Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
    Results 21 to 40 of 46
    1. #21
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Posts
      424
      I think you have a perceived problem, not an actual one :-P

      Andrew
      I would point out again that during the first 3 gears, the close ratio gearset for the TKO tranny is wider than the wide ratio with the Magnum.



      We can agree to disagree about whether it should bug me. But the T56-Mag "wide ratio" has weird gear spacing - that is not my imagination.


    2. #22
      Join Date
      Apr 2001
      Location
      The City of Fountains
      Posts
      15,971
      Country Flag: United States
      The OEMs tend to disagree. Millions of cars were built with those gear ratios.
      1970 GTO Version 3.0
      1967 Cougar build
      GM High-Tech Performance feature
      My YouTube Channel Please Subscribe!
      Instagram @projectgattago
      Dr. EFI
      I deliver what EFI promises.
      Remote Holley EFI tuning.
      Please get in touch if I can be of service.

      "You were the gun, your voice was the trigger, your bravery was the barrel, your eyes were the bullets." ~ Her

    3. #23
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Posts
      424
      Yes, but we don't know what the OEM's reasons were. They may have been working on a specific car's setup, trying squeeze one of the gear changes out of a 0-60 or 1/4-mile run just for bragging rights. Or they might have been playing to the EPA's procedures for testing gas mileage. Etc. The OEMs do stuff like that all the time.

    4. #24
      Join Date
      Mar 2014
      Location
      Yuma, AZ
      Posts
      635
      Country Flag: United States
      OEMs always do things for a reason, it's the advantage we have of tons of money for R&D that the aftermarket does not. We can tailor any part of the car to meet our goal, whatever it might be. But also, the Tremec was born in the age where Big Blocks were gone, so they tailored them to the engines that were in production, SBC and eventually LS. I'm happy that Tremec gives us the option at least, rather than just having one choice and that's it.

      Seems like you need to be looking into a trans like a Richmond ROD or a CD009 or something if you're not happy with the Tremec options. RODs came in tons of different ratios, but are not as smooth as a Tremec. The CD009 is used more by import guys, but seems to be a solid, smooth trans. But it ends up being more expensive to swap because of adapters needed mate to the engine. If you're tired of shifting gears, just swap in an auto and be done.
      Nelson
      1969 Chevelle "Cone Smasher" Family Project
      https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...uot?highlight=

      1984 "Rustang" GT, 5.0, 5 Speed Project
      https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...T-(Slow-Build)

    5. #25
      Join Date
      Apr 2001
      Location
      The City of Fountains
      Posts
      15,971
      Country Flag: United States
      Richmond no longer offers all those transmissions, at least not that I see on their website.

      Andrew
      1970 GTO Version 3.0
      1967 Cougar build
      GM High-Tech Performance feature
      My YouTube Channel Please Subscribe!
      Instagram @projectgattago
      Dr. EFI
      I deliver what EFI promises.
      Remote Holley EFI tuning.
      Please get in touch if I can be of service.

      "You were the gun, your voice was the trigger, your bravery was the barrel, your eyes were the bullets." ~ Her

    6. #26
      Join Date
      Mar 2014
      Location
      Yuma, AZ
      Posts
      635
      Country Flag: United States
      I guess he has to resort to Craigslist and Ebay then if he wants one. I'm sure they are still out there.

      CD009s (Nissan) are still able to be found in junkyards. The Toyota R154 is pretty strong too, but also has the cost of adapters. It is only a 5 speed though.

      Why not just swap a TR6060 if one is available with the ratios the OP wants? Seems to be the obvious choice to me.
      Nelson
      1969 Chevelle "Cone Smasher" Family Project
      https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...uot?highlight=

      1984 "Rustang" GT, 5.0, 5 Speed Project
      https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...T-(Slow-Build)

    7. #27
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Posts
      424
      It's easy enough to find what I want in other transmissions. Either of the Tremec TKOs would do.

      But I wanted the 2 overdrives and the generally higher quality of the Tremec 6spds. I wanted to used the aftermarket
      Magnum one for the usual reasons why people buy T56 Magnums. Easier retrofits in classic cars.


      I guess I'm either gonna get a TKO 5spd or retrofit a production TR6060.

