|
|
08-31-2006, 10:46 AM
|
#1
|
|
17" x 4.5" rims, please.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA / NJ
Posts: 172
|
Honda CRX HF Gearing ...and/or engine swap
I only recently learned why my HF screams @ highway speeds.
Apparently there were 2 different transmissions available for
the HF (the "49 state" and the other one). My last HF had
the good tranny, which turned @ 2250RPM at 70MPH. The one I
have now is about 500RPM higher. I'd really like to swap that
5th gear for the taller one...but where can I get one of
those?
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 10:56 AM
|
#2
|
|
I am a banana
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Western Wisconsin
Posts: 1,481
|
www.car-part.com seems to have them, alot of them, cheapest/closest to me is $100 for a whole tranny.
it looks like there were 3 trannies in the HF, a "normal" one, a high altatude, and a californa only, I suspect you have the high altatude one.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 11:13 AM
|
#3
|
|
17" x 4.5" rims, please.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA / NJ
Posts: 172
|
HF Tranny
Worst part is that unless I can get some inside information
from Honda Motor Co., it's just going to be trial & error
when I just start pulling gears out of HF's....as I know of
no method to deciphering which will have the tallest 5th
gear. I'll likely wind up with the same as what I already
have.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 11:35 AM
|
#4
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
Yay, time for me to be of use! But first of all, introduce yourself in our intro forum,  |
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 11:43 AM
|
#6
|
|
17" x 4.5" rims, please.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA / NJ
Posts: 172
|
Great! Your from my (weekend) homeland...sort of. I drive from VA Beach to Monmouth Cty, NJ every weekend. Anyway, I don't know a whole lot about transmissions...and never cracked one open. What's the deal with the final drive? I sure wish I had my old '91 HF...now THAT was the tranny/gearing to have. Instead I've got this crappy gearing that makes me work like hell just to obtain 47MPG. I used to get 50-55 MPG in that old '91. Okay, what's my solution?? I'd love to go 6-speed...but somehow I don't see that as feasible. **Are you a Honda head? If so I've got more questions for you (FE questions).
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 11:48 AM
|
#7
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
6 speed isn't feasible unless you feel like fabbing up some awd b stuff, or awd d stuff, or going k series, 
Anyway, the solution that's easiest would just be to buy another HF transmission, but get one that's 49 state this time.
Fire away with your honda questions! |
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 12:07 PM
|
#8
|
|
17" x 4.5" rims, please.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA / NJ
Posts: 172
|
Nice! Here goes: As much as I've been wanting to get this better (taller gear/final drive) tranny back again, I would still have to install it in this 63HP CRX HF of mine. I can't help but wonder though, what if I get my hands on the Civic VX ('92-95) D15Z1 motor...which makes 30+ HP than my HF does.....and couple that with the fact that I'd be dropping it into my HF body, which is ~200LBS lighter than the VX (not sure about motor weight difference). If I then couple that with the gearing from my HF tranny...and larger diameter (but lightweight, of course) wheel/tire combination....wouldn't I be in a major sweetspot? I would figure 92 HP would help me make decent highway power (on inclines & whatnot) where the little HF motor struggles. Wouldn't this combination be the perfect platform to work with for super high EF?
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 12:08 PM
|
#9
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
Yes, you've indeed figured that out well. It is the perfect plaform, and I really wish I had one but no luck finding one in good shape around my neck of the woods. I think there's an importer around you though, iono.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 12:14 PM
|
#10
|
|
17" x 4.5" rims, please.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA / NJ
Posts: 172
|
Ah. I rarely see these damn VX's. Saw one last night at the supermarket, but was too late to leave a note on the window. If I do track one down I'm going to be all over it. So should I assume the HF tranny bolts directly upto the VX motor? (just wasn't sure about that). Sorry to chew your ear off, but I only just found this site after 6 years of being an HF owner.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 12:18 PM
|
#11
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
Oh, it bolts right up. And don't worry, I'm here to help!
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 12:30 PM
|
#12
|
|
17" x 4.5" rims, please.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA / NJ
Posts: 172
|
Nice writeup on the ride-height lowering - using the lowering springs. However, didn't I recently read somewhere that if you use the stock shock/strut tubes for lowering the car --that they don't last very long at all?
