Anyone have a mk2 NA with a AWY tranny?

[VelocityConservation]

I am not sure that I would be advocating that tall of gearing (3.67rp w/.71 5th) for a NA that had to live at altitude or in the mountains.  But here in NC where it is relatively flat it would not be too bad even with a NA motor.

Now with a 1.6TD even stock.  I think that is the best solution available in the 020.

I currently have only added a Passenger Performance downpipe to my TD and it has plenty of power to pull the taller rp.

VelocityConservation

PP business plug here  http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l193/PhlatOut_2006/downpipe.jpg

[zukgod1]

I am not sure that I would be advocating that tall of gearing (3.67rp w/.71 5th) for a NA that had to live at altitude or in the mountains.  But here in NC where it is relatively flat it would not be too bad even with a NA motor.

Now with a 1.6TD even stock.  I think that is the best solution available in the 020.

I currently have only added a Passenger Performance downpipe to my TD and it has plenty of power to pull the taller rp.

VelocityConservation

PP business plug here  http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l193/PhlatOut_2006/downpipe.jpg

I dont think I said anything about a NA... let me look hold on....

Nope nothing there about a NA engine.

Even if you had a NA and the ratio's I mentioned you can always down shift, that's one nice thing about a handshaker

In my TD engine I'll look for the tallest gearing I can muster up, I live @ 4500 ft and lots of mountains, not hills, big as$ mountains.

Piece  

[zukgod1]

Now with a 1.6TD even stock.  I think that is the best solution available in the 020.

I dont have the info here, what are the ratios of the 020?
Isnt the 020 just a basic general clasification? There are several differant codes for the 020 no?

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
and the R&P

[zukgod1]

Here is another site with trans codes.

There seems to be some discrepancy between the 2 so I guess it's just a guideline at best.


http://www.vwtransaxles.com/code.html

[subsonic]

I have been doing a lot of looking about transmissions lately.  My ACH that comes with my 85 golf NA is a 3.94 with a .754 5th.  I have small tires and rims so I am turning 4371 at 75mph.  
I wanted to see the difference  a .71 and a 3.67 would make.  All at 75 mph with:
  175/70 r13
3.94 w/.754 = 4371
3.94 w/ .71 = 4116
RPM drop   = 255

3.67 w/.754 = 4071
3.67 w/.71 = 3833

I then looked at different tires and rims:
195-55-14
3.94 w/.754 = 4130
3.94 w/.71  = 3889

3.67 w/.75 = 3847
3.67 w/.71 = 3622

Total rpm diff with tire / RP/ and .71 change
749

Thats a pretty good drop.  I did not figure in any 15" rims.  I thought they would slow the car down too much.
I need a new 5th anyway, and should have the tranny gone through before I get it going again( bolt kit etc).
The other option I was looking at was a 020 2Y.  I saw a link  on the vortex where the .71 5th could be modded to fit correctly.  It looks like this trans may be a bit stronger, close ratio up through 4th(if the new 5th is swapped in), comes with the 3.67, and can use a true 16v clutch disc.
It would still turn 3622 at 75mph. a bit high, but I may need the higher rpms if I go to a large turbo.

[Quantum TD]

Umm, I think your numbers are a bit off, actually, quite a bit off. If you use the calculator in the excell spreadsheet in the Scirocco.com gears page (on the bottom of the page). If you plug in your numbers for tire circumfirence for your 175/70 R13 tires (71.1) and set the RPMs to 3250, you'll see that you're only at 3250 RPM at 75 MPH with your stock trans. Frankly, I'd leave it alone, or just swap in the .71 5th gear. If you do that, then you'll be going 78 MPH at 3250 RPMs. With a 3.67 R&P, you'll be giong 80 MPH at the same RPMs. That's not a huge difference between any of them. If you run 15 inch rims and tires (73.7 circumference) with a 3.94 R&P and a .71 5th, then you'll be doing 81 MPH at 3250 RPMS and be right in the middle of the powerband.

While you may drop your RPMs more with a 3.67 R&P, you'll spend most of your day in 4th gear, unless you drive on the Autobahn. You'll be able to go 85 MPH at 3200 RPMs, but you'll have no grunt to accelerate around town. I've tried the 3.67 and it kinda sucked. If top speed and/or lowest possible RPMs are your interest, then go for it. But if you want something you can drive everyday without constantly downshifting to accelerate, then keep your 3.94 and swap in a .71 5th gear. I'd really recommend that route if you're gonna put bigger rims and tires on your car.

[subsonic]

Yep, looks like you are right, my numbers are off.  Looks like I should not do data input after self medicating with cocktails

I will re-input my numbers later today.

Even if I go with the 3.67,  I might just have some additional HP to deal with it :twisted:

[zukgod1]

I love my 3.67..

I still would like a .71 5th.  i think I would have to get a smaller turbo though. A 10mm pump is a tad to big for a K24 @ 4500 feet.

At higher RPM's its fine but I would like to run about 72 mph and at that speed I'm only turning 3000 rpm now. The RPM is fine but the larger K24 isn't moving much air at 3000 rpm cruising speed.

[zukgod1]

What's the power band we should be running these in for economy?

Anyone?

[subsonic]

Not sure.  Once I get my 1.9 head that Dave has ported, I'm sure the numbers will change.  I also have a Giles 9mm super pump for it.
I am going to get a .71 gear set for it.  You can still get them new.

[burnt_servo]

What's the power band we should be running these in for economy?

Anyone?

if i drive mine  just back and forth to work , no faster than 75km per hour , i'm doing around 70 miles per gallon ( imperial gallon , 4.5 liters ) .... my comute is in the middle of the night , which means no stops and starts once i hit the highway ,  just a straight shot into work... and same thing when i go home  .

that is just a hair under 2000 rpm in 5th  on my car .  roughly 1100 to 1200 km per tank of fuel .

that is also with tall and skinny stock  type tires .

with the fancy rims and wider tires , it's around 950 - 1000 km per tank of fuel .

as soon as i break 3000 rpm i notice it uses alot more fuel .

i've also noticed  that by going from 20- 50 or 15 -40  to 0-40 oil , i use much less fuel  over 3000 rpm .

i went down to vancouver last week , and averaged 43 miles per gallon , but 90% of the time i had the engine wound out to 3500 to 4000 rpm the whole time .