S550 Mustang Suspension and Powertrain Discussion

[kcbrown]

They won't be changing that 5th is 1:1 and there are four gears under it. That is the main problem with the MT-82.

But doesn't it depend on things like how wide your power band is? If there's a great deal of overlap between the gears within the power band, then I have to agree that the gearing is suboptimal. I haven't really noticed that out of my MT-82.

You are in no position to be condescending.

Not trying to be. I was rather under the impression that optimal gearing is at least partly a matter of opinion, similar to an optimal suspension setup. Perhaps it isn't, but at the very least, the gearing that works best is going to depend on the road course you're running if nothing else. For instance, it may be that on one road course, you wind up having to, with one gearing set, compromise between upshifting and hiting the rev limiter because the speed you're getting is just high enough to warrant upshifting, but there's not enough track to make it profitable, while with a different gearing set that issue isn't there at all; and yet, on a different road course, you find that same gearing to work really well because the speeds you're getting are such that it's "just right".

Wouldn't the "optimal" (which, here, means best compromise) gearing for a wide range of tracks, then, depend on those tracks? Seems to me you can't optimize for them all, so you have to arrive at a combination that works well for the most part, but isn't necessarily ideal for any of them. If the tracks they use as their benchmark differ substantially from the ones you frequent, wouldn't that result in a difference of opinion? That is the difference of opinion I speak of.

 

[Department Of Boost]

But doesn't it depend on things like how wide your power band is? If there's a great deal of overlap between the gears within the power band, then I have to agree that the gearing is suboptimal. I haven't really noticed that out of my MT-82.




Not trying to be. I was rather under the impression that optimal gearing is at least partly a matter of opinion, similar to an optimal suspension setup. Perhaps it isn't, but at the very least, the gearing that works best is going to depend on the road course you're running if nothing else. For instance, it may be that on one road course, you wind up having to, with one gearing set, compromise between upshifting and hiting the rev limiter because the speed you're getting is just high enough to warrant upshifting, but there's not enough track to make it profitable, while with a different gearing set that issue isn't there at all; and yet, on a different road course, you find that same gearing to work really well because the speeds you're getting are such that it's "just right".

Wouldn't the "optimal" (which, here, means best compromise) gearing for a wide range of tracks, then, depend on those tracks? Seems to me you can't optimize for them all, so you have to arrive at a combination that works well for the most part, but isn't necessarily ideal for any of them. If the tracks they use as their benchmark differ substantially from the ones you frequent, wouldn't that result in a difference of opinion? That is the difference of opinion I speak of.

Either you're backtracking on the condescension. Or, you need to know what ..... looks like at the end of a sentence.

I've seen you post here and elsewhere, a lot. You ask a lot of questions, which is great, you should be. But then you debate/argue the answers you get. You've done this to me ad nauseam on another board. It's aggravating.

The last bit of advice you will get from me is this:

Get out from behind your keyboard, pull the trigger on something and get to the track.

Congratulations, you're now the only person on my ignore list.

 

[kcbrown]

Either you're backtracking on the condescension. Or, you need to know what ..... looks like at the end of a sentence.

Oh. I never equated ellipses with any kind of real meaning like that. Sorry about that. Now that I know how they're interpreted, I'll be much more careful in my use of them. If I'm on your ignore list then you won't see this, but I have to put it out there anyway.

I've seen you post here and elsewhere, a lot. You ask a lot of questions, which is great, you should be. But then you debate/argue the answers you get. You've done this to me ad nauseam on another board. It's aggravating.

Which board? Which threads? My memory's quite hazy (to the point of uselessness) on this. Is your username the same there as here?

In any case, debate (rational discourse) is how I learn. I guess it's frustrating for some. That frustration isn't intended by me, but I know of no other way to present my understanding of things, to ensure that nothing critical is being overlooked, and to really get at the nitty gritty of things.

The last bit of advice you will get from me is this:

Get out from behind your keyboard, pull the trigger on something and get to the track.

Good advice in any situation, and it's exactly what I'm doing (Laguna Seca, here I come!).

Congratulations, you're now the only person on my ignore list.

:-(

 

[NUTCASE]

umm.... gearing down the trans is not really any kind of issue. The issue is not the ratio, the issue is how the thing is built.

