r154 or cd009 for 600hp??? Need help! - Page 2 - Lexus IS Forum
User Tag List

 5Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #16 of 25 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 12:14 PM
Frequenter
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGM_IS View Post
Which t56(close/wide ratio) and diff are you using?

That's one hefty price tag, but it's not bad considering it's all brand new parts and an indestructible, yet streetable setup!
Since you brought up close vs. wide ratio, I thought I'd post that comparison as well:

V160 w/ 3.13 gears in RED
T56 close w/3.92 gears in GREEN
T56 wide w/3.92 gears in BLUE




I don't think the T56 wide is a suitable choice for a 2J, turbocharged or NA. First gear is fine, in fact probably a better choice than the 2.66 of the T56 close ratio. However, 2nd and 3rd are too deep and packed too close together (strange for a "wide" ratio box). 4th is 1:1 and is obviously fine. 5th is .74:1 and that's a pretty good high ratio, but 6th will be almost unusable. 2050rpm @ 80mph? Sounds awesome, but we don't have 6 liter V8s that make huge torque. A 3.0L six cylinder just doesn't make the torque required to pull a 3200+lb car around at 80mph at that engine speed. Most of our turbo 2J's can't get a turbo going (at all) at 2000rpm, either, so you can forget about accelerating or passing. I doubt any of us has the torque @ 4000-5000 to hit 200mph, either. (Most of us probably don't have the torque at ANY rpm to hit 200...but that's a different story)

Installing 4.11s (or deeper) would help 5th and 6th gear being too far apart, but would exasperate 2nd and 3rd being too deep and too close to begin with.

In my opinion, the T56 close with 3.92 or 4.11 rear gears is essentially perfect for a 2J.
Hodgdon Extreme is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 25 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 04:36 PM
Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Socal
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post

In my opinion, the T56 close with 3.92 or 4.11 rear gears is essentially perfect for a 2J.
The t56 close with the 3.73 seems like a good combination as well.
GGM_IS is offline  
post #18 of 25 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 08:47 PM
Lurker
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post


I don't think the T56 wide is a suitable choice for a 2J, turbocharged or NA. First gear is fine, in fact probably a better choice than the 2.66 of the T56 close ratio. However, 2nd and 3rd are too deep and packed too close together (strange for a "wide" ratio box). 4th is 1:1 and is obviously fine. 5th is .74:1 and that's a pretty good high ratio, but 6th will be almost unusable. 2050rpm @ 80mph? Sounds awesome, but we don't have 6 liter V8s that make huge torque. A 3.0L six cylinder just doesn't make the torque required to pull a 3200+lb car around at 80mph at that engine speed.

In my opinion, the T56 close with 3.92 or 4.11 rear gears is essentially perfect for a 2J.

Since i'm N/A I've been going back and forth myself on that 6th gear at 80 aspect before I put in my order, and get a decent amount of fuel savings. I was hoping the solid aero of the car would make it work. I wish I could test it out before hand

Either way, since Tremec claims between 30-50% fuel efficiency gains for highway gears, the close still puts us at 30% (which is where I'm guessing is how they use those figures). and 30% increase on 25 is still 32.5MPG,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post
I doubt any of us has the torque @ 4000-5000 to hit 200mph, either. (Most of us probably don't have the torque at ANY rpm to hit 200...but that's a different story)
With enough boost, anything is possible




Also, how did you make those graphs, you did a pretty nice job
DH_71631 is offline  
 
post #19 of 25 (permalink) Old 05-24-2019, 12:44 AM
Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Socal
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DH_71631 View Post
Since i'm N/A I've been going back and forth myself on that 6th gear at 80 aspect before I put in my order, and get a decent amount of fuel savings. I was hoping the solid aero of the car would make it work. I wish I could test it out before hand



Either way, since Tremec claims between 30-50% fuel efficiency gains for highway gears, the close still puts us at 30% (which is where I'm guessing is how they use those figures). and 30% increase on 25 is still 32.5MPG,







