4.4cwp(mi16 Fd) In 1.9 Box

[stefan 4]

Does anyone have any? In any form, by quarter mile, 30-90, or any other.

I,m thinking of doing it, have the two boxes in my garage, but not sure if it's worth it.

I'd appreciate if someone who had done it would share the info.

[welshpug 1,651]

its definitely worth it if you don't need top end speed, its a decent gearset off the shelf with a good final drive, you wont get much shorter and closer without spending a lot more.

[stefan 4]

Yes, but what does the stop-watch actualy say?

[Baz 421]

It says; did you search before posting this??

[stefan 4]

It says; did you search before posting this??

 

Yes I did, and with no result - hence the post.

 

If you know of a post with the answer to the question you could have posted a link to it or something; that would have been helpfull, not the all mighty and so common "did you search?".

Can't understand why would someone go out of their way to wright that and annoy someone who spent hours searching before posting?!

Edited September 15, 2010 by stefan

[James_m 0]

As far as I'm aware I think this combination ends up as mi 1st and 2nd and short 3,4,5. Sounds like you can't go wrong to me and is something I'm hoping to try soon

[stefan 4]

There is a certain number of posts covering this subject, with details of gear ratios, final drive ratios between 1.6 , 1.9 gti, Mi16, and so on, and much more, but again, what I'm interested in is if someone took a stop-watch and actually measured the diference (gain or loss) of time in any given condition ( again: quarter mile times, o-90, 30-60, 30-90 ...., a lap around a track, anything ) between a 1.9 or 1.6 and the 'hybrid' 1.9 with the Mi16fd.

[Baz 421]

Yes I did, and with no result - hence the post.

 

If you know of a post with the answer to the question you could have posted a link to it or something; that would have been helpfull, not the all mighty and so common "did you search?".

Can't understand why would someone go out of their way to wright that and annoy someone who spent hours searching before posting?!

 

Because i've been here a lot longer than you and pretty sure i've seen it before, so i'm pretty sure i could find it, or at least the theoretical calculations to it, being that it's a damn right stupid question anyway as there's a billion factors to the answer!

 

So myself being sure of that, why should anyone else do it for you! It wasn't meant nastily, but you did come across as if to say 'someone just tell me what i want to know because i can't be arsed to look to work it out for myself or even listen to any other information offered' from your first reply!

 

 

 

It's a simple CW&P swap that gives you a shorter FD ratio, the gears themselves do not change as implied above.

 

TBH i'm not sure you'd get a better 0-60 time, as similarly a 1.9 gearbox is quicker to 60 than a 1.6 as it requires one less cog change. I haven't driven mine in a while so really can't remember, but it's short, very short and makes even a standar Mi feel blisteringly quick as you can keep it up the revs in the power band in every gear.

 

It also really depends what you're putting it on, as you need to be able to reach higher rpm to be able to benefit from it.

 

But again put simply, asking what the certain times are is like asking how long a piece of string is.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Baz

[stefan 4]

Because i've been here a lot longer than you and pretty sure i've seen it before, so i'm pretty sure i could find it, or at least the theoretical calculations to it, being that it's a damn right stupid question anyway as there's a billion factors to the answer!

 

So myself being sure of that, why should anyone else do it for you! It wasn't meant nastily, but you did come across as if to say 'someone just tell me what i want to know because i can't be arsed to look to work it out for myself or even listen to any other information offered' from your first reply!

 

 

 

It's a simple CW&P swap that gives you a shorter FD ratio, the gears themselves do not change as implied above.

 

TBH i'm not sure you'd get a better 0-60 time, as similarly a 1.9 gearbox is quicker to 60 than a 1.6 as it requires one less cog change. I haven't driven mine in a while so really can't remember, but it's short, very short and makes even a standar Mi feel blisteringly quick as you can keep it up the revs in the power band in every gear.

 

It also really depends what you're putting it on, as you need to be able to reach higher rpm to be able to benefit from it.

