'10 Mr TOURING 371whp/358wtq
The GSR number is based on the layout of the entire drivetrain=17-18% drivetrain loss (where as, for example, Scooby has a 21-22% drivetrain loss).
As for the 19.5....FMA
No but seriously, I just said ok 17x1.15=19.55. I can't seem to find where I was reading on how the SST absorbs some of the HP. IIRC the basic premise was that Auto trans in general eat 17% by themselves, but the SST was more efficient w/ less drivetrain loss (relative to the standard Auto). Basically a standard manual tranny is ~10%, a standard auto tranny is 17%, and the SST was ~12% (these are JUST the transmissions themselves, not including engine layout, shafts, etc).
What info have you found? Is it supposed to be less?
Just to be clear, I didn't mean 15% extra drivetrain loss, I meant 15% more of the existing drivetrain loss.....or something.....
As for the 19.5....FMA
No but seriously, I just said ok 17x1.15=19.55. I can't seem to find where I was reading on how the SST absorbs some of the HP. IIRC the basic premise was that Auto trans in general eat 17% by themselves, but the SST was more efficient w/ less drivetrain loss (relative to the standard Auto). Basically a standard manual tranny is ~10%, a standard auto tranny is 17%, and the SST was ~12% (these are JUST the transmissions themselves, not including engine layout, shafts, etc).
What info have you found? Is it supposed to be less?
Just to be clear, I didn't mean 15% extra drivetrain loss, I meant 15% more of the existing drivetrain loss.....or something.....
Last edited by sstevojr; Mar 8, 2012 at 02:15 PM.
The GSR number is based on the layout of the entire drivetrain=17-18% drivetrain loss (where as, for example, Scooby has a 21-22% drivetrain loss).
As for the 19.5....FMA
No but seriously, I just said ok 17x1.15=19.55. I can't seem to find where I was reading on how the SST absorbs some of the HP. IIRC the basic premise was that Auto trans in general eat 17% by themselves, but the SST was more efficient w/ less drivetrain loss (relative to the standard Auto). Basically a standard manual tranny is ~10%, a standard auto tranny is 17%, and the SST was ~12% (these are JUST the transmissions themselves, not including engine layout, shafts, etc).
What info have you found? Is it supposed to be less?
Just to be clear, I didn't mean 15% extra drivetrain loss, I meant 15% more of the existing drivetrain loss.....or something.....
As for the 19.5....FMA
No but seriously, I just said ok 17x1.15=19.55. I can't seem to find where I was reading on how the SST absorbs some of the HP. IIRC the basic premise was that Auto trans in general eat 17% by themselves, but the SST was more efficient w/ less drivetrain loss (relative to the standard Auto). Basically a standard manual tranny is ~10%, a standard auto tranny is 17%, and the SST was ~12% (these are JUST the transmissions themselves, not including engine layout, shafts, etc).
What info have you found? Is it supposed to be less?
Just to be clear, I didn't mean 15% extra drivetrain loss, I meant 15% more of the existing drivetrain loss.....or something.....
I've basically seen relatively the same power, mod for mod, between 5spd and 6spd SST.
So why would a automated manual transmission have higher drivetrain loss then a manual transmission? Possibly more moving parts?
I'm inclined to agree w/ murlo on that one. I think you happen to know the right 'spell' that lets the maximum amount of usable torque go to the wheels
I suppose the best way to test this out is get two new Evo's and dyno them stock. The SST 'should' have a bit lower hp numbers than the GSR, prior to any modifications. BUT, we more than make up for that with transient boost management
The SST clutches do spin around in liquid though. Not sure if that makes a difference when clamped though.
In all honesty I do not know enough about transmissions to say one way or the other. I do know what I have seen power wise on various Evos though.
The SST's have always baselined lower, especially the 2008's. I contribute this more to the OEM mapping though, as after tuning, they line up more.
The SST's have always baselined lower, especially the 2008's. I contribute this more to the OEM mapping though, as after tuning, they line up more.
