V8 manual gearboxes?

Hello!

I've been thinking for some time about upgrading to a six-speed manual g/box on a P6 V8... am I correct in thinking that the auto has a wider tunnel than the manual? I know people have installed ZF 4-speed autos in P6s, as well as Aisin W58 5-speed 'boxes from the Toyota Supra... anyone tried fitting the Supra's later Getrag Type 233 (Toyota V) six-speed, or any later six-speeder from Aisin? Or a ZF manual 'box?
 
Not to my knowledge.

It would have to be a very seriously tuned - and therefore cammy - V8 to justify a six speed. When we had a 10.5 : 1 3500S from new, my father and I were in the habit of pulling away from rest in 2nd and then changing straight into top. Unless we were out for a blast and needing to overtake something in a hurry, in which case third occasionally got used, that was all that was needed for even the fastest progress. The problem with multi speed gearboxes is that it takes time to dip the clutch and swap the cogs. If you have a motor with a good wide power band then you can get on at least as quick by powering across and through other peoples gear change dips. I'm afraid I take the view that a six speed box is prima facie evidence of an overtuned quad valve that comes on cam at 6,000 and runs out of puff at 8! As for BMW needing 7 speeds in their latest offerings.... Mind you it makes more sense when delivered as a flappy paddle automatic.

But to return to the question. The big problem is sorting out the bellhousing and clutch parts for the job. That's why so many people have gone the LT77/R380 or Toyota Supra route. If there's anyone who can sort this out for your suggested boxes its Dellow in New South Wales http://www.dellowconversions.com.au/index.html. Conversion Components in NZ also do some ready to go kits http://www.conversioncomp.co.nz/results.php. RPi are also getting in on the act with the T5 http://www.v8wizard.com/TRANSMISSION.php. A number of the specialist V8 tuners in the UK such as Real Steel also do bits and pieces.

You're right - the autos, both V8 and 4 cyl, have a bigger transmission tunnel.

Actually, my recipe for the ideal P6 transmission would be a five or 6 speed ZF auto! And there aren't any bell housings etc around for them either!

Chris
 
chrisyork said:
Not to my knowledge.

It would have to be a very seriously tuned - and therefore cammy - V8 to justify a six speed. When we had a 10.5 : 1 3500S from new, my father and I were in the habit of pulling away from rest in 2nd and then changing straight into top. Unless we were out for a blast and needing to overtake something in a hurry, in which case third occasionally got used, that was all that was needed for even the fastest progress. The problem with multi speed gearboxes is that it takes time to dip the clutch and swap the cogs. If you have a motor with a good wide power band then you can get on at least as quick by powering across and through other peoples gear change dips. I'm afraid I take the view that a six speed box is prima facie evidence of an overtuned quad valve that comes on cam at 6,000 and runs out of puff at 8! As for BMW needing 7 speeds in their latest offerings.... Mind you it makes more sense when delivered as a flappy paddle automatic.

But to return to the question. The big problem is sorting out the bellhousing and clutch parts for the job. That's why so many people have gone the LT77/R380 or Toyota Supra route. If there's anyone who can sort this out for your suggested boxes its Dellow in New South Wales http://www.dellowconversions.com.au/index.html. Conversion Components in NZ also do some ready to go kits http://www.conversioncomp.co.nz/results.php. RPi are also getting in on the act with the T5 http://www.v8wizard.com/TRANSMISSION.php. A number of the specialist V8 tuners in the UK such as Real Steel also do bits and pieces.

You're right - the autos, both V8 and 4 cyl, have a bigger transmission tunnel.

Actually, my recipe for the ideal P6 transmission would be a five or 6 speed ZF auto! And there aren't any bell housings etc around for them either!

Chris

Well, the familial BMW 520i - which is a lovely, cammy straight six, enough torque to do (same 210ft lbs as Dad's old 3500S, and at similar revs IIRC) but loves to rev, has a five-speed, and there's no doubting that it would benefit from a six-speeder. Frankly, the more gears you have, the better your fuel economy is going to be. BMW have ditched their old ZF six-speed autos and gone for the new eight-speeder. Jaguar are likely to do the same soon. Merc are phasing out their dreadful old 5-speed slusher in favour of a 7-speed. VAG use a 7-speed twin-clutch (as opposed to torque converter) unit. Jag are even talking in the long term of 9 or 10 speed autos. Four speeds on a P6 definitely isn't enough, and five is only adequate, not ideal. It's not all about sprinting up to a certain speed, it's having an additional overdriven top gear for economy - which is why, in the new BMW 320d "EfficientDynamics", they've effectively chucked out first gear from the six-speed box and shifted each cog down a row, then put in a "seventh". The consequence is that, even with 163bhp, and about 240 ft lbs IIRC, it'll do 70MPG. The first gear is still low enough to give it quite a decent turn of speed - 0-60 in something like 8 seconds. Those figures, in a 1.5 tonne, 4-door, RWD saloon. Not bad!

