The only conclusion I can come to based on your posts is that you haven't been reading mine.

GEAR RATIOS SHOULD BE EVENLY SPACED.

Do you disagree with that?

 

That's not necessarily true. Gear ratio's should be matched to the car with weight, powerband and it's intended purpose in mind.

If gear ratio's should be evenly spaced, you would see the same % drop in rpm's in every gear. I dont know of any car, not even the Z06 or viper, matching that criteria. Or if you meant it the other way, If they were evenly spaced, you would see the same MPH difference between each gear. Again, not even those two cars meet that criteria.

And, gain, 6 gears is not needed on any car. It does not offer more performance over a 5 speed and certainly a base v6 camaro does not need a 6 speed when trying to come in at low, entry level selling point.

 

Wow. I guess 3rd 4th and 5th are worthless because you can go around 70mph in 2nd gear.......

 

That was a stupid statement

3rd, and 4th obviously have uses. 5th, not so much. There is only a TINY realistic window when you can use that extra middle overdrive, usually if your cruising 35-40mph. anything higher and you might as well use 6th. Anything lower and 4th will be much better suited.

around here, your usually at or under 30 in the neighborhoods, and at or above 45 in the streets and 70-75+ on the freeway.

Where is 5th needed?

 

And therein is the flaw in your logic. There isn't a "TINY" realistic window where you actually use 5th gear. Many,many of the main roads have 45mph cruising speeds, and many run back and forth between 35mph zones. I know this is a unique situation to where I live, either. Going from direct drive to a .5:1 overdriven gear ratio is just too much. It prevents cruising at very realistic speeds.

Ever drive on I-95 outside of Philly? 35mph is not too unrealistic of a scenario on that rode, regardless of posted speed limit.

 

Yes, for quite a few years. Route 1 too.

Neither is 145+ mph..... in the very early daylight hours of Saturdays and Sundays.... when the car was younger and I was dumber....

Oh and using 5th gear of course.

 

You have some big ones. Even in the wee morning hours, speed on I-95 like that is asking for trouble.

Of course, 3 in the morning on the 30 bypass is another story entirely. Not that I am condoning any of this.

 

OK that was a stupid statement, but putting your car in 6th gear at 41mph must be really smart right? I'm interested, how do you shift when you are speeding up from 35 to 75?

I bet you would probably love skip-shift too... no need in using all those gears.

 

It doesn't have to be perfect. Just similar. In my Z28, the RPM dropoff when I shift is approximately the same for every shift.

First gear at redline (6200 rpm), I'm going 52 mph.
When I shift into second at that speed, that puts me at 4150 rpm.

If I continue accelerating, second redlines at 78 mph.
Shifting to 3rd puts me at 4500 rpm.

Third redlines at 106 mph.
Shifting to 4th puts me at 4750 rpm.

Fourth redlines at 138 mph.
Shifting to 5th puts me at 4600 rpm.

Fifth redlines at 187 mph (not that my car can actually reach that speed).
Shifting to 6th would put me at 4200 rpm.

Note that the RPM falloff is 1750rpm (28%), plus or minus 300 (4.8%), every time. That's pretty even IMO, and this is what I'm saying should be the case for any transmission.

The percentage MPH gained in each gear is similar too.

I have said over and over again that the number of gears is irrelevant. What is relevant is the minimum, the maximum, and the spacing. Those three criteria can dictate an appropriate number of gears. If the minimum and maximum are far enough apart, there may need to be six gears to cover that range with appropriate spacing.

 

True - ratios should be matched to the purpose. You'll have lower first gear ratios in something that is intended to haul loads versus something that is intended to haul ***. But...

Evenly spaced gear ratios make for a better driving experience. The 6spd transmission in my 350Z is a pleasure because the gear spacing allows for some truly rhythmic driving. Spacing gears far apart in the lower gears and getting them closer together at higher rpms may be good for performance but it would be impractical for everyday driving and mileage. It would be such a bitch to shift after 2500rpms down low but shift after 1000rpms up high. The Camaro, as performance oriented as it is, is still a car intended for public roads, not the race track.