    8. #28
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      San Jose, CA
      Posts
      523
      2 OD are not really needed. IMHO. 5 or 6 gears are both more than adequate. You only care about 1-4 for performance driving - even road course track driving. And want an OD that gives you a reasonable cruise RPM above 70. I honestly don't use 5th that much. Mainly when on a highway or freeway going 55-70 and then above that I shift into 6th. With a milder motor you can just use your OD gear from about 60+ and don't need 2 OD's.
      1971 Camaro - 406 / T56
      2016 Camaro SS convertible
      2018 Colorado 4x4

    9. #29
      Join Date
      Feb 2016
      Location
      Lawrenceville, IL
      Posts
      348
      Country Flag: United States
      I will touch a little on the TR6060 gears into the Magnum cases subject. Yes some of them can be done. One example is the ZR1 Corvette 2.29 ratio set. We put them into the Magnums all the time. However, there are some that don't work due to the different types of bearings used on the OE units vs. the aftermarket. Some input shafts have a straight pocket bearing and some are tapered. They don't interchange and for some gear sets to work correctly the "head set" (input shaft / 4th gear) has to be a specific tooth count in order for the rest of the gear ratios to work out. We've also run into some strange situations where a 6060 with the same gear ratio as a Magnum used slightly different gear diameters and they weren't interchangeable. So, yeah, you would think that it's a no brainer, but unfortunately the answer isn't as clear cut.
      visit us on the web at www.bowlertransmissions.com

    10. #30
      Join Date
      Sep 2009
      Location
      Ontario, Canada
      Posts
      167
      I don't get how TKO ratios will be noticeably better? Difference with more 1st gear is you rev a bit higher in 1st to get same shift recovery rpm in 2nd. Personally, I don't see that as much of an advantage unless you have a pickup with a load or a low-torque engine that needs wider gear spacing to get going. When I changed from 3.15 to 4.11 rear axle ratio, it was like going from a 2.66 / 1.78 for 1st / 2nd to a 3.47 / 2.32. Before the change, I used 5th gear much more than 6th. I use 6th gear more now, but still use 5th quite a bit and appreciate the closer ratios without the big rpm drop in OD of most 5 speeds.

      Rather than complaining about the T56 Magnum ratios, suggest the OP provide more details on his combination so others with similar builds might provide details of what they used and how well it works, e.g. if it is a reasonably light weight cruiser with a 327 and a 5 speed will do, a T5 is also worth considering ... gives the wider ratios he's after, easier to fit than a TKO or T56, costs less, shifts better than a TKO, aftermarket gear sets available if pushing limits, etc. No sense complaining about something not easily fixed - find another solution.

      My 2 cents.

    11. #31
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Posts
      424
      Maybe this will make it clearer:

      Name:  trans-ratios-graph-001.jpg
Views: 537
Size:  70.6 KB

      Forget the specific numbers and look at the shapes of the curves - one of these lines is not like the others.

      I could add more hi-po transmissions onto this graph and it would be more of the same. Everything else basically matches a similar curve pattern except the Magnum wide ratio.

    12. #32
      Join Date
      Apr 2001
      Location
      The City of Fountains
      Posts
      15,971
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by mikedc View Post
      Maybe this will make it clearer:

      Name:  trans-ratios-graph-001.jpg
Views: 537
Size:  70.6 KB

      Forget the specific numbers and look at the shapes of the curves - one of these lines is not like the others.

      I could add more hi-po transmissions onto this graph and it would be more of the same. Everything else basically matches a similar curve pattern except the Magnum wide ratio.
      Paralipsis by analysis.

      Andrew
      1970 GTO Version 3.0
      1967 Cougar build
      GM High-Tech Performance feature
      My YouTube Channel Please Subscribe!
      Instagram @projectgattago
      Dr. EFI
      I deliver what EFI promises.
      Remote Holley EFI tuning.
      Please get in touch if I can be of service.

      "You were the gun, your voice was the trigger, your bravery was the barrel, your eyes were the bullets." ~ Her

    13. #33
      Join Date
      Sep 2009
      Location
      Ontario, Canada
      Posts
      167
      Quote Originally Posted by mikedc View Post
      Maybe this will make it clearer:

      Name:  trans-ratios-graph-001.jpg
Views: 537
Size:  70.6 KB

      Forget the specific numbers and look at the shapes of the curves - one of these lines is not like the others.