 

But again put simply, asking what the certain times are is like asking how long a piece of string is.

 

Again, and again, the question wasn't : 'Is it a simple swap,what is it, what does it give you...

I am well aware what it is, and was asking what is writen in the title, post and replies above (will not repeat myself for the fourth time).

As for the nature of the question I belive it to be a legitimate one. There are posts around here about people opening beer bottles with their a..holes, so no comment is necessary.

As for the lenght of the string, you need not worry, I'll deduct my own conclusion from the lenghts of different strings.

Edited September 16, 2010 by stefan

[Craigb 2]

Start Speed 0 mph

0 0 g ft hp

10 1.18 0.46 7 32

20 2.15 0.44 28 64

30 3.13 0.47 64 104

40 4.61 0.44 141 134

50 5.85 0.34 223 136

60 7.35 0.28 345 145

 

0

0.92 6 ft 0.54 g 38 hp

1.8 25 ft 0.44 g 64 hp

2.77 61 ft 0.47 g 103 hp

4.25 138 ft 0.41 g 123 hp

5.54 223 ft 0.32 g 131 hp

7.06 346 ft 0.28 g 144 hp

 

 

The 4.4 data is the 7.06 to 60 , the 7.35 is the std FD

Edited September 16, 2010 by Craigb

[Vili 18]

Does anyone have any? In any form, by quarter mile, 30-90, or any other.

I,m thinking of doing it, have the two boxes in my garage, but not sure if it's worth it.

I'd appreciate if someone who had done it would share the info.

 

 

We had a topic in our local forum about this. Best 0-62 time in that rather short topic was with mi16 gearbox 5,8 seconds. Engine was mi16 with slight modifications and aftermarket ecu, around 170hp. Other measured results were 7+ seconds for engine 148hp mi16 with 1.9 GTI standard gearbox and 6,8 seconds for 160hp mi16 with 309 1.6 GR gearbox.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Vili

[JRL 14 1 Cars]

Wow sub 6 seconds to 60 with an mi16 box! I have the mi16 be3 (not sure if be3 ratios differ much to the be1) box on my 205mi16 and although tempted to try shorter ratios I think overall the mi16 box is one to stick with. 1st feels short and gets the car shifting and my favourite gear is third it feels like it will just keep on pulling . no facts or figures here just how I feel on a great engine and gearbox.

James

[tri_longer 25]

If it helps you could download the following

 

http://www.gearboxman.co.uk/inforatios.html

 

that way you can try various combinations of box and final drive.

[TT205 42]

I think when one or two looked at this it was using a gmeter

 

if you type this into http://www.google.co.uk/advanced_search?q=...p;hl=en&lr=

 

various threads come up

 

eg http://forum.205gtidrivers.com/index.php?s...mp;#entry643388

[Vili 18]

I made some calculations with excel.

The car I used for calculations was 205 GTI with chipped S16 engine. It was the only power graph that I had on spreadsheet.

 

Calculations showed the problem of 1.9 box with 4.4 cwp when aiming for low 0-100 (km/h) The extra shift 2->3 costs time.

 

205 S16, gearbox: 1.9 GTi standard 0-100km/h 6.9s

205 S16, gearbox: 1.9+4.4 0-100km/h 6.8s

 

But if the engine can take it and you rev it past 7500rpm the 0-62 time with 4.4 final drive drops down to 6.2s

 

for 0-160 km/h the results (with standard revlimter) are

 

205 S16, gearbox: 1.9 standard 0-160km/h 18.1s

205 S16, gearbox: 1.9+4.4 0-160km/h 15.8s

Edited September 23, 2010 by Vili

[matthewm 1]

I have a speadsheet file, cant remember where I got it from but its the daddy of all pug ratio files, got all the CWP and gear ratios listed, you can mix and match them to get what you need and it does all the calculations for you.

Anyone who wants it - send me you e-mail address and I can forward it on to you.