Also, having passengered in various six-speed manual-equipped V8s (Holden/Vauxhall Monaro - pushrod LS engine - and a Merc E500, Jaaaag XK8 converted to manual, BMW 540i), I can tell you none of them is excessively cammy, they've all got loads of low-end grunt, but are happy to rev up to 6,500rpm, and further if rev limiters allow. Now, if you want a really cammy V8, try a Ferrari or the current BMW M3 - those flat-plane crank things rev like crazy (peak power usually about 7500-8000RPM, redline about 9000RPM), there's not a lot of torque but there's masses of high end power. The Ferraris, and some Audis, have five valves per cylinder. How that works, I'm not sure. Now, I'd say, if you want that sort of character, don't have a V8, have a smoother flat-six or straight-six, which also would sound nicer, but hey... oh, and not forgetting Formula One! 2.4 litre, quad cam, 4-valve V8s, redline at 18000rpm...

As for the ZF autos - surely the five-speed, if not the six-speed, will just bolt right up to where you've taken off the 4-speed?

Mind you, I still say that the gearbox that shifts gears itself is tantamount to witchcraft and heresy, and that its creators ought to be burned at the stake... =P
 
That's me told then. I'll get my stick and shuffle off back to the old folks home!

To be fair I've done a few miles in a 330i with 6? speed paddle shift auto and it is an absolutely glorious transmission and suits the car to a T!

Unfortunately the casing change in the ZF range is between the 4 speed and the 5 speed. 5 speed and up then use the same (or similar) cases.

Chris
 
chrisyork said:
That's me told then. I'll get my stick and shuffle off back to the old folks home!

To be fair I've done a few miles in a 330i with 6? speed paddle shift auto and it is an absolutely glorious transmission and suits the car to a T!

Unfortunately the casing change in the ZF range is between the 4 speed and the 5 speed. 5 speed and up then use the same (or similar) cases.

Chris

Sorry, no disrespect or smart-arsedness intended! You're (probably) a good deal older than me, and have (probably) forgotten more about cars than I'll ever know.
 
Had looked at the 6 speed auto from ZF and worked out all the ratio's and the V8 torque curve and car weights and it looks like a very sucessful thing to do on paper but the real problems would be in the programing of the box and interfacing with the strictly old school (god i hate that expression) p6B mechanicals.
With the advent of the new ZF 8 speeder it would be the better choice having greater box efficiency than the 6 and 5 speeders and faster smoother changes.
For myself i am not an auto fan and the only car I have ever made an exception for is the P6B simply because it's not about power or speed but more about graceful sedate and comfortable motoring pleasure however the aspect of greater fuel economy and the woeful design of running a V8 at 3000 rpm for 60 MPH is just a sin that the car designer should have had his goulies extracted via his breathing passages for.

graeme
 
Hellp Graeme,

Does your P6 run at 3000rpm at 60mph (100kph)? Mine runs around 25-2600rpm at that speed, while 3000 sees over 70mph (115kph). I have never considered that rpm to be too high for that road speed, although not having driven a P6 with a 4 speed auto with overdrive, I cannot comment as to whether or not I would then change my mind.

I expect road speed, rpm and engine torque at that speed would all be linked into achieving the best economy. Running with a 4.6 and a 3 speed transmission, no hill I have yet encountered is steep enough to initiate changing down from 3rd into second and with economy over 30mpg (9.3 litres/100km) whilst cruising at 2500 to 3000rpm I certainly cannot complain.

Ron.
 
The needles using the dash tacho and KMH track together and at 100 kph corresponds to 3000 rpm, it could be the rpm meter is out of wack but when set up at idle it agrees with a test gauge. One of my major considerations to replace the BW65 with the 4HP22 is to drop those cruising RPM to more sensible levels.

