Rx-8 gearing ratios?
10-05-2002, 05:13 PM
#1
RE member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rx-8 gearing ratios?
The gearing ratios for the rx-8 are one unknown that we haven’t really discussed in much detail. There has been some talk and much speculation about the rx-8’s top speed, mileage, 0-60 times, ¼ mile times etc but they are *all* dependent on gearing.
Since the rx-8 was designed to seat 4 people and the gearing/diff ratios should take that into account and be much higher than the ratios on the last rx-7. What would everybody like to see the gearing ratios end up at?
I would propose the following aggressive and closely spaced gearing to give the best 0-60, ¼ mile, mileage and utility. Gears 1 thru 5 are aggressively geared and closely spaced. 6th gear is only overdrive gear and is spaced a bit apart from 5th . The .84 6th gear is mainly for fuel economy at highway/freeway speeds but will also lead to a very high top speed. Because of the renesis' wide power band and flat torque curve, the rx-8 will be very driveable (until we hear the dang buzzer). :D
Rear wheels = 225 45 18
Diff - 4.1
1st – 4.02
2nd – 2.46
3rd – 1.77
4th – 1.33
5th – 1.08
6th - 0.84
1st gear at 3500 rpm would be approx 16 mph.
2nd gear will hit 60 mph near the hp peak.
55 mph would be approx 2750 rpm in 6th gear.
Would there be any reason why the above gearing would not be practical? Below is also a chart which gives the speeds per rpm for each gear.
RPM 1 2 3 4 5 6
1000 4.6 7.5 10.4 13.8 17.0 21.9
1500 6.8 11.2 15.6 20.7 25.5 32.8
2000 9.1 14.9 20.7 27.6 34.0 43.7
2500 11.4 18.7 25.9 34.5 42.5 54.6
3000 13.7 22.4 31.1 41.4 51.0 65.6
3500 16.0 26.1 36.3 48.3 59.5 76.5
4000 18.3 29.8 41.5 55.2 68.0 87.4
4500 20.5 33.6 46.7 62.1 76.5 98.3
5000 22.8 37.3 51.9 69.0 85.0 109.3
5500 25.1 41.0 57.0 75.9 93.5 120.2
6000 27.4 44.8 62.2 82.8 102.0 131.1
6500 29.7 48.5 67.4 89.7 110.5 142.1
7000 32.0 52.2 72.6 96.6 119.0 153.0
7500 34.2 56.0 77.8 103.5 127.5 163.9
8000 36.5 59.7 83.0 110.4 136.0 ----
8500 38.8 63.4 88.2 117.3 144.5 ----
9000 41.1 67.2 93.3 124.2 153.0 ----
If the rx-8 were geared as such, the 0-60 times will *easily* be well less than 6 seconds and the 1/4 mile might be less than 14?
Brian
Since the rx-8 was designed to seat 4 people and the gearing/diff ratios should take that into account and be much higher than the ratios on the last rx-7. What would everybody like to see the gearing ratios end up at?
I would propose the following aggressive and closely spaced gearing to give the best 0-60, ¼ mile, mileage and utility. Gears 1 thru 5 are aggressively geared and closely spaced. 6th gear is only overdrive gear and is spaced a bit apart from 5th . The .84 6th gear is mainly for fuel economy at highway/freeway speeds but will also lead to a very high top speed. Because of the renesis' wide power band and flat torque curve, the rx-8 will be very driveable (until we hear the dang buzzer). :D
Rear wheels = 225 45 18
Diff - 4.1
1st – 4.02
2nd – 2.46
3rd – 1.77
4th – 1.33
5th – 1.08
6th - 0.84
1st gear at 3500 rpm would be approx 16 mph.
2nd gear will hit 60 mph near the hp peak.
55 mph would be approx 2750 rpm in 6th gear.
Would there be any reason why the above gearing would not be practical? Below is also a chart which gives the speeds per rpm for each gear.
RPM 1 2 3 4 5 6
1000 4.6 7.5 10.4 13.8 17.0 21.9
1500 6.8 11.2 15.6 20.7 25.5 32.8
2000 9.1 14.9 20.7 27.6 34.0 43.7
2500 11.4 18.7 25.9 34.5 42.5 54.6
3000 13.7 22.4 31.1 41.4 51.0 65.6
3500 16.0 26.1 36.3 48.3 59.5 76.5
4000 18.3 29.8 41.5 55.2 68.0 87.4
4500 20.5 33.6 46.7 62.1 76.5 98.3
5000 22.8 37.3 51.9 69.0 85.0 109.3
5500 25.1 41.0 57.0 75.9 93.5 120.2
6000 27.4 44.8 62.2 82.8 102.0 131.1
6500 29.7 48.5 67.4 89.7 110.5 142.1
7000 32.0 52.2 72.6 96.6 119.0 153.0
7500 34.2 56.0 77.8 103.5 127.5 163.9
8000 36.5 59.7 83.0 110.4 136.0 ----
8500 38.8 63.4 88.2 117.3 144.5 ----
9000 41.1 67.2 93.3 124.2 153.0 ----
If the rx-8 were geared as such, the 0-60 times will *easily* be well less than 6 seconds and the 1/4 mile might be less than 14?
