Lancer - Weak Tranny?

ozBanana · Nov 29, 2002, 08:22 PM

I don't know what you guys think, but I think that one of the bigger flaws of my car is the Transmission. The red line is at 6000 and if I put my car anywhere from 5800 - 6300 I can smell and hear it pushing too hard. I think this is pretty bad considering my friends SI redlines at 8000 and he can push it to about 8700 with no problems at all. I am pleased with the Lancer's low powerband and I think once I get a light flywheel my accelleration will be much faster since the powerband is so low anyways.

Does anyone agree with me and also does anyone have a lighter flywheel and feel they don't need to go into high (lancer-wise) rpm's to get good acceleration?

Smoktout · Nov 29, 2002, 08:26 PM

RPW makes a lightened flywheel i think

http://www.rpw.com.au/

StreetLancer · Nov 29, 2002, 09:19 PM

First off, let me say that you are going to have more problems with your engine from running at redline or beyond than you ever will with your transmission (unless you're dumping it at redline). Secondly, that smell you have is more than likely your clutch, depending on the speed and technique with which you are engaging/disengaging your clutch.

Mitsubishi is famous for two things. One, is quality turbos. So much so that many other cars use Mitsubishi turbos from even rival manufacturers, and aftermarket companies like Greddy use Mitsu turbos. The other is Transmissions. Mitsu trannys (at least the 5 spds) are generally considered bulletproof. If there is one place that you are LEAST likely to have a problem with the Lancer, it's that transmission.

yellow_lancer · Nov 29, 2002, 09:29 PM

dsm auto tranny is the worst... sooby's manual is horrible....

well im happy i got some stuff from rrm and it wont matter if the lancer's tranny is weak

ryancb · Nov 29, 2002, 09:29 PM

i really need a new clutch cuse i have beatin mine up bad .....how much is a dealer one anyone know? not sure if im rdy 2 go rrm yet

DaTenshi · Nov 29, 2002, 10:12 PM

you dont need a new clutch yet it still good it can take more of a beating that what you think~

ryancb · Nov 29, 2002, 11:43 PM

hum just feels like its sliping at high rpms

no comment

about why it feels like that

but ya it just catches really late and grabes at the last second (not as smooth as used 2 be)

bahamut · Nov 30, 2002, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ozBanana
I don't know what you guys think, but I think that one of the bigger flaws of my car is the Transmission. The red line is at 6000 and if I put my car anywhere from 5800 - 6300 I can smell and hear it pushing too hard. I think this is pretty bad considering my friends SI redlines at 8000 and he can push it to about 8700 with no problems at all. I am pleased with the Lancer's low powerband and I think once I get a light flywheel my accelleration will be much faster since the powerband is so low anyways.

Does anyone agree with me and also does anyone have a lighter flywheel and feel they don't need to go into high (lancer-wise) rpm's to get good acceleration?

First of all, people should really stop comparing tech stuff to H&A products. Some auto companies have their version of variable timing, but they don't have super high revs. Those companies rather have TQ to power their cars with their variable valves system. Unlike H&A, they sacrifice a lot of TQ in order to be fuel misers to achieve super revs.

If you apply your logic of SI's super revs to a 911's TC (yes, the Germans do have their version) at lower revs, the SI has a better tech than a 911. If so, come off the brainwashing. I refuse to believe H&A can make better engines than the Germans. They didn't win all those 12 and 24 hrs endurances for nothing throughout history.

Next, there is such thing as laws of physic, unless somehow having the ability to use space alien's alloy material. Longer conrods equal TQ at the sacrifice of higher rpms. The only exception to this rule is the prelude's 2.2L . . . gotta find specs.

I'm willing to bet if you make a 1.3L rev like crazy if engineered right. Do you think it will have a lot of HP/TQ?

Afterwards, you run into the problem on the ecu setting from the factory. It is set very conservative. Of course, if you have the smarts or enough resources, you can possibly hack into the ecu like Jim Wolf has done for Nissan products.

Lastly, lightened flywheel does not grant you more rpm . . . also, stop thinking reality is based off grand turismo. Yes, you rev faster, but it only changes the curvature of your powerband from broad to a bit more peaky one.

There is no way a lightened flywheel can defy the laws of physic and override fuel cut-off from the factory (it's there to prevent you from spinning a rod . . . yes, your pistons can fly right out of the cyl head. Ask those big block domestics blowing up their engines by spinning a rod or breaking head bolts).