NEEDING to be in a 1:1 gear when you cross the strip is not nessecary. the thinking behind it is outdated. By gearing the trans down and the rear up you spin the DS slower saving on parasitic rotational losses and reducing the gyroscopic effect of the DS over the car.

the main point for drag racing is not having more then 3 gear changes on a manual. every time you jump on the clutch you lose time and power shifting 5th is tough because shifters are usually balanced or sprung to go to the middle in neutral. this makes shifting 3rd easier. but then going against the spring makes it harder to power shift 5th like its 3rd. make sense?

deeper gears in the trans, taller gears in the rear, as long as 1st is deep enough and 4th gets you through the traps all is fine IMO. having to run a 3.73 instead of 4.30 does not mean the trans is bad. the trans breaking and locking you out of gear means the trans is bad. the ratios themselves is a different subject.

 

[Department Of Boost]

umm.... gearing down the trans is not really any kind of issue. The issue is not the ratio, the issue is how the thing is built.

NEEDING to be in a 1:1 gear when you cross the strip is not nessecary. the thinking behind it is outdated. By gearing the trans down and the rear up you spin the DS slower saving on parasitic rotational losses and reducing the gyroscopic effect of the DS over the car.

the main point for drag racing is not having more then 3 gear changes on a manual. every time you jump on the clutch you lose time and power shifting 5th is tough because shifters are usually balanced or sprung to go to the middle in neutral. this makes shifting 3rd easier. but then going against the spring makes it harder to power shift 5th like its 3rd. make sense?

deeper gears in the trans, taller gears in the rear, as long as 1st is deep enough and 4th gets you through the traps all is fine IMO. having to run a 3.73 instead of 4.30 does not mean the trans is bad. the trans breaking and locking you out of gear means the trans is bad. the ratios themselves is a different subject.

We're talking about a GT350, not a drag car.

 

[NUTCASE]

well, I catch people saying all the problems are because 4th is not 1:1 a lot. the stupidity angers me.

so far if they use either trans I think the gear solutions are already figured out. they could make 3-4-5 close like a lot of other track cars, but IMO, I would just leave both of the trans with the gears they already have. I will be willing to guess the new 5.2 will make enough tq to pull through 3 and 4 anyways.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I have 3.31's in my 2012 and the gearing is still WAY too short. It makes everything to "busy". I'm constantly finding myself having to grab gear changes in a corner, and more than needed down the straight stuff. Additionally having to kick it up and over to 5th constantly is annoying and a rhythm breaker.

What I think you're saying is you'd prefer to have two gears out of six too tall for most road course work . . . or just maybe a different pattern with
4th & 5th being in the same gate (and maybe a heavy spring to keep you from grabbing 1st coming from 4th when you meant 3rd).

When I was racing I learned to "economize" shifting. In a lot of cases it would feel like I geared too low because things felt lazy. But lap times don't lie. The lazy feel gearing was always faster.

Numerically lower, I assume. I don't like the specter of needing 5th either, though I'm thinking it's the 5 - 4 downshift that would be more annoying.


Norm

 

[NUTCASE]

Numerically lower, I assume. I don't like the specter of needing 5th either, though I'm thinking it's the 5 - 4 downshift that would be more annoying.


Norm

that is a good idea, but I think it would fuck with most drivers. Remember, you need to cater a certain percent when making a car.

 

[sheizasosay]

ad nauseam

If you ever say this again, I will transform into a fully operational Death Star and shoot you in the face. Then I will fly a miniature SR-71 through the newly created hole at supersuponic speeds (MACH 3 sounds legit) causing the remainder of your head to explode.

I know what your thinking. The beam from the Death Star will be custom sized obviously.....

 

[Norm Peterson]

that is a good idea, but I think it would fuck with most drivers. Remember, you need to cater a certain percent when making a car.

You mean the ones who only know how to shift 'up'?


Norm

 

[kcbrown]

Suppose you were to run a rear end that would eliminate the need for 5th on nearly all road courses. What would be the downside of running with such a setup?

It sounds almost like what's desired here is a 4-speed manual transmission, or maybe a 5-speed where the 5th gear is reserved for the rare instance where you need more than what 4th can give you.

That doesn't sound like an indictment of the MT-82's ratios so much as the combination of that and the typical rear-end ratio these cars come with.

 

[Mike Rousch]

The mt-82 works just fine, It makes no difference (to me) if i have to use 3-4-5 or 2-3-4 in a 6060 or 3650.

 

[Department Of Boost]

What I think you're saying is you'd prefer to have two gears out of six too tall for most road course work . . . or just maybe a different pattern with
4th & 5th being in the same gate (and maybe a heavy spring to keep you from grabbing 1st coming from 4th when you meant 3rd).

Sorta. I don't mind grabbing 5th, but not in a sweeper of before the exit of a corner. I really would rather not do any gear changing in those situations, but 5th is particularly bad because it's such a complex and far away movement. If your truly on the limit a gear change is more than enough to push you over the edge. What a lot of people will do so they can make that gear change is subconsciously go slower than they can actually roll that section. If you remove the gear change for them they all of a sudden find that they can go faster through there.

