4 or 5-speed? And wich one??

[tdc911]

I am busy building my beetle project. My goal is to mount a type 4 2400cc engine with 200 PK. I don't know wich is the best solution for the transmission... Should I stay with a 4-speed gearbow or mount a 5-speed gearbox. I'd prefer to mount a 5-speed one butt wich one? One from a porsche 911 or 914 or a vw 4-speed one converted to a 5-speed box.

Friendly regards,

Tom

[LLVWGL]

I am wondering the same. would it be best to use a 915 or a 901 or ?

[oasis]

I asked this question during my initial investigation. Because of the torque power band of a Type IV engine, I was talked out of wanting a 5-speed. The amount of money spent to make a 5-speed work (fitment and strength), would be better served by installing a limited slip differential into a 4-speed. On top of that, one would shift one extra time without utilizing the power curve--in other words, a 5-speed would be inefficient.

If memory serves me correctly, a 914 tranny would yield one forward gear and five reverse gears.

At this point, I'm leaning towards a 2270 and a 4-speed from R.A.T. when the time comes.

[thelazerviking]

glenn from the samba told me this

"Just to let you know the early 930 Turbos had a 4 speed because the 5 speed couldn't handle the horsepower. The 1978 930 Turbo had 280hp.

No experience with a Porsche tranny, but I got a Berg 5 and it handles the 180hp in my car.

If you want heavy duty.. go with a Bus tranny, but they're only 4 speeds"

[Bugat5speed]

Hi,

what I read here is (sorry to say this) near to nonsens.

1. a 901 or a 914 is nearly the same. The main difference is the direction it turns out. You can change the direction by flipping the ring gear. So it´s an old tale that you´re running 5 speed reverse gears with a 914 tranny. 914 has longer gear ratio than 901-gearboxes, but stand the same torque. They have the same housing and the same bearings, etc. The only gearbox housing that´s different is the old 901 before 68, which is aluminium cast and not magnesium.

2. The 901 and 914 transmissions easily stand an engine with 2.4 litre. I have a lot of customers who drive good 2.7 engines and have a few with 2.9 litres also. 250 Nm of torque plus 10 % is no problem at all. And believe in me. The German Look Scene here in Germany is bringing out very good type 4 engines.

3. What a nonsens to say that a 5-speed is more inefficient than a 4-speed. Who is today still building cars with 4 speeds? And why do the companies spend more money for 5 or 6 speed gearboxes, if they could handle more efficiency with a 4-speed?
Everyone that already drove a 5-speed in a bug would never change back to a 4-speed again.

4. What is the problem, that people try to give these Porsche trannies a bad name? They were driven over years in very good, fast and strong cars and I can tell you out of my experience that they are much better than each changed 4 speed gearbox at all


Martin Bott Bug @ 5-Speed

www.bugat5speed.de

[R2.0]

I think you need to look at a broader definition of "efficiency". On the whole it is cheaper to install a modified T1 4 speed than a 901/914 5 speed for the following reasons:

- The t-1 is a bolt in. 901-914's require slight body mods, fabrication of front mounts and linkage, and, in the case of a 914, replacement of the nosecone and hockey stick and flipping the differential

- Porsche parts are initially more expensive, and are rarer on this side of the pond.

Also, the 901 shift pattern is unfamiliar to most americans, and most of the ones who have tried it don't like it (I do like it, however). To get an "Ameriacn" shift pattern, one must go to a 915, which has the above problems in spades.

Personally, I am looking for a 901 since I like the shift pattern. One of the ways to get better acceptance of the 901/914 swap over here would be a bolt-in solution to the mount and linkage problem that didn't cost an arm and a leg.

R2.0

[oasis]

I would prefer Jake or someone similar with knowledge jumping in on this since they were the experts I was paraphrasing and subsequently called nonsense.

I'm glad R2.0 jumped in.

My understanding on the efficiency part was a five-speed doesn't fully take advantage of the torque curve a Type IV (presumably Jake's Type IV's). If a driver is shifting more often, that's less efficient.

A recent Wall Street Journal article reported on the "Transmission Wars" where today's manufacturers are experimenting with six, seven, and even eight speeds. Basically, two main reasons were sited.

The article quotes many of the manufacturers view this war as being tantamount to the cubic inch displacement wars of the muscle car era. In other words, it is to some degree marketing one-ups-manship.

The other and more practical reason is the necessity to have more gears for fuel efficiency -- which is not what I meant by efficiency.

The fifth gear -- wherever it is placed in the H-pattern -- forces one of two things in the 30-plus year old cars we are driving. (Remember, today's manufacturers build their cars from scratch; not retrofit something different into something which already exists.) It either forces there to be thinner (weaker) parts such that the extra gear won't increase the size of the transmission, or it forces other fabrications (outlined beautifully by R2.0) to become necessary.

Given the extra cost versus extra return of the five-speed renders this into being a personal choice. To say one choice versus another is nonsense is nonsense.

(By the way, I'm still looking for the post which warrants the defense of the German Look scene in Germany. I hope this wasn't meant to imply there is only one valid opinion.)