T5 box (split topic)

[Cypher]

Getrag Box Specs

Type - 233

Torque capacity - to 490 NM (361 ft/lb)

Centre distance - 85mm

Weight - 51.0 kg

Gears - V160 (3.827,2.360,1.685,1.312,1.000,0.793, Rev 3.280) - May 1993 to May 1996

Gears - V161 (3.724,2.246,1.541,1.205,1.000,0.818, Rev 3.192) - June 1996 to July 2002

2JZ-GTE puts out 343NM at approx 1250rpm. Max torque is 435NM @ 3,600. Note that box has very rarely if ever failed with these load ratings. Further these boxes have handled at least 820NM.

Hope this helps some what. As with all things the more you push it the lower is its life expectancy.

[Cypher]

http://www.en.getrag.de/176/176 for more info.

[turbotrana]

I agree, Supra ratios dont seem to suit the Turbo 4L, however my mate found that a C4 and 2.92 rear end worked quite well with the turbo 4.1 motor as it likes to be "loaded up". He was doing 130+mph on the qtr. With my 500+ rwhp turbo (not ford) I go much quicker down the qtr with 3.08 ratio than with the 3.55 as with 3.55 it never loads the motor and your in and out of a gear too quickly.

[Turbo6man]

Cypher> Thanks, my memory hasn't left me then :lol:

I can now firmly attest to the thoughts I put in my post above regarding suitability of this box for the T6. It certainly wouldn't be my choice.

Also, those torque ratings look to be not a great deal advanced from the 450Nm of the T5. Also, one critical factor is not shown. What vehicle weight are those figures good for? It's all very well to give a torque rating but all gearbox manufacturers specify a maximum weight at which those figures may be relied upon. You exceed the weight rating and the torque handling ability falls.

turbotrana> Agreed with your observations regarding a turbo 4.1 - I have a 3.23 gearset in mine and find that I run out of revs way too quickly. I'm sure it would be better with 2.92. I'm driving through a T5 which is handling the load superbly. The motor has been run for nearly five years now (at 7psi and sometimes more) with no sign of any probs and it is quicker than the T3. In defence of the T3 though, the T3 is carrying an extra 300kg around ...

[aps]

  Turbo6man said:

Thanks Peter for at last answering the Q I was the first to put quite some while back - and thanks to the others who kept prompting for a reply.

So, ... the Supra box.

If I remember correctly it's a Getrag? Also if I remember correctly (it was a long while back that I studied the spec for this box) it has a very low first gear and a fairly short overdrive on 6th gear only. Therefore in the T6 I would expect a diff ratio change to a very tall 2.72 would be called for. This puts extreme loads on the driveshaft components, unis etc.

In my assessment the box would be more suited to a lighter vehicle, and also to an engine that has not much low down torque but lots of revs to play with. NOT A FORD MOTOR!

As I said, I may not be remembering the specs properly but I do remember that when I was looking at a replacement for the TR3650 in my T3, I discarded the idea of the Supra (Getrag) box for some good reasons or other. I extrapolate that, if it was not suitable for the torque characteristics of my ol' Windsor, then it won't be suitable for the T6.

Turboman, thanks for your reply.

This gearbox I feel is perfectly suited to the xr6t and in my opinion there's no need to change final drive ratio as we spend 95% of time at speeds between 40 to 120KPH. For those who want to change the final drive ratio that's fine and the 3.23 to1 is freely available.

This gearbox is mighty tough and the shift quality is superb and I know plenty of guys in the states who drag race and run MEGA torque (900+ Nm ) through this trans frequently and the trans is incredibly reliable and cops plenty of punishment without complaint. These TT supra's run low 10's/ high 9's week in week out without problem and they are a very heavy car.

The TT supra gearbox is simply world class (and maybe out of reach of some ford owners in terms of cost) and would be an ideal gearbox to transmit high torque and to cope with the porky weight of the BA ford. Do you know how heavy the TT Supra is?

I dont understand your comment regarding the windsor's torque and how this is relevant to this discussion, that is coping with high torque levels from the xr6t engine.

Bottom line is this trans has been used and proven highly successful behind many powerful turbocharged 6 cylinder engines, and is recognized by many within the industry and owners alike as the BEST shifting and most robust trans for high torque 6 cylinder turbocharged applications.

It is simply another option for xr6t owners to consider once you have experienced this trans its nearly impossible to utilise a lesser option.

We are all entitled to our opinion, mine is based on actual real life testing and practical in field testing of many powerful turbocharged cars over a long period of time. Good luck with what ever you choose to do.

Peter

APS

[eatV8]

I was reading in one of the American motoring mags (march issue, will try find which mag it was when I get a chance) that Ford and GM are in joint ventures in designing/building 6 speed manaul and auto gearboxes... Has anyone heard anything about this and whether they are boxes to hold high torque? I'm sure they mensioned something about Future Cobras and Z06 Vettes...

[eatV8]

OK, found the article, was in Motor Trend... My bad sorry, Auto only don't know why I thought I read manual... will be 6 speed auto built by ford to be used on RWD cars and GM is building the 6 speed for FWD cars... Both companies are sharing the FWD tranny only not the RWD.

Edited 07/02/04 02:40 AM by eatV8

[bcl]

Peter,

Thank you for providing the APS power/torque figures, as I now have something better to work with.

