| Author |
Message |
domn8
Level 6 User
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 159
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:08 pm |
|
16v mk1 clio- have asked before but want reassurance, in 5th 60mph @3200 rpm is this normal? |
|
|
|
|
Dan
Site Subscriber
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3547
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:48 am |
|
|
|
|
domn8
Level 6 User
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 159
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:06 am |
|
I know valver rev high but after a year of driving it it still seems high, pulls really well in 5th @60 tho |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:09 am |
|
how is that high?
Compared to a vauxhall and ford yeah its high but its at the best sp[eed for economy and roll on acceleration. |
|
|
|
|
Chet T16
Retroholic
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Posts: 5685
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:25 am |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:31 am |
|
thats speedos over reading.
If its a JB3 16V box anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Dan
Site Subscriber
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3547
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:47 am |
|
my 19 was reading like 3200 at 70 iirc |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:52 am |
|
speedo was over readign then.
on a JB3 051 ph1 19 box its 20.something mph per 1krpm in 5th.
On a ph2 its more revs for less speed due to a shorter final drive. |
|
|
|
|
Dan
Site Subscriber
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3547
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:56 am |
|
is that why the ph2's are slower tjhan the ph1's? |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:59 am |
|
yes top speed wise, they reduced the final gear to try and make the ph2 as fast as the ph1, they didn't sucede.
Ph2 basically uses clio ratios. |
|
|
|
|
Dan
Site Subscriber
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3547
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:06 am |
|
i noticed that, when i drove the clio valver home,wasnt anywhere near as quick as my 1st engine in the ph1, the 1st engine used to pull like a train, but the second engine just didnt pull as well. |
|
|
|
|
Chet T16
Retroholic
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Posts: 5685
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:29 am |
|
That pic is my chammy with its diesel box, fuel efficient! |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:34 am |
|
its only fuel efficient when the engines not being loaded!
On a normal A road it will use more fuel than a normal valver box. |
|
|
|
|
Chet T16
Retroholic
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Posts: 5685
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:43 am |
|
I only skulk around at 50mph anyway  |
|
|
|
|
domn8
Level 6 User
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 159
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:18 am |
|
Ahh my minds at rest now, why thank you wise men
not meant to sound sarcastic by the way! |
|
|
|
|
touring_19_16v
Level 10 User
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 620
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:51 am |
|
whats the best way to keep the revs down at high speeds? ie at 70 your doin summik like 4grand in 5th, my dads civic sits at 2500 or just above at 70 i think and its petrol not diesel, i recal a website for pug 205 gtis about getting a final drive out of a diesel box and whipping it in a 1.6gti box anything like that poss on the jb3 and jc3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