With enough boost, anything is possible









Also, how did you make those graphs, you did a pretty nice job
You won't save nearly that much fuel with the lower gears. You're still going to need the same amount of power(aka air & fuel) to maintain 80mph no matter the rpm. You might get 2 mph cutting down on the parasitic drag and friction of the motor at lower rpms, but I wouldn't be betting on any drastic improvements.
GGM_IS is offline  
post #20 of 25 (permalink) Old 05-24-2019, 09:51 AM
Frequenter
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DH_71631 View Post
Since i'm N/A I've been going back and forth myself on that 6th gear at 80 aspect before I put in my order, and get a decent amount of fuel savings. I was hoping the solid aero of the car would make it work. I wish I could test it out before hand

Either way, since Tremec claims between 30-50% fuel efficiency gains for highway gears, the close still puts us at 30% (which is where I'm guessing is how they use those figures). and 30% increase on 25 is still 32.5MPG,

Also, how did you make those graphs, you did a pretty nice job
Regarding 6th gear ratio:

You don't really need to physically test the gearing to know how it will perform. You can calculate/model the whole thing extremely accurately. All that is required is accurate Coefficient of drag, Frontal area measurement and torque curve for the engine. It's best to perform a coast-down test to get numbers on the rolling resistance of your specific vehicle, but that's only needed when you are looking for super accurate results.

But just by feel:

Put your car in 5th and get going steady, on flat ground @ 2000rpm. That'll be ~45mph. Floor it, and feel how much "reserve" torque is available. Then consider that sustaining 80mph requires three times the torque of sustaining 45mph. Ask yourself if you think the engine had 3x more torque than it "needed" when you floored it in 5th @ 2000rpm @ 45mph.

If the answer to this question is a "yes" (which I'd disagree with), ask yourself if it'd be a good idea to put the engine into that speed/load condition in a steady-state situation - for hours on end. Say, 2000rpm at 90+ kPa of MAP. I haven't put a wideband on a stock IS300, but I'd be willing to bet Toyota has it calibrated to start enriching the AFR for MAP over ~80kPa. Engines under high load require a richer mixture to keep combustion, exhaust temps, and catalysts within acceptable temperature limits.

Regarding improved fuel economy

The 30% improvement Tremec mentions is probably aimed at the folks that have a Chevelle, with a 454 big block, with a non-overdrive transmission and a 4.11 rear gear - that currently gets 13mpg. For them, a 30% improvement would take them up to 16 or 17mpg, which is reasonable.

As GGM_IS mentioned, the same power is still required to go a given speed. Air resistance and rolling resistance remain the same, regardless of gearing - so what you save is the friction associated by the engine, trans input shaft and countershaft spinning more slowly in their bearings. This is gonna be worth 1 or 2mpg in our cars.

Regarding graphs

I made those in Excel. I just created a basic table with 7 columns: Vehicle speed, 1st gear, 2nd gear...6th gear. I populated the vehicle speed column with mph figures, from 1mph to 200mph. I populated the gear columns with a basic calculation based on the gear ratio of trans in question, the diff ratio and the tire circumference. Then pulled the table of values into a graph.
DH_71631 likes this.
Hodgdon Extreme is offline  
post #21 of 25 (permalink) Old 05-25-2019, 01:01 AM
Lurker
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post
Regarding 6th gear ratio:

You don't really need to physically test the gearing to know how it will perform. You can calculate/model the whole thing extremely accurately. All that is required is accurate Coefficient of drag, Frontal area measurement and torque curve for the engine. It's best to perform a coast-down test to get numbers on the rolling resistance of your specific vehicle, but that's only needed when you are looking for super accurate results.
This makes total sense, although I was hoping to get a far more clear answer by using Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. However obtaining a contour plot would require some dyno time and a fuel flow meter.

Most engines produce the highest efficiencies at low rpm, and high load, generally in between 2000 and 2500 rpm. Do we (the consumers) know this is the sweet spot for the 2J, probably not. Obviously the engineers that were programming the shift schedule of the auto knew this.