If I had my druthers I would never make a gear change in a corner. But there are always going to be sacrifices. The MT-82 has me constantly wanting to grab gears in corners though. And at the same time it's geared so short it will buzz the tires all over the place. Higher gearing wouldn't hurt acceleration one bit (to a point obviously).

Numerically lower, I assume. I don't like the specter of needing 5th either, though I'm thinking it's the 5 - 4 downshift that would be more annoying.


Norm

Correct, numerically lower. And you are correct, the 5-4 downshift is a PITA. Even worse would be a place like Road America where you could find yourself having to go down 4 gears into a corner. Not a huge deal on a bike, downshifts are a whole lot easier. Every gear change is the exact same movement with your foot/hand and you get to control the throttle with a different extremity entirely.

Of course this would all be moot with a good paddle shift setup (a really good one). But that's no fun!

 

[Department Of Boost]

The mt-82 works just fine, It makes no difference (to me) if i have to use 3-4-5 or 2-3-4 in a 6060 or 3650.

Then your not going through the corners as fast as you could be.

 

[Department Of Boost]

If you ever say this again, I will transform into a fully operational Death Star and shoot you in the face. Then I will fly a miniature SR-71 through the newly created hole at supersuponic speeds (MACH 3 sounds legit) causing the remainder of your head to explode.

I know what your thinking. The beam from the Death Star will be custom sized obviously.....

Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam


Can I have a ride in that SR-71 before you kill me?

 

[Mike Rousch]

Then your not going through the corners as fast as you could be.

This is very true, but not because of the gear ratios

 

[Norm Peterson]

Sorta. I don't mind grabbing 5th, but not in a sweeper of before the exit of a corner. I really would rather not do any gear changing in those situations, but 5th is particularly bad because it's such a complex and far away movement. If your truly on the limit a gear change is more than enough to push you over the edge. What a lot of people will do so they can make that gear change is subconsciously go slower than they can actually roll that section. If you remove the gear change for them they all of a sudden find that they can go faster through there.

I think it'd occur to me to short-shift before getting to the limit instead. Hope it would, anyway.

The recently acquired 1" shorter tires have changed where on the track I need to be shifting, and there are places where upshifting before a bend beats running through it in the lower gear and removes the risk of shocking the rear tires into sliding.

If I had my druthers I would never make a gear change in a corner. But there are always going to be sacrifices. The MT-82 has me constantly wanting to grab gears in corners though. And at the same time it's geared so short it will buzz the tires all over the place. Higher gearing wouldn't hurt acceleration one bit (to a point obviously).

This sounds more like the gear spacing is a little too close.

Correct, numerically lower. And you are correct, the 5-4 downshift is a PITA. Even worse would be a place like Road America where you could find yourself having to go down 4 gears into a corner. Not a huge deal on a bike, downshifts are a whole lot easier. Every gear change is the exact same movement with your foot/hand and you get to control the throttle with a different extremity entirely.

I sure hear you on that. Heh . . . I just renewed my driver's license, with its "M" endorsement, even though I haven't ridden in quite a few years.


Norm

 

[Dubstep Shep]

People wonder why I want to run a R-Spec and stupid power on a road corse?

So I can be a gear higher than I strictly need to be, putting around at 3k rpm and still be able to blow the tires clean off.

Gmitch, what's your take on ideal gearing for top speed stuff?

 

[sheizasosay]

Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam


Can I have a ride in that SR-71 before you kill me?

Allow me to add to the collection.

"The torque arm has been proven ad infinitum by Griggs, Cortex and others on the track."

"The torque arm eliminates the dreaded up and down motion of the rear end that every critic of the Mustang has noted ad infinitum."

"In fact I find myself reflecting ad infinitum."

"I am comfortable just agreeing to disagree without going on an and on about it ad infinitum."

"For instance, You demand verbal precision yet you opine ad infinitum about something you have little to no personal experience with."

"
I have decribed ad infinutum the changed handling characteristics and have had Norm parse every goddamn word along with people like you doing the same thing."

And no you can't ride in the tiny SR-71. You are too big. You ever see Despicable Me? The tiny toilet? You can't poop in the tiny toilet either. I mean you could, but it would be real messy.

 

[Department Of Boost]

Gmitch, what's your take on ideal gearing for top speed stuff?

No real plan here. 5th (which is the first OD in my trans) works fine. The way I am geared (3.55's) I'm good for 221mph at 7,000rpm. I've only gone 208 so far though.

If I wanted to go faster I would put a taller tire on or swap out to 3.08's.