Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok...

I wonder what the sixth gear ratio from the 350Z is in comparison to the fifth gear from the GTT...

If it is no taller then it kinda compromises my goal of a 'cruise' gear... I mean even a gain of a coouple of hundred rpm would suffice...

Where can I find some stats on the gear ratios from both the 350Z and the GTT??

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But the 6spd is going to be a close ratio box so you can run a lower final drive (ie 3.69) in the diff and still have good acceleration, yet 6th gear will be at much lower RPM on the highway even if 6th is near/same ratio as 5th in a 5spd. 9as opposed to 5spd with 4.11)

But the 6spd is going to be a close ratio box so you can run a lower final drive (ie 3.69) in the diff and still have good acceleration, yet 6th gear will be at much lower RPM on the highway even if 6th is near/same ratio as 5th in a 5spd. 9as opposed to 5spd with 4.11)

Is the Zed's final drive 3.69 is it???

So what RPM difference would I acquire with 6th gear and the Zed box compared to 5th in my GTT box?

Edited by Marco-R34GTT
HHmmmmmm, what sort of a difference would that yield??? 150/200rpm???

Wrong way matey. Zed box will make it rev higher at 110.

Looking at it, even dropping in 3.9:1 diff gears will be the only way to do it nicely (hopefully the speedo can be corrected with the speedo sender cog or something else) but even then its only about ~150rpm difference.. If you were looking for an increase in fuel economy i'd be looking somewhere else.

As an aside, I don't really mind the 4.375:1's in my car at highway speeds.

aussie zed specs.. http://www.nissan.com.au/z/specifications.asp

Edited by heller44

Changing the Diff ratio would be the easiest. Prior to owning my R34 GT I had 2 commodores a black manual & a white auto (4 speed), both had the same diff ratio (3.08:1), the black manual at 110 kph sat on 2500 rpm where as the white auto at 110 kph sat at 2000 rpm, I did some research and found that the auto top gear was 0.70:1 & the manual 5th gear is 0.81:1. Now the Skyline 5th gear is in between the commodore at 0.759:1 with a 4.111 diff ratio.

So looking at it if you can get 3.08 diff ratio it should give you say 110kph @ 2250rpm or there abouts

Hope this can help,

Phillip :D

Yeah, thats got me thinking...

Obviously with the Zed's six speed box, and the GTT final drive, of course the revs would be higher..

However, if I manage to use the Zed's box with the equivalent ratio diff....

What I'd like to find out, if anyone here drives a 350Z, is what RPM they do at 120kph... Then I'd know whether the drivetrain would be suitable or not..

convert it to a girlie box *auto*. it'll give you a nice overdrive and you could have it shift kitted so that when you wana give it some stick it'll do the job.

or wait auto's are heavier on the juice :S

I mean no malice when I say this...

But I'd rather torch my car than convert it to auto, I had an Auto N/A VL crumbledore and I will never drive another auto again....

just to help guys. the 32/33 5th gear is .83.

whereas the 34gtr 6th is .79

but the 32/33 rear diff is 4.11.1

the 34gtr rear diff is 3.45.1

hence the lower revs on the 34.

i am led to believe the reason nissan used the getrag box was to decrease the gaps between gears, hence quicker acceration as you are in the boost range more.. bernie

350z doesn't really rev that low at 100, I'll check next time Kel lets me drive it, but it feels like 6th in the z = 5th in the stagea, so its no better. I think the z box is shorter in 1-4, i never use 5th and 6th like i said the same as 5th in other cars.

anway....diff is the simplest way to lower the overall revs.

Yeah I realise that, I'm just hoping not to entirely kill the acceleration either... Shorter ratios allow for sharper acceleration whilst the taller final drive will allow me some scope to 'cruise' in top gear...

If that makes sense, sry, I'm posting after a very big aussie daayy..

Ok Folks, I asked Yo-Yo, who owns both an R34 GTT and a 350Z to take both for a spin and see what RPM's both cars achieved @ 110kph.

Here are the results for anyone who is interested...

Hi mate,

Got around to seeing the rpms for ya:

GT- T: 2,900RPM @ 110km/h (5th gear)

350 Z: 3,000RPM @ 110km/h (5th gear)

2,400RPM @ 110km/h (6th gear)

Good luck with the eventual conversion

hope that helps;

PJ

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
×
×
  • Create New...