(If anyone could provide a contour plot of the stock 2JZ-GE for reference that would be great)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post
...Then consider that sustaining 80mph requires three times the torque of sustaining 45mph. Ask yourself if you think the engine had 3x more torque than it "needed" when you floored it in 5th @ 2000rpm @ 45mph.
This also can't be more accurate since speed is a measure of velocity squared. 45^2 is just over 3x less than 80^2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post
If the answer to this question is a "yes" (which I'd disagree with)
Nope, haha

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post
...ask yourself if it'd be a good idea to put the engine into that speed/load condition in a steady-state situation - for hours on end. Say, 2000rpm at 90+ kPa of MAP. I haven't put a wideband on a stock IS300, but I'd be willing to bet Toyota has it calibrated to start enriching the AFR for MAP over ~80kPa. Engines under high load require a richer mixture to keep combustion, exhaust temps, and catalysts within acceptable temperature limits.
Since the car was built and designed with a W55/A650e, I would also agree. Even though I'm not exactly familiar with the stock tuning parameters. Now if we subjected the stock configuration to this type of abuse, I would be interested on how the stock ECU would manage the setup.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post
Regarding improved fuel economy

The 30% improvement Tremec mentions is probably aimed at the folks that have a Chevelle, with a 454 big block, with a non-overdrive transmission and a 4.11 rear gear - that currently gets 13mpg. For them, a 30% improvement would take them up to 16 or 17mpg, which is reasonable.
Again, I can see this as well, makes the marketing teams job pretty easy, most likely is their target audience. However even using a generic BSFC countour plot, I wouldn't say it's unreasonable to get 15-20% gains over 25 to the gallon (29-30 MPG hwy). Although this is yet again subject to scrutiny with what the exact engine efficiency parameters of our engine are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post
As GGM_IS mentioned, the same power is still required to go a given speed. Air resistance and rolling resistance remain the same, regardless of gearing - so what you save is the friction associated by the engine, trans input shaft and countershaft spinning more slowly in their bearings. This is gonna be worth 1 or 2mpg in our cars.
I did want to touch on this with a separate post, but I can just do that here. Yes it will require the same amount of power, although that power can be achieved in multiple gears. (i.e. 100kW power at the wheels can be found in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., but the lower the gear, the higher the consumption.) It's really just about finding that top island on the BSFC contour plot.

When GGM_IS stated we will need the same amount of power, nothing could be more true. I'm just curious as to what that magical gear ratio would be for optimal efficiency. It's probably just slightly under 0.63:1 with all else being stock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post
Regarding graphs

I made those in Excel. I just created a basic table with 7 columns: Vehicle speed, 1st gear, 2nd gear...6th gear. I populated the vehicle speed column with mph figures, from 1mph to 200mph. I populated the gear columns with a basic calculation based on the gear ratio of trans in question, the diff ratio and the tire circumference. Then pulled the table of values into a graph.
And lastly, the graphs. I was able to get some similar results in excel before seeing yours, but you appeared to layout your data with RPM on the Y axis, and speed on the X axis. Mine are reversed when I was generating the tables to get a sense of the different ratios between the transmissions.
DH_71631 is offline  
post #22 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-01-2019, 02:09 PM
Frequenter
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
 
So I've just completed my T56 magnum swap (from R154), and put the first ~50-75 miles on it. I have 3.73 rear gears, the close ratio T56, and the McLeod RXT twin...

Wow.

Smooth and quiet, shifts beautifully. I modded the stock tremec shifter and made my own gear stick, which is taller/longer than what most people think is "normal", and also has a dogleg to put the knob closer to the steering wheel. Anyway, the throw isn't super short, but the leverage allows effortless shifting.

The McLeod engages super smooth - huge improvement over a single disk ceramic puck clutch.

First gear (2.66:1) is a little tall with the 3.73 rear gear, so getting rolling from a stop on a hill requires you to know what you're doing - but it's nice to be able to actually drive-through first gear and get up some speed before needing to hit 2nd.

The .63:1 sixth gear is as much as my engine can handle for cruising at 65-70+ (2400rpm @ 80) I can maintain speed just fine, even on uphill grades, but I need to be deep into the throttle for that, and my boost gage reads 2-3psi.