Graeme
 
Leaving aside competition cars. Everyday car engines by their nature need to be flexible, so a wide rev
range exists. 5 speed boxes with overdriven tops were introduced to gain more economy from existing
rear axle ratios. So why 30 yrs later are manufacturers still persisting with them, all that says to me is
that final drive ratios could and should be taller. After all the difference between flywheel speed and
drive shaft is the same, no matter how you get there. Besides multiple gearsets must be more expensive
than a different final drive ratio which has to be there anyway. I can only think it is a marketing ploy
which the consumer pays for. In other words 'what the market will bear'. As far as auto's are concerned
thats what the torque converter is for to provide the necessary variable ratio to get off the line and then
to lock up when up to a given cruising speed.
 
colnerov said:
Leaving aside competition cars. Everyday car engines by their nature need to be flexible, so a wide rev
range exists. 5 speed boxes with overdriven tops were introduced to gain more economy from existing
rear axle ratios. So why 30 yrs later are manufacturers still persisting with them, all that says to me is
that final drive ratios could and should be taller. After all the difference between flywheel speed and
drive shaft is the same, no matter how you get there. Besides multiple gearsets must be more expensive
than a different final drive ratio which has to be there anyway. I can only think it is a marketing ploy
which the consumer pays for. In other words 'what the market will bear'. As far as auto's are concerned
thats what the torque converter is for to provide the necessary variable ratio to get off the line and then
to lock up when up to a given cruising speed.

It's for usability. They recognise the need for acceleration as well as for economy - hence the wider range of gears is provided. Anyone who reckons a tall FDR and torque is all they need should try driving a Honda S2000 or Civic Type-R! Peak power of (in the hottest S2000) 240-ish bhp at 8750rpm... it's a fantastic engine. What I'd give for a straight-six version...
 
It may be that engines need to be flexiable for best pleasure but the P6B V8 lump is not that engine in stock form providing a great dollup of torque at 1200 RPM and being pretty much a waste at 3500 to 4000 RPM (well on my one any way). the car in my signature line also is a bit like that providing tree stump pulling power from idle and at peak torque 2500 rpm you are whizzing along at a very pleasant 140 KMH, no protest from the engine at all, a joy to cruise at. Were the Rover like that i would use it on more extended hight way trips rather than the around town hence my desire to get as many gears as possible to utilise the limited power band with out the V8 thashing around at full noise.

Graeme
 
ghce said:
It may be that engines need to be flexiable for best pleasure but the P6B V8 lump is not that engine in stock form providing a great dollup of torque at 1200 RPM and being pretty much a waste at 3500 to 4000 RPM (well on my one any way). the car in my signature line also is a bit like that providing tree stump pulling power from idle and at peak torque 2500 rpm you are whizzing along at a very pleasant 140 KMH, no protest from the engine at all, a joy to cruise at. Were the Rover like that i would use it on more extended hight way trips rather than the around town hence my desire to get as many gears as possible to utilise the limited power band with out the V8 thashing around at full noise.

Graeme

Graeme, if you want to make your P6 more usable, just rip out that useless old slushbox and put in an R380...

My point was just that we need gearing only adequately low for the purposes of acceleration, while the rest of the gearing was really high, for fuel economy. The higher the gearing, the better the economy, right?
 
ghce wrote,..
The needles using the dash tacho and KMH track together and at 100 kph corresponds to 3000 rpm, it could be the rpm meter is out of wack but when set up at idle it agrees with a test gauge. One of my major considerations to replace the BW65 with the 4HP22 is to drop those cruising RPM to more sensible levels.

Hello Graeme,

That's funny,..my needles track together also, and 3000rpm on mine shows 115kph or so. According to the workshop manual, engine speed per 1000rpm in 3rd gear is 24mph (38.5kph) which correlates to 60mph (97kph) at 2500rpm and 72mph (116kph) at 3000rpm. I do know that when ever I have passed a digital speed board along a road or freeway, the speed it displays based on the speed of my car agrees with what my instruments are showing. What profile tyres are you running?

ghce wrote...
It may be that engines need to be flexiable for best pleasure but the P6B V8 lump is not that engine in stock form providing a great dollup of torque at 1200 RPM and being pretty much a waste at 3500 to 4000 RPM (well on my one any way). the car in my signature line also is a bit like that providing tree stump pulling power from idle and at peak torque 2500 rpm you are whizzing along at a very pleasant 140 KMH, no protest from the engine at all, a joy to cruise at. Were the Rover like that i would use it on more extended hight way trips rather than the around town hence my desire to get as many gears as possible to utilise the limited power band with out the V8 thashing around at full noise.

