triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: GT6 (and other) tranny conversions

To: Andrew Mace <amace@unix2.nysed.gov>
Subject: Re: GT6 (and other) tranny conversions
From: Thomas Howard <thoward@sdcoe.k12.ca.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:34:04 -0800
Cc: triumphs@Autox.Team.Netov>
References: <34F5B944.9A@hq.7arcom.army.mil>
 >The original ratios are: 2.65/1.78/1.25/1.0. With this in mind, my only
>possible concerns would be the rather less useful 1st gear in the Toyota
>box, along with the seemingly sizeable gap between 1st and 2nd. One thing
>I always liked about my GT6+ was the rather long-legged 1st gear and the
>more-or-less "close ratio" setup of the stock gearbox.
>
>My $.02 worth. Of course, YMMV, etc.
>
>--Andy
 
Andy,

I am surprized to hear you opinion of the gear ratios for the GT6.

I think that there may be something wrong with my GT6.

I have the '72 with the Federal engine.  With, what seems to me to be a
very tall first gear, and a lack of bottom end pull, I have a lot of
trouble getting out of my own way off the line.   (I think the car is in
tune as I get good mileage, pass California Smog Check, and have a good top
speed with out any miss or hesistatioions.)   It has always seemed to be
that first should be more like 3.2:1 and 4th should be more like .8:1.
The gears really seem too close for me.   They are OK if one does all their
driving between 20-60 MPH.    0 to 20 too show and over 60 is too many RPMs.

Since my car is 100% stock, carbs, timing, plugs and points.  Is it your
opinion that the lack of bottom pull is a function of worn rings and valves
(get 900 miles to a quart of oil, with only a little spot of a leak.)

Up to now I have always just thought of these charisterics as typical for
the car since Triumph had to remove 20 horsepower on the Fed model.

?????????

Tom Howard
'72 GT6 (and a good bit of USA iron)
Lakeside Union School District


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>