtasy will always contradict to it but I don't recall any owner who went with the short gears to complain about them. That's not a division between reality and perception. Below 100 mph the shorties are in most scenarios faster and add much more flexibility.

 

[Honcho]

FWIW, if anyone wants to try out the short gears with 4.06 back to back with your NSX, I will be at the Bear Mountain run this Sunday.

 

[Jetpilot3]

What a great thread! Educational and entertaining in one thread...love it!

You wouldn't believe this but I bought a "Snap-Ring Car"....OMG! The horror, the shock, how am I sleeping at night?

I'm sleeping knowing that if the trans does go I'll be installing short gears and now heavily thinking about the 4.06 as I'm a supercharged car. Any objections?

Should I be considering anything else being SC'd?

 

[OLDMNSX]

Well guys I did the upgrade to the "Short Gears" last winter and replaced all of the parts that Chris @ SOS does for one of his tranny rebuilds. I just kept the OEM ring and pinion. I was running out of money, (anyone else have that problem with NSX projects?) I think that I ended up around $3K in parts for the upgrade and I did the work.

For normal daily driving around town the short gears are like getting a "NEW CAR". I like the taller diff ratio for gas mileage on the freeway. They are that much of an improvement IMO. I Love Them.

The only thing that would be better would be a 6-Speed. (refer to my first paragraph)

Brad

 

[spase]

I just bought a 91 JDM NSX 38 000 km with short gears. After having a australian spec with long gears, the short gears feel much faster.

 

[Cap'n Carl]

Now as you mention it. The NSX is the only Honda car I recall which had such long gears. Integra's and S2000's have a much shorter gearing.
I know, nsxtasy will always contradict to it but I don't recall any owner who went with the short gears to complain about them. That's not a division between reality and perception. Below 100 mph the shorties are in most scenarios faster and add much more flexibility.

Why would nsxtasy contradict you? I think he's said that the shorter gears may be better for street use.

 

[tbromley]

Why would nsxtasy contradict you? I think he's said that the shorter gears may be better for street use.

Hey Cap,

I don't think Ken said that Cap'n. After rereading - although there have been so many posts by Ken on this - but I don't believe that Ken has ever been a proponent of the short gears for anything but street "drags". Which not many sane people ingage in. In my opinion the NSX is good for the twisties and handling - not about short runs on the street. I don't really find the NSX shifting to be any better than older Porsche shifting - you can shift a bit faster but still you can't rush the shift like you can in some other cars. After having a new Civic SI and the NSX - the trannies are fine but they have their weak points. In the winter they really need to get warmed up and you have to be careful on the 1rst to 2nd shift and that's in both the NSX and my 07 Civic SI, which I no longer have.

I actually think the new trasmissions in Porsches are much better. I would have to think that the shifting in the Miata which has been touted for years is also much better. My 2 cents....

 

[nsxtasy]

Why would nsxtasy contradict you? I think he's said that the shorter gears may be better for street use.

Yes, I have. Multiple times. I can do it again: The shorter gears are faster and better for street use. (And the six-speed, with or without a shorter R&P, is better than either five-speed.)

I don't think Ken said that Cap'n. After rereading - although there have been so many posts by Ken on this - but I don't believe that Ken has ever been a proponent of the short gears for anything but street "drags".

That's simply not true. I have stated flat-out that the shorter gears may be better for street use, and have only used "off the line" situations as an example to illustrate why:

As I have said, for general street use, like if you're concerned about speed "off the line" if you're trying to beat someone away from a stoplight, the short gears are faster. And, they give the additional perception of being faster, beyond the actual speed differences. But the stock gears are faster above 70 mph, so if that's where you want quicker acceleration, you're better off sticking with the closer-ratio stock gears rather than the wider-spaced short gears. It just depends on where you want the benefit, below 70 mph or above 70 mph.

 

[Honcho]

Final Report. Just finished the Bear Mountain run with my new short gears and NSX-R differential. Oh. My. God. Worth every penny I paid and then some! For twisting, undulating mountain roads, they are simply incredible. I only touched 4th a few times and while I understand there is a slightly slower difference on paper, I could not feel any perceptible loss of acceleration shifting from 3rd to 4th compared to the USDM gears. I highly recommend this modification.

 

[tbromley]

Yes, I have. Multiple times. I can do it again: The shorter gears are better for street use. (And the six-speed, with or without a shorter R&P, is better than either five-speed.)


That's simply not true. I have stated flat-out that the shorter gears may be better for street use, and have only used "off the line" situations as an example to illustrate why:

I'm sorry if I"ve read you wrongly Ken but it seems to me that you have never given any examples of "street" use where you didn't mention "street light to street light" type examples. You'll have to show me where I'm wrong on that. You usually are very specific about any reference to short gears advantages.

Now - I don't know where you live - but where there are twistie type roads - which is what our cars are designed for - then that's also "street use". That's the kind of street use that most folks long to find - that's the kind of roads that Atlanta has in many parts - CA too - as in canyon carving. If your in Florida - or many cities in the USA have a grid system - that's more like the "street light to street light" benefit I blieve you describe. I've never heard you be a proponent of using the short gears on twisty type roads. It seems as has been discussed by many here in this thread that below 100 on twisty roads you get a definite advantage over the long gears.

Are you now saying that's the case or not? Sorry to be putting you on the spot but I'd love to hear your answer to this one. Maybe I have you all wrong?

 

[goldNSX]

Why would nsxtasy contradict you?

I'm sorry for leaving a confusing/inaccurate statement. I wanted to express that Ken and I have always shared different opinions on the short/long gears. Sorry for this.

 

[nsxtasy]

I'm sorry if I"ve read you wrongly Ken

You certainly have. You continually pick apart my posts, trying to claim I never said stuff I've said, claiming I said stuff I never said, etc. And it's not just me; you seem to do this a lot here, with other people's posts, too. NSXprime should be a place where we share expertise and opinions, but it should be focused on knowledge, not on what words we use to communicate that knowledge, and especially not on spending all your focus on picking apart other people's posts, or on arguing on and on and on and on, endlessly.

it seems to me that you have never given any examples of "street" use where you didn't mention "street light to street light" type examples.

So now you're attacking me because I use one example and not another example. This is exactly the kind of hostile attack that I'm talking about. You like to argue and attack others for not saying exactly what YOU want others to say. Why don't you just concentrate on saying what YOU want to say, and let others use their own words to say things, without you continually and endlessly attacking them for doing so? Why do you have to turn every topic you post in into an endless, petty debate over semantics?

I've stated very clearly that the short gears are faster between 40 and 70 mph. I don't need to add every possible situation in which someone might be driving below 70 mph. People can figure that part out for themselves.