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 12:35 PM
|
#13
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
It's true depending on how much you lower, I'm running tokico illuminas now though, |
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:03 PM
|
#14
|
|
17" x 4.5" rims, please.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA / NJ
Posts: 172
|
I see. So anyway, what size tires/wheels are those VX's? According to this website: http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html if I change my current setup of 175/70/13's to 185/75/14's, my speedo will be underexagerrated by 6MPH, therefore increasing (to my knowledge) my effective MPG. Of course I'll have a slightly larger contact patch with the 185's. But probably not enough to make a difference. As long as I can find a lightweight setup I'll go for it. As it stands right now I only run with +2 PSI above MFG recommendations. Let me know how your car rides with stiffer suspension COMBINED WITH high-inflated tires. Thx. |
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:06 PM
|
#15
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
Car runs perfectly, nice and tight. Anyway, I think the VXs are 175/70/13, but not exactly sure. The HXs are the 14s, both are good, with the HXs you can run the insight LRRs though, so yay.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:10 PM
|
#16
|
|
Flying Under the Radar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Raliegh, NC
Posts: 1,694
|
And with the insight tires at 165/65/14, you have the same diameter as the 175/70/13's. No underexaggeration!.
__________________
Last edited by krousdb : 08-31-2006 at 01:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:12 PM
|
#17
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
 dan. |
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:14 PM
|
#18
|
|
Flying Under the Radar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Raliegh, NC
Posts: 1,694
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SVOboy
dan. |
You are gonna sprain you thumb Ben. 
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:22 PM
|
#19
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
It's not my fault, you're just TOO COOL!
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:28 PM
|
#20
|
|
17" x 4.5" rims, please.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA / NJ
Posts: 172
|
sorry, I meant to express my definite WANT for the underexagerration. As long as I can run a larger diameter setup I'll be running a higher MPH at a lower RPM (even though my speedo won't show it). I DO want this. Call it a cheap way to change my effective gearing since I've got the larger circumferance, taking longer to complete a single revolution in a given gear. I want this. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:29 PM
|
#21
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
Oh, surely, you're not, but the HF is already very long on gearing and reducing the inertia and rolling resistance of the tires, I think, is worth it. |
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:39 PM
|
#22
|
|
17" x 4.5" rims, please.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA / NJ
Posts: 172
|
I've thought about that. Which is why I would only do this if I could find a larger wheel/tire setup without a marked difference in weight. I would assume backspacing could also play a (minimal) role here as well, even if the tire/wheel weights were to differ. Anyway, isn't this only REALLY a valid argument when referring to stoping & going (overcoming that inertia)? Once you've achieved your driving speed I would think that amount of rotating mass would tend to work more for you, rather than against. (Such is the case for flywheels....any why NOT to get a flywheel that's too light, right?) Calling all engineers/Physics geeks?????? "help"
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 03:18 PM
|
#23
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
Yeah, intertia and such doesn't matter so much when rolling already except mehbe in friction, but dan did gain ~3 mpg going from his 15s to his HX with LRRs.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 05:51 PM
|
#24
|
|
Flying Under the Radar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Raliegh, NC
Posts: 1,694
|
Yes, MPG on the highway but also I went from 185 to 165 wide in addition to the LRR. Who knows if less weight had to do with it. I suspect not.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 06:01 PM
|
#25
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
Oh, I'm not saying about weight, just that large rims aren't always better.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 08:02 PM
|
#26
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 153
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brian D.
Great! Your from my (weekend) homeland...sort of. I drive from VA Beach to Monmouth Cty, NJ every weekend. Anyway, I don't know a whole lot about transmissions...and never cracked one open. What's the deal with the final drive? I sure wish I had my old '91 HF...now THAT was the tranny/gearing to have. Instead I've got this crappy gearing that makes me work like hell just to obtain 47MPG. I used to get 50-55 MPG in that old '91. Okay, what's my solution?? I'd love to go 6-speed...but somehow I don't see that as feasible. **Are you a Honda head? If so I've got more questions for you (FE questions).
|
maybe the california engine sucks also? i'm getting almost 50mpg out of my hf with si tranny, though i do drive slower, and accelerate slower than i did with my hf tranny.
what exactly is the difference other than poorer mileage with the california models, and why did california need a poorer performing car? |
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 08:04 PM
|
#27
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
If anything it's not the engine, it's the ECU.
But anyway, they have stricter emissions, that's about all there is to it.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 08:09 PM
|
#28
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 153
|
yes but wouldn't better gas mileage = lower emissions? according to the government site the california car emmits 4.1tons vs 3.7 for the regular. or was california going after a certian pollutant?
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 08:16 PM
|
#29
|
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,406
|
I'm sure there's something about the lower RPM. They also don't allow lean burn on the VX. Same with canada.
|
|
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 11:01 PM
|
#30
|
|
I should be WORKING now
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 4,791
|
CDN VX's lean burn.
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
