I am debating wether or not I should swap out my b16 transmission, for an LS trans for my ls-turbo setup. But is there anything I should know before i swap transmissions? Will the clutch and flywheel swap over without a problem?

 

I'm looking for a 99-00 Si tranny for a LS/VTEC motor. I just ordered a clutch and flywheel from a shop for a LS Integra, but later called to change the order to a 99-00 Si trans. I was told it was the same. I Hope thats true.

 

up

 

clutch and fly will swap no problem IF ITS A Bigspine Tranny

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by importdude2000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">clutch and fly will swap no problem IF ITS A Bigspine Tranny
</TD></TR></TABLE>
oh yah its a ys1 right?
then it will fit any 92+trannys the clutch+fly that is

 

how much would u sell your b16 tranny if you do the swap?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ITRSol &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">how much would u sell your b16 tranny if you do the swap?</TD></TR></TABLE>

??

 

not up for sale. i need to know if the splines are the same first. i want to keep my flywheel/clutch combo

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by math labs &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">not up for sale. i need to know if the splines are the same first. i want to keep my flywheel/clutch combo</TD></TR></TABLE>
todd if its a ys1 then its big spine

only small spine b16 cable trannys are
j1,y1,s1,j1

 

tony how retarded can you be. i posted up HYDRAULIC TRANSMISSIONS.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by math labs &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">tony how retarded can you be. i posted up HYDRAULIC TRANSMISSIONS.</TD></TR></TABLE>
if its a hydo its automatically a big spine
92+ trannys (integras) are Big SPINE
thats what i meant

 

What exactly are you trying to accomplish by swapping tranny's? You are aware that it would negatively affect your acceleration right?

 

Not necessarily. If he is putting asignificant amount of power the ls tranny will keep him from excessive wheel slippage in gears 1-2 and possibly 3. The longer ls gears might keep him the "sweet spot" during full boost. GSR gearing might be best depending on power.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Not necessarily. If he is putting asignificant amount of power the ls tranny will keep him from excessive wheel slippage in gears 1-2 and possibly 3.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Solution: Buy good tires and learn how to drive.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The longer ls gears might keep him the "sweet spot" during full boost. GSR gearing might be best depending on power.</TD></TR></TABLE>

This argument has long been overused. The longer gears of the LS tranny require more force to turn, therefore slowing acceleration as compared to the shorter B16 gears. The only valid argument would involve the actual acceleration gain while in gear, versus the lost time while shifting gears.

There is a point of having so much power to where the lost time of shifting additional gears is greater than the "in gear" acceleration benefit of a B16 tranny as compared to an LS tranny. But by putting down that much power, it'd make more sense to get Gearspeed to build you a custom tranny specifically for your application because a stock tranny simply won't be able to hold it.

An example of this principle is swapping out a 4.926 final drive in an all motor drag car for a 4.785 to prevent the lost time of having to shift to 5th gear during a quarter mile run. Same principle with a boosted car.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Solution: Buy good tires and learn how to drive.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

This doesn't matter too much. (Maybe tires) The fact that both are open differentials will affect wheelspin.

[QUOTE=Kendall]

This argument has long been overused. The longer gears of the LS tranny require more force to turn, therefore slowing acceleration as compared to the shorter B16 gears. The only valid argument would involve the actual acceleration gain while in gear, versus the lost time while shifting gears.
QUOTE]

The gears requiring more force to turn? I think it's more attributed to the engine making a certain power/tq at a certain RPM and overcoming frictional forces of air resistance and the pavement. NA motors(Honda) generally do not make enough tq to "pull" the motor to a higher rpm, quicker. Shorter gears for a NA motor (that has a high hp/tq peak) will accelerate better because you HAVE to keep the RPS up in between shifts. A turbo with available tq at lower rpms (and hp) does not need short gearing.
Good discussion.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The gears requiring more force to turn?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes. The principles behind this should have been covered in your high school physics class. Why do you think 1st gear accelerates faster than 5th?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think it's more attributed to the engine making a certain power/tq at a certain RPM and overcoming frictional forces of air resistance and the pavement.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm going to try and explain this as simply as possible. You only hit each point in the powerband once inbetween shifts, and assuming you shift at the ideal rpm level, then you'll have to most available power inbetween each shift regardless of gearing. In fact a shorter gear ratio will actually confine you to a smaller available powerband, thus enabling you to pick a shift point giving a higher average power during the next gear. Using this information, along with the information in my previous post, it shouldn't be hard to figure out how a car is going to accelerate faster with shorter gears. Regarding the frictional forces of wind resistance and the pavement: Wind resistance does play a part, but at the speeds most street driven Integra's will see, it's not enough to really make a fuss about. And I don't know anyone (outside of the ricers and rednecks) intentionally making an effort to overcome the frictional forces of the pavement.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">. NA motors(Honda) generally do not make enough tq to "pull" the motor to a higher rpm, quicker.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm not going to get into the whole "all motor vs. boost" horsepower/torque argument, but note that there are all motor Honda's with under 200 whp walking on boosted Honda's with over 300whp and much stronger torque curves.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Shorter gears for a NA motor (that has a high hp/tq peak) will accelerate better because you HAVE to keep the RPS up in between shifts.</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is simply using what you have to take the biggest advantage of the situation. The principles behind it don't change regardless of whether you have an all motor or boosted application. In fact I personally think it makes even more sense in a boosted application as an anti-lag measure.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A turbo with available tq at lower rpms (and hp) does not need short gearing.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Whoever said anything about it "needing" it? Shorter gearing will help it to accelerate faster, but it certainly doesn't need it.

