New: Race Spec Shep tranny

Looks like you know that the stock stuff can't take it.

 

Fresh, buy a TC, they are really nice and plus you can get them for fairly cheap and you get a warranty. Nothing beats that. Go test drive one, I must say toyota's hand in the design helped. Im sure these will be long lasting cars and im sure it put a hurting on Honda sales.

 

Im not gonna start an arguement with you as well, but... that is a pretty ignorant statement. That's almost as bad as askign why people upgrade clutches...

 

Thanks for that useful insight. Bye.

I went from a 215-65 to a 245-50, so they were wider and shorter. Who gets wider tires and keeps the same sidewall aspect? Honestly?

Are you saying that IFS is weaker, or that it (haha) hooks up better? Either way, it's less fucking reliable, which is the fucking topic at hand.

I know how EVERYTHING works. Just because the overall design of the drivetrain makes the car break more isn't a fucking excuse for it breaking down every goddamned time someone beats on it, and sometimes when they don't.

Anything else you'd like to teach me? Ok, bye.

 

Ok explain to me the sidewall flex difference of a 245-50-?? vs 225-45-16.
To help you out with the size of the tires. Your 215's are roughly 139.75 tall, the 245's were 122.5 tall, and the DSM's tires were 101.5 tall. So now tell me about sidewall flex.

Do you still not understand what I am saying about the shockload of the drivetrain with a smaller sidewall?

As for the aspect ratio of the sidewall remaining the same... did I ever say that?

 

People upgrade clutches because they slip under power.

People upgrade trannies because they break under power. It seems that he knows that the stock transmission won't hold power, but then he made a sarcastic comment about a t-bird, as if to say that his modified setup is better than a stock setup from a 1988 tank.

The statement was not ignorant, but at least you are doing one smart thing by not arguing with me.

 

You're getting off the subject.

Stay focused.

 

So Jackie's car has a shorter sidewall than my Thunderbird did, even though the Tbird's tires were wider.

That makes his drivetrain breaking acceptable?

That's what I'm trying to understand. Excuses for DSM's falling apart is all that I'm hearing.

 

What im trying to explain is the fact that your tires are less forgiving which therefore doesnt create as much shock to the drivetrain. The comment about the IRS vs. Solid axles deals with the materials used. IRS and IFS like you know has the weak point on the CV-Joint, unlike a solid axle. So give a solid axle 400hp and most likely it's not gonna break, give an IRS the same amount and boom the axle breaks. Say the axles don't break then all of the shock goes to the Driveshaft... yeah that can break just as easily but usually doesnt because it's not at stressing angles when launching like the axles are. So once all of the shock has been delivered through the driveshaft it all comes into the T-case. That is the reason they break, to much shock, after all of that if everything holds up... then the tranny gets it.

How much more logical do you want me to be? Bring in another AWD car that doesnt break.... Cyclones/Typhoons, WRX's, Evo's.....

So are you following me with this whole drivetrain shock and how the T-Bird really doesnt compare?

DSM's may not be the highest ranked car on reliability, but they sure arent in the lower fields of the class.

 

what does the T-birds tires being wider have to do with anything other than make the aspect ratio different? With them being wider you are getting much more sidewall than say if the tire was thinner... did you forget what an aspect ratio is?