I don't think there's a chance in hell even a turbo 2J is gonna have the fiddlebees to pull an IS300 around with the wide ratio .5:1 sixth gear.

Last edited by Hodgdon Extreme; 06-01-2019 at 03:08 PM.
Hodgdon Extreme is offline  
post #23 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-02-2019, 12:05 PM
Lurker
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgdon Extreme View Post
So I've just completed my T56 magnum swap (from R154), and put the first ~50-75 miles on it. I have 3.73 rear gears, the close ratio T56, and the McLeod RXT twin...

First gear (2.66:1) is a little tall with the 3.73 rear gear, so getting rolling from a stop on a hill requires you to know what you're doing - but it's nice to be able to actually drive-through first gear and get up some speed before needing to hit 2nd.

The .63:1 sixth gear is as much as my engine can handle for cruising at 65-70+ (2400rpm @ 80) I can maintain speed just fine, even on uphill grades, but I need to be deep into the throttle for that, and my boost gage reads 2-3psi.

I don't think there's a chance in hell even a turbo 2J is gonna have the fiddlebees to pull an IS300 around with the wide ratio .5:1 sixth gear.
I just put my order in and ill have everything installed in 2-3 weeks. I went for the close since Joel doesn't really sell anything but the close. He set me up with the Clutchmasters FX400 6 puck that I'll be pairing with a lightened flywheel.

Since my first gear in the W55 is shot, i've been starting in second for a few months now. I'm sure 2.66:1 is reasonable compared to 2:1, as I've finally gotten used to it.

I figured if I wanted to push the limits on the speeds to gearing, I can precisely tune it in with different wheel and tire setups. I'm not quite sure how an N/A engine will respond to the gearing since you say you're under boost.

Are you using the Redline MT85 Joel Recommends?

**update: The recommended fluid changed from RL MT85 to Amsoil Torque Drive ATF

Last edited by DH_71631; 06-03-2019 at 12:25 PM.
DH_71631 is offline  
post #24 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-03-2019, 08:45 AM
Frequenter
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DH_71631 View Post
Are you using the Redline MT85 Joel Recommends?
I wasn't aware that was his recommendation. That's a pretty big departure from the Dexron Mercon III that Tremec recommends. Wonder what difference it makes?

Back in my mustang days, I had a Tremec 3550 heavy duty 5 speed. I think Tremec recommended Dex/Merc in that one, too. I experimented with a bunch of different fluids. Conventional 10W30, Synthetic 10W30, ATF, GM Syncromesh, the Penzoil knock-off of Synchromesh, 75-90 gear oil... Was never really able to tell any difference, honestly.

MODS: I didn't mean to derail this thread into a T56 thread - but I guess I kinda did. Perhaps you should split this off into a new thread about T56 magnum swaps?
Mattyp and DH_71631 like this.
Hodgdon Extreme is offline  
post #25 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-06-2019, 09:57 AM
Frequenter
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Trenton
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
           
I have a r154 in mine. I used it with the 3.73 gear for 3 years. Decent setup at 575WHp.
This year I changed the rear gear to a 4.10 and its great also dynoed 620whp and I beat the shit out of it drag racing.
Havent had a problem yet. Fingers crossed. Seems like a decent swap to me. If its just the shifter feel that making you spend that extra coin on a different trans... I'd switch another r154 into mine again. But 6 gears is pretty badass.
ShiftnGears is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Lexus IS Forum > 1st-Gen IS300 > Go Faster

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Lexus IS Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself. If your address is invalid, you will likely lose access to the site.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Current users viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
R154 Output Shaft Bushing? Sniper512 General Discussion 13 03-13-2019 09:00 PM
1jzgte with cd009!!! Has anyone on here done this setup??? mikerogalski2 Go Faster 16 12-03-2018 10:04 AM
1jz with cd009 questions!!! mikerogalski2 General Discussion 1 04-18-2017 06:47 AM
Cube Speed Short Shifter. R154 Review ShiftnGears General Discussion 20 10-28-2016 08:44 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome