manual front wheel dive tranny?

[benebob]

Originally Posted by svxfiles

My guess is that Ben will say.
Less weight (true, about 90#s)
Less parasitic losses.(true)
Quicker accelleration.(if you have no wheelspin)
Better gas mileage(who cares)
More fun to tail out.
The parking brake is now a steering tool.

No, simply it is a better shifting transmission then the awd rubber, notchy unit is. Not that I have to worry about that once I replace Angie's crappy car with a nice X type Estate. Smooth shifts are in the future now that I've seen the light!

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by svxfiles

My guess is that Ben will say.
Less weight (true, about 90#s)
Less parasitic losses.(true)
Quicker accelleration.(if you have no wheelspin)
Better gas mileage(who cares)
More fun to tail out.
The parking brake is now a steering tool.

You know, I see this weight difference figure of usually 90-100#, but it just never seems to compute to me. What is the weight of the rear differential, complete driveshaft, 2 rear axleshafts, rear subframe assembly and transfer case case from tranny. It would seem that this adds up to more than that?

I have always stated that my 94 FWD was quicker and faster than my others. Cornering was always good. The only negative was the torque steer under heavy acceleration and it wasn't all that bad. AWD definitely corners better, but not that much better.

I have always thought that there was a very good market for FWD Subaru vehicles--particularly in the south.

Lee

[benebob]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

You know, I see this weight difference figure of usually 90-100#, but it just never seems to compute to me. What is the weight of the rear differential, complete driveshaft, 2 rear axleshafts, rear subframe assembly and transfer case case from tranny. It would seem that this adds up to more than that?

I have always stated that my 94 FWD was quicker and faster than my others. Cornering was always good. The only negative was the torque steer under heavy acceleration and it wasn't all that bad. AWD definitely corners better, but not that much better.

I have always thought that there was a very good market for FWD Subaru vehicles--particularly in the south.

Lee

From picking up both front and awd subie trannies I'd say they weigh about 50lbs lighter, a rear dif and carrier is in the neighborhood of 50lbs and then the driveshaft and brackets add another 10 or so. Add in the 15lbs of axles and a little more for the beefier rear hubs then your at around 125. Just my opinion from the back scale.

As for cornering better I really disagree with that. Remember most of the fwd cars tend to be stripper models thus lacking in the same spring rates, struts/shocks and many times the same brakes. The awders are usually slightly higher so if you compare apples to apples I really don't think you'd find that being the case. The SVX fwder is another animal. It was never intended at inception but rather came to market due to poor sales so the model wasn't designed with a fwder in mind. A fwd impreza or early legacy is a very fine car to drive. The old ea81s actually drove like cars vs. the tractor feeling of the 4wds.

Your right though. Subaru has a very tough sell in Florida and the like esp. with gas prices rising each time at the pump

[92 SVX]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

You know, I see this weight difference figure of usually 90-100#, but it just never seems to compute to me. What is the weight of the rear differential, complete driveshaft, 2 rear axleshafts, rear subframe assembly and transfer case case from tranny. It would seem that this adds up to more than that?

I have always stated that my 94 FWD was quicker and faster than my others. Cornering was always good. The only negative was the torque steer under heavy acceleration and it wasn't all that bad. AWD definitely corners better, but not that much better.

I have always thought that there was a very good market for FWD Subaru vehicles--particularly in the south.

Lee

I have no real knowledge of this, just going on logic here but.
Subframe, would the fwd car still have a subframe, so that should be equaled out, or close, the transmission both still have tranny's I do not know if fwd is lighter but again a close match. So the only real differences should be driveshaft, diff and axles, and I could see those being 90 to 100 lbs all combined.

[svxfiles]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

You know, I see this weight difference figure of usually 90-100#, but it just never seems to compute to me. What is the weight of the rear differential, complete driveshaft, 2 rear axleshafts, rear subframe assembly and transfer case case from tranny. It would seem that this adds up to more than that?


Lee

I have actually added up the weights of the components and it actually is in the 90# range..
I posted the #s here somewhere...
In the last six months I guess...

[svxfiles]

Found the post!
http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/show...aft#post630060

[svxistentialist]

You are talking 95lbs just stripping back the rear drive hardware here Tom. It's not the total picture though, taking the gearbox into account.

The FWD auto is essentially the same gearbox without the rear drive take-off. Or looked at another way the SVX gearbox in the USA is actually a FWD gearbox with rear drive gubbins added on.

So the standard 94 FWD SVX loses 95lbs worth of hardware, plus the gearbox is marginally lighter. How many pounds lighter? I don't know, but lighter for sure.

Anybody who has ever ditched the auto for manual can attest that there is a very significant difference in weight and in size between the auto and the manual box, the manual being way smaller and lighter. So going to a manual FWD gearbox is going to strip off a lot of poundage from the mix. I'm just guessing here, never having weighed one, but I suspect the difference could be at least 30 lbs, and maybe is 50 lbs or more.

Anybody know?

Joe

[svxfiles]

Originally Posted by svxistentialist

You are talking 95lbs just stripping back the rear drive hardware here Tom. It's not the total picture though, taking the gearbox into account.

The FWD auto is essentially the same gearbox without the rear drive take-off. Or looked at another way the SVX gearbox in the USA is actually a FWD gearbox with rear drive gubbins added on.

So the standard 94 FWD SVX loses 95lbs worth of hardware, plus the gearbox is marginally lighter. How many pounds lighter? I don't know, but lighter for sure.

Anybody who has ever ditched the auto for manual can attest that there is a very significant difference in weight and in size between the auto and the manual box, the manual being way smaller and lighter. So going to a manual FWD gearbox is going to strip off a lot of poundage from the mix. I'm just guessing here, never having weighed one, but I suspect the difference could be at least 30 lbs, and maybe is 50 lbs or more.

Anybody know?

Joe

Yes, I was just comparing a FWD automatic to an AWD automatic.