ls have more torque and lower compression than a gsr so they handle the turbos better, with more psi.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by integra159 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ls have more torque and lower compression than a gsr so they handle the turbos better, with more psi. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Did you even read any of the thread? The differences in reliability between the two with turbo are negligible. The GSR will end up making more power. The small increase in displacement that an LS has doesn't make a difference when you have a turbo in the system.

 

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

taller gears are lame...unless you're after the gas mileage, but that in no way makes the LS BETTER for turbo... </TD></TR></TABLE>

Taller gears are lame if you like cruising down the interstate at 5000rpm. I personally hate my B16 tranny. I only get like 23 MPG on the highway. BTW; the average traffic on the highway I cruise on everyday moves at 85 MPH.

 

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

Taller gears are lame if you like cruising down the interstate at 5000rpm. I personally hate my B16 tranny. I only get like 23 MPG on the highway. BTW; the average traffic on the highway I cruise on everyday moves at 85 MPH.</TD></TR></TABLE>

STILL doesn't make the LS trans BETTER FOR TURBO though...it all depends on what your situation is...for instance, I have a GSR trans and a LS trans...most days I WISH I had the LS trans because I end up shifting at 4k which is like every 5 seconds...sucks sometimes. Overall, the LS trans SUCKS to me.

and I hear ya on the highway side of it...ur right...

 

No ur right...the LS Trans doesn't make the LS better for boost. I was just stating my opinion of the shorter gears. I have a mildly modified B16 (my sig...), with B16 trans, and my friend has an LS in a hatchback, with a b16 trans. He should walk all over me, since my car has less displacement, and a lot more weight, but mine would still win everytime, because when he had to shift, I could stay in the gear longer because I can rev to 8300. When you drive my friend's LS hatch, it feels stronger. It is way stronger than mine. On the other hand, another friend of mine has an LS hatch, with LS trans. stock with an intake on it. His **** walks all over mine in a race. We shift around the same times, since he has longer gears. The races were from a roll on the interstate from like 40 MPH, all the way to 125MPH. I bet from a dead stop race, the LS hatch with b16 trans might have pulled me, but I don't know. But from a roll, an LS trans is great with a motor that only revs to 7000.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by loudassVTEC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No ur right...the LS Trans doesn't make the LS better for boost. I was just stating my opinion of the shorter gears. I have a mildly modified B16 (my sig...), with B16 trans, and my friend has an LS in a hatchback, with a b16 trans. He should walk all over me, since my car has less displacement, and a lot more weight, but mine would still win everytime, because when he had to shift, I could stay in the gear longer because I can rev to 8300. When you drive my friend's LS hatch, it feels stronger. It is way stronger than mine. On the other hand, another friend of mine has an LS hatch, with LS trans. stock with an intake on it. His **** walks all over mine in a race. We shift around the same times, since he has longer gears. The races were from a roll on the interstate from like 40 MPH, all the way to 125MPH. I bet from a dead stop race, the LS hatch with b16 trans might have pulled me, but I don't know. But from a roll, an LS trans is great with a motor that only revs to 7000. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I hear what you're saying. I should say it DOES in fact have it's upside...and a strong LS with a strong long geared trans is like long drawn out sex...just with no gratification at the end

 

the higher rev makes up for having short gears in the gsr.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by verbol axsassin &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">who cares, most honda will lose to an v6 automatic 1992 toyota camry.

haha.

i've seen it plenty of times.

and the automatic supras? don't even try it. you'll just look stupid and want to kill urself after loosing to a stock automatic supra. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I guess that's why you're posting on HONDA-TECH.... NO ONE is talking about camry's or supra's....so thanks I guess for the pointless response ...kill YOURSELF OR consider making a worthwhile contribution to a thread once in a while...haven't you been banned before?


Modified by DAantagonist at 9:58 PM 10/23/2005

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by R34lude &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the higher rev makes up for having short gears in the gsr.</TD></TR></TABLE>

explain what you mean by that?

 

i think what he means is even though the GSR has shorter gears the LS and the GSR do basically the same speeds per gear but the GSR does it at a higher RPM when compared to an LS. or at least thats what i think he meant.