I haven't seen this product on their site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XviGi4u0eTA
Some of the older guys should have demanded these for street cars years ago. 
I haven't seen this product on their site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XviGi4u0eTA
Some of the older guys should have demanded these for street cars years ago.
Whoa, that^^ was cool.
Mr_Clutch42 wrote: I haven't seen this product on their site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XviGi4u0eTA Some of the older guys should have demanded these for street cars years ago.
Nobody is stopping anyone from installing on their own cars.
I still don't see what this fixes, or makes better, particularly in comaprison with the cost.
Rufledt wrote:confuZion3 wrote: I, for one, greatly prefer the ease and simplicity of an automatic transmission.
You can get a Type 9 sequential made by Quaife for $8500. Don't know what it can handle for power/torque. Their 6 speed version can handle 375hp but costs $10.8k. And it still needs the Type 9 bellhousing or a bespoke one. Definitely designed towards the Euro crowd. If it was designed in the states, it would have been based around the T-5.
In reply to RossD:
Don't put one in, it will be hard to shift, noisy, wear prematurely and kill your dog.
I think the sequential shift pattern on bikes and the h pattern on cars is a form follows function thing.
On a bike you have to shift with your foot. Can you imagine trying to work an h pattern with your foot? I'm sure it could be learned but oooof.
On a passenger car made for mostly street driving I see zero advantage to a sequential shift pattern and lots of advantage to an h pattern (I can go directly from any gear to any other gear, speed dependent, and neutral is never far away). Even in track situations the heavy street car flywheels would make downshifting sketchy (can't double clutch downshift a sequential).
Is a sequential shift pattern really better than an H? or just cooler? (in a street car - of course).
You'll need to log in to post.