Brian
10-05-2002, 05:29 PM
#2
RE member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops, the tabs in the chart disappeared. I think the below chart will be easier to read:
RPM````````1`````````2`````````3 `````````4`````````5`````````6
1000``````4.6``````` 7.5``````` 10.4`````` 13.8`````` 17.0`````` 21.9
1500``````6.8``````` 11.2`````` 15.6`````` 20.7`````` 25.5`````` 32.8
2000``````9.1``````` 14.9`````` 20.7`````` 27.6`````` 34.0`````` 43.7
2500``````11.4`````` 18.7`````` 25.9`````` 34.5`````` 42.5`````` 54.6
3000``````13.7`````` 22.4`````` 31.1`````` 41.4`````` 51.0`````` 65.6
3500``````16.0`````` 26.1`````` 36.3`````` 48.3`````` 59.5`````` 76.5
4000``````18.3`````` 29.8`````` 41.5`````` 55.2`````` 68.0`````` 87.4
4500``````20.5`````` 33.6`````` 46.7`````` 62.1`````` 76.5`````` 98.3
5000``````22.8`````` 37.3`````` 51.9`````` 69.0`````` 85.0`````` 109.3
5500``````25.1`````` 41.0`````` 57.0`````` 75.9`````` 93.5`````` 120.2
6000``````27.4`````` 44.8`````` 62.2`````` 82.8`````` 102.0`````131.1
6500``````29.7`````` 48.5`````` 67.4`````` 89.7`````` 110.5`````142.1
7000``````32.0`````` 52.2`````` 72.6`````` 96.6`````` 119.0`````153.0
7500``````34.2`````` 56.0`````` 77.8`````` 103.5`````127.5`````163.9
8000``````36.5`````` 59.7`````` 83.0`````` 110.4`````136.0`````----
8500``````38.8`````` 63.4`````` 88.2`````` 117.3`````144.5`````----
9000``````41.1`````` 67.2`````` 93.3`````` 124.2`````153.0`````----
Brian
RPM````````1`````````2`````````3 `````````4`````````5`````````6
1000``````4.6``````` 7.5``````` 10.4`````` 13.8`````` 17.0`````` 21.9
1500``````6.8``````` 11.2`````` 15.6`````` 20.7`````` 25.5`````` 32.8
2000``````9.1``````` 14.9`````` 20.7`````` 27.6`````` 34.0`````` 43.7
2500``````11.4`````` 18.7`````` 25.9`````` 34.5`````` 42.5`````` 54.6
3000``````13.7`````` 22.4`````` 31.1`````` 41.4`````` 51.0`````` 65.6
3500``````16.0`````` 26.1`````` 36.3`````` 48.3`````` 59.5`````` 76.5
4000``````18.3`````` 29.8`````` 41.5`````` 55.2`````` 68.0`````` 87.4
4500``````20.5`````` 33.6`````` 46.7`````` 62.1`````` 76.5`````` 98.3
5000``````22.8`````` 37.3`````` 51.9`````` 69.0`````` 85.0`````` 109.3
5500``````25.1`````` 41.0`````` 57.0`````` 75.9`````` 93.5`````` 120.2
6000``````27.4`````` 44.8`````` 62.2`````` 82.8`````` 102.0`````131.1
6500``````29.7`````` 48.5`````` 67.4`````` 89.7`````` 110.5`````142.1
7000``````32.0`````` 52.2`````` 72.6`````` 96.6`````` 119.0`````153.0
7500``````34.2`````` 56.0`````` 77.8`````` 103.5`````127.5`````163.9
8000``````36.5`````` 59.7`````` 83.0`````` 110.4`````136.0`````----
8500``````38.8`````` 63.4`````` 88.2`````` 117.3`````144.5`````----
9000``````41.1`````` 67.2`````` 93.3`````` 124.2`````153.0`````----
Brian
10-05-2002, 05:43 PM
#3
Certifiable car nut
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd rather see it a little shorter than that, but maybe that's just me. Perhaps 5-10 MPH lower in each gear at redline. I don't do a lot of high-speed cruising, but I do value quick acceleration.