If you don't believe me on the laws of physics, ask ROCK. If you can get forged rods and hacked the ecu, what's the limitation of rpm? It won't touch 8K rpm, unless you using exotic material and super software like in F1 or CART.

I just don't get the fascination of super rpm. IMO, 6700-7000 rpm is the max rpm that I ever want to hit or see. It's call effective powerband. Anymore than that, it takes too much time and effort for an engine to spin so fast . . . wasted energy.

**HobieKopek** · Nov 30, 2002, 12:04 AM

The redline has nothing to do with the clutch. It has to do with the length of our connecting rods. With shorter con rods and therefore a higher rev limit you wouldn't have as much torque available as early in the revs as you do at present. The con rods are both a blessing (as far as providing torque and a very nice stock powerband compared to other 4's) and a curse (high boost turbo applications). I think it's pretty safe to say that since most of us won't be driving high boost Lancers the pros outweigh the cons.

Don't forget the reason you redline at 6,000rpms is the same reason you should be able to take most comparable 2.0l 4 banger econoboxes. Your friend's Si has a peaky powerband like all honda 4's. High revs, low torque. Low hp and tq at low revs. As a bit of an exagerrated example think of an exponential curve for a Honda's powerband vs a far more linear one for ours.

EDIT: Curses! Beaten by someone who knows far more than me. How embarassing.

bahamut · Nov 30, 2002, 12:04 AM

Nor am I going to debate about the S2000 using motorcycle tech stuff.

DaTenshi · Nov 30, 2002, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bahamut
Nor am I going to debate about the S2000 using motorcycle tech stuff.

yea it revs like a motorcycle

silverr6 · Nov 30, 2002, 02:24 AM

One could engineer a motor in a car to rev like a motorcycle, 15,500 rpm redline etc, but it would not be cost effective or much fun to drive. Torque is crap in the upper rev ranges of those motors we play with, power bands are peaky as hell. On the cost issue, 75% of the cost of a new motorcycle is the motor, so it can be way over engineered.

StreetLancer · Nov 30, 2002, 06:36 AM

I still say that the mitsu 5 spd is one of the most bullet proof transmissions you can get. If something's weak in that car, that's not it.

I completely agree with bahamut (yet again) that high revs doesn't necessarily mean more usable/effective horsepower. I think that alot of hype is given to the VTEC system (read my quote at the bottom) since it can produce a pretty high HP per liter ratio. However, what alot of people discount is the duration of that horsepower, and where it is in the power band. I mean, look at a common, performance based VTEC vehicle's dyno sheet, and you will see a pretty large spike close to redline, which gives them a high claimed horsepower, but, not for a very long time, and usually at the sacrifice of torque. Does this mean they are faster? Usually if they are like the RSX Type-S, but, for a vehicle like the current Si, it's not entirely impossible to believe that a vehicle like the Lancer with some modifications could take it out. That's saying that a car delivering less horsepower (but more torque), and a lower RPM could possibly win. And for every day driving (unless you're like me), you're probably not going to put the car that close to redline all the time, so, you're not even tapping that HP for daily driving.

bahamut · Nov 30, 2002, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yellow_lancer
dsm auto tranny is the worst... sooby's manual is horrible....

DSM's tranny is weak because of the complex and heavy nature of AWD. Once they are hitting beyond 350 HP, the tendency to break down is greatly increased.

The same with the wrx's, except doesn't have to deal with so much weight like DSMs.

The 3k GT VR4 is even worse. It weights between 3400 - 3600 lbs (more weight than a ZR-1) with their AWD system and the non-reliable getrag 6 spd. Amongst Vette drivers, they called the tranny as "Get Trashed".

As for the same tranny being used with the modern 1.8L, 2.0L, and the 3g 2.4L, I'm sure the tranny will hold up to 250 HP with ease. Of course, the weak point will be the clutch after going beyond 160 HP. It will slip more apparently after reaching more than 200 flywheel HP.

BTW: As you start to reach for insane HP/TQ figures, driving skills will become more apparent. Misshifts will be the #1 killer in tearing teeth and synchros.

ROCK · Nov 30, 2002, 10:21 AM

Lots of good info being shared here. I a nut shell though, Lancer 5 speed seems beefy enough to us. The flaw ,if any, is lack of LSD. As for revs, I don't want to rev a Lancer motor more than 6K either. Internals appear to not be strong enough to rev much more. Rod and rod bolts being suspect for higher revs. Flywheel does not look like there is good place to remove material. We wanted to do that right away. Maybe a little bit can be removed but not much.

ROAD/RACE

http://www.roadracemotorsports.com/