      I could add more hi-po transmissions onto this graph and it would be more of the same. Everything else basically matches a similar curve pattern except the Magnum wide ratio.
      Here's a comparison to consider. Nissan 370Z 6 speed vs T56 Magnum.
      370Z: 3.7 litre, 332hp@7000 rpm, 270 lbf.ft@5200 rpm
      my engine: 6.7 litre, 490hp@6300 rpm, 510 lbf.ft@4600 rpm

      370Z 6 speed / final: 3.79, 2.32, 1.62, 1.27, 1.00, 0.79 / 3.69
      T56 Magnum / final: 2.66, 1.78, 1.30, 1.00, 0.80, 0.63 / 4.11

      Cruise speed in gear:
      370Z@2600 rpm: 14.7, 24.0, 34.4, 43.9, 55.7, 70.5
      T56 @2400 rpm: 17.0, 25.5, 34.9, 45.3, 56.7, 71.9

      Speed at hp peak in gear:
      370Z@7000 rpm: 39.6, 64.7, 92.6, 118.1, 150.0, 189.9
      T56 @6300 rpm: 44.7, 66.9, 91.5, 119.0, 148.8, 188.9

      The 'Z has less torque and higher torque peak and higher hp peak. It wants a bit more 1st gear to accelerate quickly, but the mph difference in 1st isn't that much. Beyond 1st gear, they match up pretty well relative to their respective power bands.

      Maybe the T56 Magnum isn't so weird after all?

      Now if you think a TKO is a better option, I'd reconsider. Many benefits going with the T56 Magnum.

      If you are targeting certain speeds for certain tracks, maybe you need a transmission with different ratios, assuming you can't achieve desired results with a rear gear change. But for general use with a typical muscle car, tough to beat a T56 Magnum.

      Hope this helps

    14. #34
      Join Date
      Oct 2014
      Location
      DFW, Texas
      Posts
      422
      Country Flag: United States
      Unless you have a very defined track you are building a car to run on, I don't see how some of these changes are worth the effort or consideration.

      I run a close ratio Magnum and my engine and I love the 1st-4th gear ratio differences. I always feel like I have "the right" gear available for the situation I'm in. As an ME, I love to nerd out over numbers and comparisons, but this is one I can't quite get behind. Your options are there, pick the best and go have a good time. If there is serious competition/money on the line, I can see where defining what you need versus accepting something which is readily available would come into play.

      Less worry, more driving.
      1972 Plymouth 'Cuda - Not LS-swapped, 5.7L Hemi [MS3 Gold Box], T56 Magnum 6-speed - 'Cuda Build Page
      1976 Dodge D100 - Warlock
      2016 Subaru WRX - E30 Tune

    15. #35
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Posts
      424
      Unless you have a very defined track you are building a car to run on, I don't see how some of these changes are worth the effort or consideration.

      I run a close ratio Magnum and my engine and I love the 1st-4th gear ratio differences. I always feel like I have "the right" gear available for the situation I'm in. As an ME, I love to nerd out over numbers and comparisons, but this is one I can't quite get behind. Your options are there, pick the best and go have a good time. If there is serious competition/money on the line, I can see where defining what you need versus accepting something which is readily available would come into play.

      Less worry, more driving.
      If you are running the close-ratio Magnum then you aren't dealing with the funny gear spacing that I'm talking about. If I wanted a T56 Magnum with a close-ratio gearset then I wouldn't be complaining.


      The issue frustrates me on principle. Tremec is not offering a normal thing that I want, and instead they are offering something that I don't see any demand for (at least not in the aftermarket application).

      Yeah, some people do buy the wide ratio. But that doesn't prove it is perfect the way it is. There was a time when millions of people bought cars with bias-ply tires while radials existed. I don't see why Tremec didn't just make the wider gearset with a normal spacing. They already had to custom tool it up for the Magnum so I can't imagine the cost difference was anything major.

    16. #36
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Posts
      424
      The 'Z has less torque and higher torque peak and higher hp peak. It wants a bit more 1st gear to accelerate quickly, but the mph difference in 1st isn't that much. Beyond 1st gear, they match up pretty well relative to their respective power bands.