[camgti 56]

Im pretty sure there is a guide to all this on the 205gti.com website under gearboxes. It also has a calculator for the gear ratio, final drive ratio. revs (speed), wheel and tyre size to find out speeds.

Cam

[stefan 4]

That's all nice, but the question was about acceleration results ( time over distance ) between 2 gearboxes on a same car over the same distance.

Simplified: if someone took a car with a, oh I don't know, a 1.6 or 1.9 standard box, ran it for a quarter mile, or any other distance, measured the time, then chandged the box for the 1.9 gears & Mi16 fd, then tried he same.

There is a bundle of gear and fd calculators out there, that wasn't the question.

Anyway, thanks for the effort.

[GLPoomobile 958]

TBH, the question you are asking can only be answered in the way you want by someone who has actually done just that - measured acceleration on a specific 205 in the same state of tune, but with different gearbox ratio and fd configurations.

 

It's one of those things that, unless someone out there specifically had the same interest in it that you do, they probably won't have gone to the effort to do all that and document it. So you could be waiting a very looooooong time to get the answer you are looking for. Or, you may get lucky, and someone may pop up very soon who has done just that, and can give you an answer.

[stefan 4]

Yes, that's it, you are wright.

Eventually I'll probably go and do it myself, but not for a while, because of lack of spare time, and a few parts.

That's just the way I do things, there is a long strech of road nearby, and whenever I do something on a car, I go out and test it there, to evaluate the progress. Also measure up different cars , and cars in different stages of tune. Maybe a bit padantic, but I like to know what's what in a methodic and repeatable way.

[DrSarty 90 1 Cars]

I (and perhaps others) don't probably think you are being 'pedantic', just a little unrealistic in this case.

 

You recently asked about 'best inlet set-up' and now this, and neither of them have any particular reference/application as has been explained. That is precisely what 'how long is a piece of string' means, just in case you didn't get that English language expression.

 

If you'd said you wanted to shave 0.2secs of your drag strip/qtr mile time, we would know what we're working with.

 

This is really just too vague - however simple the question or 'answer' - as it's a lot of work to gain 0.1 sec or perhaps more, for a reason we don't know and which will only bite you in the arse later, where you lose top speed, or get sick of a high revving engine.

 

So what is the point of this? Do you just want to know? If so, just use the calculators and links provided to give you an idea.

 

The real world tests, even if just for your own curiosity, not only require an awful lot of effort, but don't seem to offer a useful set of results and/as there are just too many variables, which has also been pointed out to you.

Edited September 27, 2010 by DrSarty

[stefan 4]

I (and perhaps others) don't probably think you are being 'pedantic', just a little unrealistic in this case.

 

You recently asked about 'best inlet set-up' and now this, and neither of them have any particular reference/application as has been explained. That is precisely what 'how long is a piece of string' means, just in case you didn't get that English language expression.

 

If you'd said you wanted to shave 0.2secs of your drag strip/qtr mile time, we would know what we're working with.

 

This is really just too vague - however simple the question or 'answer' - as it's a lot of work to gain 0.1 sec or perhaps more, for a reason we don't know and which will only bite you in the arse later, where you lose top speed, or get sick of a high revving engine.

 

So what is the point of this? Do you just want to know? If so, just use the calculators and links provided to give you an idea.

 

The real world tests, even if just for your own curiosity, not only require an awful lot of effort, but don't seem to offer a useful set of results and/as there are just too many variables, which has also been pointed out to you.

 

Reply PM'd

[tomcolinjones 26]

Well.... someone doesnt like to be told he's asked a stupid question!

[stefan 4]

Yes, and ignorant replyies from individuals who reek of ignorance and don't know what their talking about in the first place while trying to inforce their 'wisdom' on others.

[Baz 421]

TBH that reply in my opinion 'reeks' of hypocracy.

 

If you don't like it...

 

 

Edited November 6, 2010 by Baz