10-05-2002, 06:17 PM
#4
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London (England)
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks good,
I agree with Grimace to some extent, perhaps a little shorter... not as much as 10Mph though...
I do think that 6th should be a real long legged cruiser as suggested... I often cruise near 90-100Mph and when in germany I had the chance to cruise at 135+ for about 200 miles.... don't want to be ragging the engine at high speed cruising...
One thing though.... If you want to reach 60 in second, for 0-60 times... it must be 62 not 60 before the rev limit... because european tests are to 100Kph (62Mph).
I agree with Grimace to some extent, perhaps a little shorter... not as much as 10Mph though...
I do think that 6th should be a real long legged cruiser as suggested... I often cruise near 90-100Mph and when in germany I had the chance to cruise at 135+ for about 200 miles.... don't want to be ragging the engine at high speed cruising...
One thing though.... If you want to reach 60 in second, for 0-60 times... it must be 62 not 60 before the rev limit... because european tests are to 100Kph (62Mph).
10-05-2002, 06:50 PM
#5
RE member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BlueAdept
One thing though.... If you want to reach 60 in second, for 0-60 times... it must be 62 not 60 before the rev limit... because european tests are to 100Kph (62Mph).
One thing though.... If you want to reach 60 in second, for 0-60 times... it must be 62 not 60 before the rev limit... because european tests are to 100Kph (62Mph).
With the gearing that I suggested, 2nd gear would actually be going at 67.2 mph at the rev limit and 63.4 at the hp peak. I am hoping that the rx-8 will come out as aggressively geared from 1st thru 5th as my example (or even a little shorter).
The renesis is really different than anything out there though. Does anyone know any other production engine that comes close to (or beats?) 6000 rpm of greater than 90% torque?!?!?!
Brian
10-05-2002, 07:04 PM
#6
RE member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BlueAdept
I do think that 6th should be a real long legged cruiser as suggested... I often cruise near 90-100Mph and when in germany I had the chance to cruise at 135+ for about 200 miles.... don't want to be ragging the engine at high speed cruising...
I do think that 6th should be a real long legged cruiser as suggested... I often cruise near 90-100Mph and when in germany I had the chance to cruise at 135+ for about 200 miles.... don't want to be ragging the engine at high speed cruising...
You wouldn't be ragging the engine and probably wouldn't even notice the revs were that high until you heard the buzzer. :D
Brian
10-05-2002, 07:14 PM
#7
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London (England)
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Buger
If the rx-8 6th gear was .84 as in the example, 135 mph would still be approx 1200 *below* the torque peak. The car would be *begging* you to at least take it 1200 more rpms to it's torque peak at 163 mph (or whatever the electronically limited top speed would be). :D
You wouldn't be ragging the engine and probably wouldn't even notice the revs were that high until you heard the buzzer. :D
Brian
If the rx-8 6th gear was .84 as in the example, 135 mph would still be approx 1200 *below* the torque peak. The car would be *begging* you to at least take it 1200 more rpms to it's torque peak at 163 mph (or whatever the electronically limited top speed would be). :D
You wouldn't be ragging the engine and probably wouldn't even notice the revs were that high until you heard the buzzer. :D
Brian
As for the 0-62 thing... I don't think we are exactly sure where the redline will be...
10-05-2002, 07:26 PM
#8
RE member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BlueAdept
Oh, absolutely,, I wasn't complaining about your numbers... but Grimace was suggesting lowering the ratios... I don't mind that, but 6th must be long legged...
As for the 0-62 thing... I don't think we are exactly sure where the redline will be...
Oh, absolutely,, I wasn't complaining about your numbers... but Grimace was suggesting lowering the ratios... I don't mind that, but 6th must be long legged...
As for the 0-62 thing... I don't think we are exactly sure where the redline will be...
Brian
10-06-2002, 08:12 AM
#10
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London (England)
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Donny Boy
Gear ratios OK to me. Perhaps a little taller, if anything.
Gear ratios OK to me. Perhaps a little taller, if anything.
10-06-2002, 10:48 AM
#11
FAQMeister
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BlueAdept
I can't see taller myself... we're talking about a 6 speed box that can get to 60 in second.... even that's probably a sacrafice to get good 0-60 times.
I can't see taller myself... we're talking about a 6 speed box that can get to 60 in second.... even that's probably a sacrafice to get good 0-60 times.
10-06-2002, 11:14 AM
#12
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London (England)
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PatrickB
Taller would be a mistake. You wouldn't get into the power band above 3500 RPM in first gear for 18-odd MPH. I'd favor shorter so that people get into the 4000 RPM powerband quickly. That way it feels more powerful. SHorter gearing takes advantage of the high-RPM, low-torque nature of the engine, while tall gearing would actually make the car feel sluggish.