My original 3.5 didn't really "come on song" until 2000rpm. From there it really seemed to pull quite well. The 4.6 "comes on song" right from idle and is significantly faster in terms of acceleration at all speeds. I am very mindful of damage with so much torque available, and even though my transmission was rebuilt, modified and significantly strengthened last year I tend to drive with much more care than I did 20 years ago when I was in my 20s. On one occassion when I did accelerate quite quickly from a set of lights, planting the foot once the wheels were turning, the factory anti slip mat that sits on the parcel shelf beneath the instruments flew right off, and that had never happened before. Mind you that was the only time I have accelerated with such vigour with the 4.6, and keeping up with a WRX doing likewise was no problem.

Ron.
 
205 75 14 inch which according to the manufacturer had the same rolling radius as the factory fitted with about 3mm, I may have to put a calibrated tach on and double check it because as you say 24 mph is 1000 rpm.

Graeme
 
ghce wrote,..
205 75 14 inch which according to the manufacturer had the same rolling radius as the factory fitted with about 3mm, I may have to put a calibrated tach on and double check it because as you say 24 mph is 1000 rpm.

Hello Graeme,

That looks like the cause. The original sized tyres from the 1970s was 185/HR14 which were an 80 series tyre with a rolling radius of 326mm. The 205/70 HR 14 tyres sized tyres that I have been using since 1987 have a rolling radius of 321mm, whilst the 205 / 65 14 tyres that your Rover wears has a rolling radius of only 311mm, 10mm less than mine and 15mm less than the original sizing. That is in the order of 93mm less per rotation which means that in one kilometer the 65 profile tyres will rotate 23 times more than the original sized tyres.

Ron.
 
Sorry Ron I had to make a correction to my above post the yre profile is a 75 not 65 as I origionally posted
 
Hello Graeme,

Gee,...205 / 75 tyres go the other way then...5 to 6mm bigger in rolling radius compared to the original sizing... :shock: So that sizing would mean 9 revolutions less for every kilometer travelled. That should mean "longer legs" so less revs and a slightly higher speed per 1000revs... :shock: You certainly have to check your tacho then. We're going a bit off topic here,..hope no one gets annoyed..

Ron.
 
EccentricRichard said:
It's for usability. They recognise the need for acceleration as well as for economy - hence the wider range of gears is provided. Anyone who reckons a tall FDR and torque is all they need should try driving a Honda S2000 or Civic Type-R! Peak power of (in the hottest S2000) 240-ish bhp at 8750rpm... it's a fantastic engine. What I'd give for a straight-six version...

Yes a very nice technically advanced engine but who wants to scream it about at 8750 rpm all the time. That 240
comes at a price, torque. Chrisyork said near the top of this that he and his father only used 2 gears and that is
because it is flexible, torque. A few years ago I put a RV8 into a Mk1 Cavalier and with standard rear axle it used
to run out of steam at 70mph (officer!). Then when I put a SD1 3.08 rear axle in it became much better to drive.

So an ordinary car with a wide usable rev range could run a higher FDR and a lower 1st and better spread set of ratios.
 
colnerov said:
EccentricRichard said:
It's for usability. They recognise the need for acceleration as well as for economy - hence the wider range of gears is provided. Anyone who reckons a tall FDR and torque is all they need should try driving a Honda S2000 or Civic Type-R! Peak power of (in the hottest S2000) 240-ish bhp at 8750rpm... it's a fantastic engine. What I'd give for a straight-six version...

Yes a very nice technically advanced engine but who wants to scream it about at 8750 rpm all the time. That 240
comes at a price, torque. Chrisyork said near the top of this that he and his father only used 2 gears and that is
because it is flexible, torque. A few years ago I put a RV8 into a Mk1 Cavalier and with standard rear axle it used
to run out of steam at 70mph (officer!). Then when I put a SD1 3.08 rear axle in it became much better to drive.

So an ordinary car with a wide usable rev range could run a higher FDR and a lower 1st and better spread set of ratios.

No need for a lower first, first is only any use for pulling away from rest anyway. Just about every car I've driven, you're up into second by 12mph. Unless you've got something truly gutless, you'll never find yourself having to change down into first.
 
Back
Top