|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Addicted CEG\'er
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106 |
Originally posted by Tony2005:
(but you are comparing a 140 hp to a 170 hp and saying they are comparable).
You're forgetting to mention the drivetrain loss between the ATX and the MTX. Not to mention the weight difference between the two. That right there makes them almost identical in performance. And again, the ATX is extremely slow with shifting, and no you can't make it shift "faster" by manually shifting the ATX. The only advantage to manually shifting the ATX, is bringing the rpm up a couple hundred more rpm. So again, I stand behind the fact that the MTX I4 will hang neck and neck with the ATX V6, if not take it.
Mark
2000 Black CSVT
3.0L Hybrid - 206fwhp & 195fwtq
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Manually shifting an electronically controlled Slushbox isn't gonig to gain you anything. From my experience in my 93 ATX SHO, I'd have to shift about 500-1k rpms before I wanted it to shift, I believe this was due to the computer comparing to ensure it was 'ok' to shift. It gained me nothing, and actually posted some of my slower times. It is also not good on the internals of the transmission. I can not remember the specifics, but there are certain bands that do not engage, etc etc. Originally posted by Tony2005:
Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
Originally posted by Tony2005:
Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
but it should be a very close race.
Mark
I don't know about that. Don't forget you can manually shift 1 and 2 on the ATX V6 before putting it on D for 3 and 4. And don't forget the Brake Torguing. 
Point being?
Someone who drives a MTX (as well as a ATX) can probably work the ATX V6 to get as much control so that the MTX (on a I4) would not be close on a drag. One reason why MTX are more fun to drive is because of the control on when to shift. That is usually where a MTX wins over an ATX (but you are comparing a 140 hp to a 170 hp and saying they are comparable).
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,345
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,345 |
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Manually shifting an electronically controlled Slushbox isn't gonig to gain you anything. From my experience in my 93 ATX SHO, I'd have to shift about 500-1k rpms before I wanted it to shift, I believe this was due to the computer comparing to ensure it was 'ok' to shift.
Maybe you guys misunderstood when I said manually shifting. I don't mean tricking the ATX computer. I mean putting it on 1 and then 2 when you "feel" that you want to shift, and then putting in to D (for 3 and 4). Have you guys done that before (on an ATX)?
"Always do the cheap and easy ones first."
1996 V6 ATX 96K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
That's the only way to do it Tony....and I understand completely. Been there done that. Unless you have a manually valve body, shifting an electronically controlled tranny is useless and harmful to it..... Originally posted by Tony2005:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Manually shifting an electronically controlled Slushbox isn't gonig to gain you anything. From my experience in my 93 ATX SHO, I'd have to shift about 500-1k rpms before I wanted it to shift, I believe this was due to the computer comparing to ensure it was 'ok' to shift.
Maybe you guys misunderstood when I said manually shifting. I don't mean tricking the ATX computer. I mean putting it on 1 and then 2 when you "feel" that you want to shift, and then putting in to D (for 3 and 4). Have you guys done that before (on an ATX)?
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,345
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,345 |
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
....and harmful to it.....
O, oh.. 
"Always do the cheap and easy ones first."
1996 V6 ATX 96K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Yes we all understand what you're saying. We just think it doesn't do jack squat! 
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,345
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,345 |
Originally posted by todras:
Yes we all understand what you're saying. We just think it doesn't do jack squat!
And now I have to deal with this " ..and harmful to it...". (NOT  )
"Always do the cheap and easy ones first."
1996 V6 ATX 96K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
at the end of the day, no matter how you shift the CD4E its still a slushbox.
Jim Hahn
1996 T-Red Contour SE Reborn 4/6/04
3.0L swap and Arizona Dyno Chip Turbo Kit
364 whp, 410 wtq @ 4,700 rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 17,248
CEG road warrior
|
|
CEG road warrior
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 17,248 |
Whenever I race I HAVE TO manually shift my car. Car by itself shifts at 6k........with me shifting it will go above 7k. Been doing it for years. 
Hector
2003 Rally Red Mitsubishi Evolution VIII
257HP/259TQ
2005 Lapis Blue Mazda 6s
RET: 00 Cabernet Red Ford Contour Zetec ATX SUPERCHARGED
160HP/141TQ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Don't you have a chip? If so, why didn't you have the shift points changed? Originally posted by LocoSCZ:
Whenever I race I HAVE TO manually shift my car. Car by itself shifts at 6k........with me shifting it will go above 7k. Been doing it for years.
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