Taller would be a mistake. You wouldn't get into the power band above 3500 RPM in first gear for 18-odd MPH. I'd favor shorter so that people get into the 4000 RPM powerband quickly. That way it feels more powerful. SHorter gearing takes advantage of the high-RPM, low-torque nature of the engine, while tall gearing would actually make the car feel sluggish.
10-07-2002, 03:24 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was playing around with CarTest (a car performance calculator) to see how different gearing might affect the acceleration of the RX-8. On my own, I came up with these values for gearing:
Final - 4.10
1st - 3.70
2nd - 2.65
3rd - 1.90
4th - 1.45
5th - 1.05
6th - 0.75
My ratios give the following results:
0-60: 5.35
1/4: 14.0 @ 102.0
Top Speed: 161 MPH in 121.6 seconds
The values suggested by Buger - His 1st and 2nd are shorter, while his 3rd, 4th, and 5th are taller:
Final - 4.10
1st - 4.02
2nd - 2.46
3rd - 1.77
4th - 1.33
5th - 1.08
6th - 0.84
Here are CarTest's results for Buger's ratios:
0-60: 5.40
1/4: 14.0 @ 101.4
Top Speed: 160 in 111.96 seconds.
This is only a computer simulation, so take it for what it is worth, but it appears that my slightly taller first two gears will actually help 0-60 and 1/4 acceleration, albeit ever so slightly. However, Buger's taller 3rd and 4th seem to greatly improve time to top speed. It seems that taller is better from this starting point. I'll play around with the numbers some more and see if I can improve on things.
Note that 6th gear has no effect on any of these tests, as top speed occurs at redline in 5th for both of our gear sets.
Other note: The simulations were based on a 2800 weight.
Final - 4.10
1st - 3.70
2nd - 2.65
3rd - 1.90
4th - 1.45
5th - 1.05
6th - 0.75
My ratios give the following results:
0-60: 5.35
1/4: 14.0 @ 102.0
Top Speed: 161 MPH in 121.6 seconds
The values suggested by Buger - His 1st and 2nd are shorter, while his 3rd, 4th, and 5th are taller:
Final - 4.10
1st - 4.02
2nd - 2.46
3rd - 1.77
4th - 1.33
5th - 1.08
6th - 0.84
Here are CarTest's results for Buger's ratios:
0-60: 5.40
1/4: 14.0 @ 101.4
Top Speed: 160 in 111.96 seconds.
This is only a computer simulation, so take it for what it is worth, but it appears that my slightly taller first two gears will actually help 0-60 and 1/4 acceleration, albeit ever so slightly. However, Buger's taller 3rd and 4th seem to greatly improve time to top speed. It seems that taller is better from this starting point. I'll play around with the numbers some more and see if I can improve on things.
Note that 6th gear has no effect on any of these tests, as top speed occurs at redline in 5th for both of our gear sets.
Other note: The simulations were based on a 2800 weight.
10-07-2002, 05:06 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedRotaryRocket
Good posts from you and the others. Why not use 2970 for the weight instead of 2800 like you've done. until we hear differently, we are better off using the last weight given by Mazda. if they better it by production, all the better but for now, let's see what the simulations come out with at the weight of 2970.
Just a suggestion.
Good posts from you and the others. Why not use 2970 for the weight instead of 2800 like you've done. until we hear differently, we are better off using the last weight given by Mazda. if they better it by production, all the better but for now, let's see what the simulations come out with at the weight of 2970.
Just a suggestion.
10-07-2002, 06:01 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boowana,
Ask and you shall receive. :D Actually, the numbers using 2800 lbs are probably too optimistic, since the software assumes that the weight includes the driver.
I re-ran the simulation using a weight of 3170 (2970 + 200 lb driver). Here are the results:
My gear set:
0-60: 5.9
1/4: 14.6 @ 98.2
Top Speed: 160 in 140.03 seconds
Buger's gear set:
0-60: 6.0
1/4: 14.5 @ 98.3
Top Speed: 159 in 124.62 seconds
Howzzzat?
Ask and you shall receive. :D Actually, the numbers using 2800 lbs are probably too optimistic, since the software assumes that the weight includes the driver.
I re-ran the simulation using a weight of 3170 (2970 + 200 lb driver). Here are the results:
My gear set:
0-60: 5.9
1/4: 14.6 @ 98.2
Top Speed: 160 in 140.03 seconds
Buger's gear set:
0-60: 6.0
1/4: 14.5 @ 98.3
Top Speed: 159 in 124.62 seconds
Howzzzat?