Once again, a shorter ratio gear will require less force to turn, therefore taking a better advantage of whatever available torque there is regardless of whether it's boosted or not and regardless of what rpm you're at. To say otherwise is to disagree with the laws of physics. From there, the factors that need to be considered are the "acceleration vs. shift time" argument and a required top speed (if any).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Yes. The principles behind this should have been covered in your high school physics class. Why do you think 1st gear accelerates faster than 5th?

QUOTE]

Easy now. My response was not intended to cause personal injury or insult. I wasn't sure what you meant by "turn". You explained this clearly below.

[QUOTE=Kendall]

I'm going to try and explain this as simply as possible. You only hit each point in the powerband once inbetween shifts, and assuming you shift at the ideal rpm level, then you'll have to most available power inbetween each shift regardless of gearing. In fact a shorter gear ratio will actually confine you to a smaller available powerband, thus enabling you to pick a shift point giving a higher average power during the next gear. Using this information, along with the information in my previous post, it shouldn't be hard to figure out how a car is going to accelerate faster with shorter gears. Regarding the frictional forces of wind resistance and the pavement: Wind resistance does play a part, but at the speeds most street driven Integra's will see, it's not enough to really make a fuss about. And I don't know anyone (outside of the ricers and rednecks) intentionally making an effort to overcome the frictional forces of the pavement.
Once again, a shorter ratio gear will require less force to turn, therefore taking a better advantage of whatever available torque there is regardless of whether it's boosted or not and regardless of what rpm you're at. To say otherwise is to disagree with the laws of physics</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think it's safe to say a boosted motor can produce very different looking graphs where MOST NA motors (Honda small cc's) peaky, low tq. To select the gearing for BOTH, one would analyze the characteristics of each engine with respect to area under the curve. Turbo engines tend to have higher tq value that peaks much earlier in an RPM band thus producing more Force much earlier and can utilize slightly longer gear ratios. A front wheel drive car making GOBS of tire-burning hp and tq, equipped with and open diff would not benefit from very short gearing regardless if it's turbo or not. My point was only to speculate that a turbo car making lots of hp and tq will spend more time spinning tires then going down the road. Recall that w = f x d (work=force x distance).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I'm not going to get into the whole "all motor vs. boost" horsepower/torque argument, but note that there are all motor Honda's with under 200 whp walking on boosted Honda's with over 300whp and much stronger torque curves.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

? Didn't you mention earlier something about driver skill? Many different variables here too. Weight of the car, tire grip, driver skill, lsd, area under the curve, etc. I tend to believe that most turbo high hp cars will out accelerate NA lower hp cars. You yourself said F=ma.
Anyways, good discussion. None of what I have posted was meant to insult. I agree that two IDENTICAL (trannies the exception) cars one with short gearing and the other with longer gearing, the shorter geared car will accelerate faster.

