How good is the 5/6 sp swap - Page 3

svxhunter · #31 06-13-2005, 07:23 PM

Still looking for some real details....

thundering02 · #32 06-13-2005, 07:31 PM

'92 here and 168k miles and getting "thin" on bands clutches etc. until I read a post earlier I was just shy of starting to save for smallcar to do the swap and I figured out with thier shift kit they don't really know a whole lot about what they manufacture other than what its supposed to do and how to do it. I could have made the shift kit myself if I had know what was in it.

#33 06-14-2005, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svxhunter

Still looking for some real details....

Like what? You saw the link to the tranny FAQ's. Those are the modifications that were made. What else is there?

Dave

svxhunter · #34 06-14-2005, 05:54 AM

Like ones that show that the '92 failure rate is higher, that the other model years don't fail, or that the changes made actually created a problem-free tranny.

According to that same article,

Quote:

...all of these transmissions suffer, to some extent, from the same problems.

I believe your original statement was:

Quote:

Only the 92's had bad tranny problems.

#35 06-14-2005, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svxhunter

Like ones that show that the '92 failure rate is higher, that the other model years don't fail, or that the changes made actually created a problem-free tranny.

The 92's had the worst problems. No year was bullet proof. It is possible to have a 92 go many miles, it is possible to have a 94 die an early death. Anything is possible. But the changes Subaru made helped. The evidence is the fact that the percentage of trannys Subaru had to warranty declined as the changes were being made. I highly doubt Subaru would ever make public it's records of tranny warrantys, so I can't show you proof. I know it to be true from other people in this business, mostly Service Managers, who were around for the SVX tranny fiascos. I have also noticed that most of the 92 SVX VINS that I run through Subaru show a transmission or two being replaced under warranty. It's just common knowledge that the later models had less problems. I never said they had no problems. Just less.

Dave

svxhunter · #36 06-14-2005, 07:43 AM

Sorry to have hijacked-

Answer to the original question: I see no reason why the manuals should be questioned for reliability. A manual tranny is a much simpler machine than an AT, and it doesn't have the fluid/ cooling issues of the AT.

There are some questions as to whether the MT's are STRONG enough, but that would have a lot to do with driving style. Subaru didn't use the MT in the SVX because when the SVX came out they didn't have a manual on the shelf that they felt could adequately handle the 3.3L. Some of the newer turbo 4 cylinders have similar HP output to the 3.3, so their trannies should be able to handle it.

Many swaps have been done using older trannies. They still seem to be outlasting what Subaru thought they would do. If they do break, rebuilding the manual should be significantly less expensive than the 4EAT.

Anyone out there blown up a manual?

huck369 · #37 06-14-2005, 08:17 AM

On the "More 92's had tranny failure", could this not be mostly due to the fact that there where MANY more 92's produced than any other year, so even if the same percentage of SVX's had tranny failure for each year, the 92's would have the greatest number of failures.....I mean ther were more 92's sold in the US than 94-97 combined....

#38 06-14-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huck369

On the "More 92's had tranny failure", could this not be mostly due to the fact that there where MANY more 92's produced than any other year, so even if the same percentage of SVX's had tranny failure for each year, the 92's would have the greatest number of failures.....I mean ther were more 92's sold in the US than 94-97 combined....

That's why I spoke of percentages and not total numbers.

Dave

Earthworm · #39 06-14-2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svxhunter

Anyone out there blown up a manual?

Yeah, Jesse/Tom...know anyone?

mbtoloczko · #40 06-14-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svxhunter

...
Anyone out there blown up a manual?

Not many SVXers have broken 5MTs, but lot's of WRX and Impreza RS owners have grenaded their 5MT. The SVX is just as capable of doing this, so 5MT longevity in an SVX is all about how the car is driven (assuming that the 5MT was in good shape before being installed). Constant serious abuse will break it. I try my best to avoid shocking the tranny with any sort of clutch dump. I'd rather fry the clutch than grenade the tranny.

TomsSVX · #41 06-14-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earthworm

Yeah, Jesse/Tom...know anyone?

Hey now... the person who did the swap knew the trans was garbage and still used it. The new one I have in now seems to be just fine

Tom

Subafreak · #42 06-15-2005, 05:22 AM

Yeah, and I can't really say I blew them up. The first one freakishly broke 5th gear and I fixed it and stuck it back in my Legacy. The second was starting to not shift into second at all, (normal for old 5 speeds). So I never blew one up, like Tom did.

Now motors on the other hand.

TomsSVX · #43 06-15-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subafreak

So I never blew one up, like Tom did.

Now motors on the other hand.

So, whats that suposed to mean? I guess we are kinda even. You blew your engine to peices as I blew my trans to peices While You kinda killed the transmissions as I kinda killed my engine.

Tom

PS- when do u wanna come get the engine?

svxhunter · #44 06-15-2005, 06:32 PM

What did you do to blow it up??

AvPPoW · #45 06-16-2005, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svxhunter

What did you do to blow it up??

dynamite