Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> "Lanny Chambers" >
>> You do understand why, right? With the NA and NB, we'd be
>> downshifting for minor hills on the Interstate if top gear were
>> taller, because we'd still be on the soft side of the torque peak.
>> It's unlikely much if any fuel would be saved, since it would
>> require larger throttle openings to maintain speed, even on the
>> flat. Certainly, top speed would not benefit. I suppose it might be
>> slightly less noisy, but hey, it's a roadster. I guess the NC could
>> use a taller final drive, since it has plenty of beans and it's not
>> much of a roadster anyway... <ducking> Maybe you bought the wrong car? A
>> nice Camry, perhaps?
>>
>> (I'm just yanking your chain, Chris.)
>>
>> --
>> Lanny Chambers
>> St. Louis, MO
>> '94C
>
> I hear that argument all the time but I'm far from convinced. 1000
> rpm's lower at cruising speed would, imho be completely livable and
> better in every way. When did you ever meet a Miata enthusiast that
> minded an occasional downshift? I wish I knew enough about
> transmissions to know how hard it would be to simply change 5th gear
> a bit taller.
> cd
> 99BBB

The 6-speed runs 4,000 rpm at 80 mph. Unless I'm mistaken, my dearly
departed 5-speed also ran 4,000 rpm at 80 mph, in 5th gear. Sure, a little
quieter cruising at 80 would be nice for conversation and listening to
music. I did downshift to 5th a couple of times on my trip home until I
figured out it wasn't necessary. I'm not sure which setup I'd choose.