However, first, you yesterday had a major problem with my subtracting 60kw from the published power curve to derive some rwkw figures. So you’re telling me that the flywheel to rear wheel conversion is not a constant. I refer you to your reply to the forum in the thread: “Rwkw, What is it at the flywheel” on Feb 2 @5:23pm

  Quote

G'day guys,

Drive train loss is fairly constant and not a percentage as is commonly thought.

In the xr6t the drive train and retarder losses (on a dyno dynamics dyno) are approx 45 to 50Kw on a manual and around 55 to 60 Kw on a auto trans.

In your Phase 3 graphs the kw loss at peak is 391-329=62kw.

According to your graphs the rear wheel kw to flywheel kw loss is 19% at 2300 revs, reducing to 16% at 5400 revs….. actual loss of 20kw at 2300 to 62kw at 5400…. As to how accurate the dyno flywheel kw estimate I don’t know.

Back to the thread.

Based on published Phase 3 power/torque figures you have over 6500N from 3500 to 5500 revs. The stock car has around 4500N peak, and Ford have intentionally keep torque at this level for drivetrain/gearbox durability. So you are suggesting that a 44%

increase in torque is sensible and that an engineer would accept such an increase when one takes into account reliability, durability and safety issues. Also, the maximum torque the Phase 3 reaches at its peak is 7800N, which is 73% above 4500N. I really find it hard to believe that a responsible engineer would sign off on these levels of torque increase for the T5.

Personally, as I’m currently running torque just above these levels (over 7500N from 3100 to 5000 revs, max 8000N), I budgeted for a gearbox upgrade, and I’d recommend other people to do the same if they want to run high torque levels. I wouldn’t want others to stick their head in sand, and then complain later, as if it’s a big surprise that they’ve lunched their gearbox.

Good luck.

Brian

[Turbo6man]

  aps said:

This gearbox I feel is perfectly suited to the xr6t and in my opinion there's no need to change final drive ratio as we spend 95% of time at speeds between 40 to 120KPH. For those who want to change the final drive ratio that's fine and the 3.23 to1 is freely available.

You may well be right - most people would probably accept that proposition. However I'm a greedy bugger who likes to have his cake and eat it too.

I am referring to performance AND economy and the balance between the two.

My contention is that the gearing should suit three basic parameters - the purpose of use, the weight of the vehicle, and the torque characteristics of the engine.

If you take the first and final drive ratios of the Supra box this is the analysis. (For brevity I will ignore the intermediate ratios, for as long as they are not too stupidly spread, they will bear little consequence to my argument).

With the standard final drive of 3.45 first gear yields 9.2 km/1000 rpm. This gives a first gear maximum speed of 55 kph @ 6000 rpm. I'd suggest this is way too low for normal everyday driving. It may be OK for constant dragging or for constant heavy load towing.

Also, using standard final drive top gear yields 41.7 kph/1000 rpm. At 110 kph the engine is turning over at 2650 rpm.

Compare these results to the standard T5. It yields 69 kph @ 6000 rpm in first and 2350 rpm at 110 kph cruise speed.

My opinion is that the car doesn't need such a low first gear as the Supra box provides - the first gear acceleration with the T5 seems quite adequate. I haven't heard anyone complain about it in any way. There is no talk of it bogging down off the line such as was the common complaint with, say, 70s models 351 Clevelands running single rails and top loaders with tall diff ratios. Also the extra 300 rpm on the motor in fifth gear, if you were travelling from say Sydney to Melbourne, would cause an increase in fuel consumption in the order of 10% to 15%. This is relevant to me as I do mostly long distance driving. It may not be so important to someone who drives mostly in the urban areas at limits less than 90 kph.

[Turbo6man]

  aps said:

This gearbox is mighty tough and the shift quality is superb and I know plenty of guys in the states who drag race and run MEGA torque (900+ Nm ) through this trans frequently and the trans is incredibly reliable and cops plenty of punishment without complaint. These TT supra's run low 10's/ high 9's week in week out without problem and they are a very heavy car.

The TT supra gearbox is simply world class (and maybe out of reach of some ford owners in terms of cost) and would be an ideal gearbox  to transmit high torque and to cope with the porky weight of the BA ford. Do you know how heavy the TT Supra is?

I dont understand your comment regarding the windsor's torque and how this is relevant to this discussion, that is coping with high torque levels from the xr6t engine.

I don't doubt that this box has the runs on the board as you attest.

However, the absolute figures you quote are far and away in excess of the manufacturers ratings. I'm just wondering if there is anything "hidden" behind these figures. For example, torque delivered through a gearbox to a heavy vehicle places much more strain on it. So what is the weight rating of the gearbox at it's 490NM? Maybe the 900NM car is only 900kg in weight? Don't get me wrong, I am not questioning YOUR experience or claims, just stating the things I would have to consider in order to make a value judgement when choosing a box to suit my needs.

No I don't know the weight of a Supra, what is it? I'll stick my neck out and say that I'd be very surprised if it went over 1600kg. (My T3 is 1940kg before I even get on board.)

My comment on the Windsor's torque was obviously misunderstood. I was referring to the torque characteriscs of the engine, not the amount of torque produced in absolute terms. My motor produces 80% of its maximum torque through the entire rev range ie. from idle to 6000 rpm. It has 400NM at idle. This means that a close ratio gearbox is unnecessary - I can call up plenty of oomph at any time in any gear. Within reason of course. I'm not saying it will pull a final drive ratio of 1:1.

The T6 engine has a similar broad band of torque. Therefore my contention is that they would require a similar gearset.