Sure, a car with 6 gears can make do with 5, or 4, or even 3. But generally, you are most efficient driving at the highest gear that allows you to maintain a given speed. So if you're in 5th at 45 mph, you will get better gas mileage than if you were in 4th or 3rd or 2nd at 45mph in that same transmission. So while 6 gears may not be needed in the sense that the car will still run at intended speeds, its better to have more ratios to work with. It gives you the option for more efficiency at more varying roadspeeds. In addition, evenly spaced ratios give you efficient options at all normal speeds.

And don't forget one of the biggest sell points...6 speeds have become the standard in the performance market for manual transmissions, and 5 speeds for automatics. Do you remember when the C5 Vette had the option between 6MT and 4AT and the general reaction was 'it only has 4 gears??'

So if 3 on the tree works for you, great. Now go try and sell that and compete with whats out there. GM has to keep up with the times of the market and like it or not a 6-speed is what is generally considered standard in a performance vehicle.

 

It's inconceivable that GM would offer a turbo Ecotec in a Camaro if it didn't have a CAFE advantage over the V6. If it does, I'd be all for it. If weight doesn't make such a combo a non-starter, it would be great for the Camaro image wise, regardless of what some of you marketing geniuses say.

Lutz and Stefanyshyn have been talking publicly about the possibility of turbo Ecotec/Zeta combo for over a year, and of course gas prices and CAFE legislation is no secret. So why are some of you so freaking shocked?

 

Have you guys even taken into consideration final drive ratio? "rear end"

You can have two different final drive ratios with the same 4,5, or 6 speed ratios in a transmission and end up being 20+ mph in difference.

Simulations I've run have shown this.

It's like why does a small car with 4 cylinders that can rev to 10,000rpm have a lower redline velocity when a similarly eqiupped vehicle with redline of 6000 have a higher velocity?

Those 10K redlines have a 4.0+:1 final drive, that's why.

 

I estimate a Turbo Ecotec is about 5mpg more efficient than the non-DI 3.6L V6.

The LNF gets about the same mileage as a 2.4L. The 2.4L with 6 speed gets 22/32 in the Malibu vs. 17/26 with the 3.6L V6.

260HP Turbo 2.0L is the engine base engine that needs to go into the Camaro and G8. V6 power, more mileage.

 

So, once again Chevy is bringing a knife to the gun fight. When the Camaro finally gets here, the base model will be some anemic 4-banger, that get decent mileage to help build the CAFE numbers up. A secretary's car. If you want the real performance version, you will pay a 'premium' over the Mustang, but, hey, it's worth it because it has a nicer interior....

Of course, being GM, the large motor will only be offered with the upgraded suspension package, $1750, and the larger power-assist brakes, $1200, and the rally sport trim group, $900 for tape and spoiler, oh, and the performance interior with gauge package, $1500, and the 'wheels and tires sports package, another bargain at $700- so let's see, the base v-8 option is 'only' $32 k, but the required option groups ought to drive it up to about $38,000- Yup, GM will sell several of those, maybe even a couple hundred. The rest of the market will be driving the Mustang GT's and Dodge Chargers that are getting dumped as the price of fuel continues to spike.

I thought the Camaro was supposed to offer cheap performance, but only in my dreams, I guess. I have just about given up on the General after they have repeatedly killed off cars I drove, and wanted, and won't or can't build anything that appeals to me any more. Sorry, I love the LSX engines but they don't build family cars any more, and I already have a work truck. My next car will be RWD, V8, have a trunk and capacity for 3 or 4 adults, and most likely say Ford or Mercury on it, because freaking GM will not build a car that the market wants-

In a couple years of dismal sales, GM will, once again, discontinue the Camaro because "the market doesn't exist for a(n expensive) sporty car"

 

This "anemic" 4-banger makes almost as much power as an LT1, with a wider, flatter torque curve.

That was neat, how you made up all of that completely baseless stuff.



Wait until the car goes on sale. Wait until you've seen the available option packages. Wait until you've attempted to configure the Camaro you want and have seen if you like the price.

Then, if you're still not happy, feel free to complain.

Until then, shut the heck up about it.