-J

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think it's safe to say a boosted motor can produce very different looking graphs where MOST NA motors (Honda small cc's) peaky, low tq. To select the gearing for BOTH, one would analyze the characteristics of each engine with respect to area under the curve. Turbo engines tend to have higher tq value that peaks much earlier in an RPM band thus producing more Force much earlier and can utilize slightly longer gear ratios. </TD></TR></TABLE>

You're still not getting what I'm saying. A shorter gear ratio will allow you to further isolate any given section of the torque curve that you want, giving you free reign to shift wherever it would allow for the maximum amount of usable power/torque for the next gear. If that means shifting at 10k rpms in an all motor car then so be it, if that means shifting at 6k rpms in a boosted car then so be it. The simple fact remains that, regardless of where you are in the powerband, it's still easier to turn a gear with a shorter ratio and that any given force will allow the gear with the shorter ratio to accelerate faster than the gear with the longer ratio.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A front wheel drive car making GOBS of tire-burning hp and tq, equipped with and open diff would not benefit from very short gearing regardless if it's turbo or not. My point was only to speculate that a turbo car making lots of hp and tq will spend more time spinning tires then going down the road.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Thus the application of the driver's ability. A decent driver should be able to catch traction with a high power/short gearing car better than a shitty driver with a low power/long gearing car. Hell, if you don't know what you're doing a limited slip really wouldn't help that much anyway, but we haven't been arguing differentials, we've been arguing gearing.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Recall that w = f x d (work=force x distance).</TD></TR></TABLE>

Oh, so you do remember something from high school physics.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Anyways, good discussion. None of what I have posted was meant to insult. I agree that two IDENTICAL (trannies the exception) cars one with short gearing and the other with longer gearing, the shorter geared car will accelerate faster.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I've had better discussions on this topic before, but usually the person I'm trying to discuss it with ends up completely missing the point of the topic. Regarding insults, nothing you said insulted me and had it done so I really woudn't have given a ****. On another note, it is somewhat satisfying to see you accept the truth.

 

The statement that the LS tranny is good for boosted cars IS A MYTH!!! This information has been passed along from one misinformed person to another for a very long time now. I have first hand experience with this issue as I am driving a boosted LS and it originally had the LS tranny, which I soon swapped out for a b16 tranny. With the tranny swap alone I saw my E.T.'s drop by half a second! The car stays in boost longer and is much more responsive.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

You're still not getting what I'm saying. A shorter gear ratio will allow you to further isolate any given section of the torque curve that you want, giving you free reign to shift wherever it would allow for the maximum amount of usable power/torque for the next gear. If that means shifting at 10k rpms in an all motor car then so be it, if that means shifting at 6k rpms in a boosted car then so be it. The simple fact remains that, regardless of where you are in the powerband, it's still easier to turn a gear with a shorter ratio and that any given force will allow the gear with the shorter ratio to accelerate faster than the gear with the longer ratio.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I cetainly do get what you are saying. My point is this: An uber-hp boosted car will not benefit from ultra-short gearing. According to your argument, a boosted Honda, making GOBS of hp would benefit from an ATS 4.929 final drive. I believe that this same car would be better off with a more conservative final drive ratio due to less shifitng and the work produced.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Thus the application of the driver's ability. A decent driver should be able to catch traction with a high power/short gearing car better than a shitty driver with a low power/long gearing . </TD></TR></TABLE>

Isn't this obvious?


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Oh, so you do remember something from high school physics.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm not sure-It's been awhile.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I've had better discussions on this topic before, but usually the person I'm trying to discuss it with ends up completely missing the point of the topic. Regarding insults, nothing you said insulted me and had it done so I really woudn't have given a ****. On another note, it is somewhat satisfying to see you accept the truth.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Sorry to disappoint. I could very well be wrong but I still believe at this time what I mentioned above. I very well admit that I do not own a turbocharged car but still think this is not a simple A or B solution. Perhaps a combination of both arguments is where the truth lies.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 97turbols &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The statement that the LS tranny is good for boosted cars IS A MYTH!!! This information has been passed along from one misinformed person to another for a very long time now. I have first hand experience with this issue as I am driving a boosted LS and it originally had the LS tranny, which I soon swapped out for a b16 tranny. With the tranny swap alone I saw my E.T.'s drop by half a second! The car stays in boost longer and is much more responsive.</TD></TR></TABLE>

How much power are you putting down if you mind me asking?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">According to your argument, a boosted Honda, making GOBS of hp would benefit from an ATS 4.929 final drive.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not so much...

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There is a point of having so much power to where the lost time of shifting additional gears is greater than the "in gear" acceleration benefit of a B16 tranny as compared to an LS tranny.</TD></TR></TABLE>

...Or with any two sets of gear ratios. But again, that much power isn't exactly safe for a stock gearbox, and especially not for one running a closer ratio (and more prone to failure) final drive gear.

PS, it's a 4.928

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Educator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Perhaps a combination of both arguments is where the truth lies.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Ive heard of a GSR trans with an LS 5th gear. Does this have any relevance to what you were saying?

*Sorry im some-what new to mechanics, so im tryin to learn.


Modified by BbOi0420 at 12:12 AM 4/30/2005