It's seem like custom tuning certainly turns the tables around for automated manuals (as opposed to a tuned automatic vs a tuned manual, a'la Subie 4EAT vs 5MT) when compared to stock. Nissan and Porsche seem to have shown us the potential that lies in out beloved SST's. I see some really great things in our future with your release of all the tables recently. Rich and I have been emailing, and he said something to me that struck a cord:
"Also... have you been OCD smoothing that "SST DISengagement Map"? 
I've put it back to exactly "Balance #13" style, as that's what I've tested as a table set. You should consider the possibility that an obviously lumpy map may be built like that deliberately by Mitsu. "
I've put it back to exactly "Balance #13" style, as that's what I've tested as a table set. You should consider the possibility that an obviously lumpy map may be built like that deliberately by Mitsu. "
Last edited by sstevojr; Mar 8, 2012 at 03:28 PM.
Sorry OP, TOTALLY went off on a tangent there 
I'm going to try and move this convo to the SST thread:
MOVEDhttps://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...l#post10022409
I'm going to try and move this convo to the SST thread:
MOVEDhttps://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...l#post10022409
Last edited by sstevojr; Mar 8, 2012 at 03:35 PM.
Hmmmm, now that's an interesting premise. I wonder what the results would be if the same maps were created (boost, MIVEC,timing, and fuel) and dynoed back to back (no tweaking of the clutch tables, just stock/tuned cars)?
It's seem like custom tuning certainly turns the tables around for automated manuals (as opposed to a tuned automatic vs a tuned manual, a'la Subie 4EAT vs 5MT) when compared to stock. Nissan and Porsche seem to have shown us the potential that lies in out beloved SST's. I see some really great things in our future with your release of all the tables recently. Rich and I have been emailing, and he said something to me that struck a cord:
And that made me think back to the MAP tables, also intentionally lumpy. I'm thinking they set-up all these torque/load/airflow tables based on stock restrictions, as the "lumps" in the one table oddly mirror the "lumps" in the other tables.
It's seem like custom tuning certainly turns the tables around for automated manuals (as opposed to a tuned automatic vs a tuned manual, a'la Subie 4EAT vs 5MT) when compared to stock. Nissan and Porsche seem to have shown us the potential that lies in out beloved SST's. I see some really great things in our future with your release of all the tables recently. Rich and I have been emailing, and he said something to me that struck a cord:
And that made me think back to the MAP tables, also intentionally lumpy. I'm thinking they set-up all these torque/load/airflow tables based on stock restrictions, as the "lumps" in the one table oddly mirror the "lumps" in the other tables.
If you want to rummage around here, you can see alot of baselines, tuned, etc of mostly stock 10's/RA's: http://norcalmotorsports.org/users/b...EVO/evo_tunes/
As far as SST tuning, we should move this to the Dev thread as not to litter this thread more.
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
The stator in a conventional automatic is like spinning a boat propellor in water. A automated manual shouldn't be less efficient than a conventional manual. Ford is putting a automated manual in the focus now. Why, because of parasitic efficiency.
Not that I know anything about tuning the SST, but I would imagine that there is code prohibiting the SST from averaging the type of gains to a similarly equipped manual evo.
Looking over Razorlab's posts, he obviously knows how to tune the mitsu sst gearbox. That's probably why he is seeing equal output from both gearboxes.
Not that I know anything about tuning the SST, but I would imagine that there is code prohibiting the SST from averaging the type of gains to a similarly equipped manual evo.
Looking over Razorlab's posts, he obviously knows how to tune the mitsu sst gearbox. That's probably why he is seeing equal output from both gearboxes.
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
From: Fayetteville, AR
Sorry OP, TOTALLY went off on a tangent there
I'm going to try and move this convo to the SST thread:
MOVEDhttps://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...l#post10022409
I'm going to try and move this convo to the SST thread:
MOVEDhttps://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...l#post10022409
SST is doing great, Calvin @ Plano made the shifting very smooth and the cams idle is great now as well.