      Maybe the T56 Magnum isn't so weird after all?

      Now if you think a TKO is a better option, I'd reconsider. Many benefits going with the T56 Magnum.

      If you are targeting certain speeds for certain tracks, maybe you need a transmission with different ratios, assuming you can't achieve desired results with a rear gear change. But for general use with a typical muscle car, tough to beat a T56 Magnum.

      Hope this helps
      I agree with your comparison there. The Magnum's close ratio is well-spaced. I would not advocate changing it.

      But I happen to want a wider ratio. The Magnum's close ratio is the tightest one of all four ratios in Tremec's aftermarket trannys.

    17. #37
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      San Jose, CA
      Posts
      523
      Quote Originally Posted by mikedc View Post
      If you are running the close-ratio Magnum then you aren't dealing with the funny gear spacing that I'm talking about. If I wanted a T56 Magnum with a close-ratio gearset then I wouldn't be complaining.


      The issue frustrates me on principle. Tremec is not offering a normal thing that I want, and instead they are offering something that I don't see any demand for (at least not in the aftermarket application).

      Yeah, some people do buy the wide ratio. But that doesn't prove it is perfect the way it is. There was a time when millions of people bought cars with bias-ply tires while radials existed. I don't see why Tremec didn't just make the wider gearset with a normal spacing. They already had to custom tool it up for the Magnum so I can't imagine the cost difference was anything major.
      you don't see demand for the T56 Magnum close ratio unit? If that is what you are saying then I don't agree with that on any level.
      But I may not have understood your comment here.

      Do these guys offer a gear combo that suits you? This is a highly customized set-up that should cover just about any engine and car set-https://www.gforcetransmissions.com/#
      1971 Camaro - 406 / T56
      2016 Camaro SS convertible
      2018 Colorado 4x4

    18. #38
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Posts
      424
      you don't see demand for the T56 Magnum close ratio unit? If that is what you are saying then I don't agree with that on any level.
      But I may not have understood your comment here.
      No, I totally see the demand for the Magnum's 2.66 close ratio. I have nothing bad to say about that one. The ratios are well-spaced and it probably fits what most T56 Magnum buyers want. If I wanted a close-ratio setup then I would get that one and be happy about it.


      Do these guys offer a gear combo that suits you? This is a highly customized set-up that should cover just about any engine and car set-https://www.gforcetransmissions.com/#
      Yeah some of those look better. I'll look into that. Thanks.

    19. #39
      Join Date
      Sep 2009
      Location
      Ontario, Canada
      Posts
      167
      If you're okay with the 2.66 ratio Magnum, why not run it? You can fit the 0.74 or 0.50 OD gears if desired - Temec lists it in their catalogue ... but most applauded Tremec when they brought out the Magnum with the 2.66 matched with the 0.80, 0.63 as a much preferred gear set (0.50 6th was barely useable in most cars). The 0.80, 0.62 used to be available only with the wide ratio (Magnum ratios were mostly a carry over from early T56, but wide and close swapped ODs).

      T56 was originally used for the Viper. Ratios were 2.66, 1.78, 1.30, 1.00, 0.74, 0.50 with a 3.07 rear gear. The engine had 400 hp @4600 rpm, 465 lbf.ft @3,600 rpm - closer to the truck engine rpms on which it was based than a high revving sports car engine, so shows that the ratios work with an engine built for low rpm torque.

    20. #40
      Join Date
      Oct 2018
      Location
      San Jose, CA
      Posts
      523
      Ya the .5 OD is barely useable even in my stock LT1 455hp 2016 SS with stock 3.73 rear gears. Barely. Like below 70 and it's happier in 5th.
      The .80/.63 OD combo is perfecto in my 71 with the carb 406.

      I saw an interesting car on BaT today - 71 Firebird 400 with a 3 speed. Ratios were something around 2.47/1.58/1
      Supposedly that worked pretty good with the low reving, high tq 400's that came in that car.
      Few different rear end options were available but seems 3.3x was the most common.

      FWIW!
      1971 Camaro - 406 / T56
      2016 Camaro SS convertible
      2018 Colorado 4x4

    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast




    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com