Subject	I believe that auto was lower HP so the trans would
Posted by	KaZ (VaBch) on February 14, 2005 at 7:34 AM
	This message has been viewed 23 times.
In Reply To	Ill bet others have wondered this but..... posted by TTwinTTurbo on February 13, 2005 at 11:30 PM
Message	live longer... not for any other reason. It was still quicker in acceleration I believe, even being down 20hp supposedly... due to quicker spool and shorter gearing (I think). So in 96, they wouldn't have needed to lower the HP further... it probably just stayed at 280hp for both TT auto and TT manual trans Zs. KaZ (VaBch) Now with 100% less Z! '84 S12 CA18ET Silvia '91 Z32 Fairlady Z [Sold] - sniff... sniff... '97 A32 Cefiro SE AIM - KaZsMiR / E-mail @ Gmail - Kazsmir "Forumers are like economists: They state the obvious, give bad advice, and simply can't agree with each other." - Someone Else
Follow Ups	Ill bet others have wondered this but..... - TTwinTTurbo 23:30:22 02/13/05 you mean 1996 auto TT? (n/m) - JConceptZion 23:38:10 02/13/05 i was under the impression that they changed the cams for - rufflez formerly drivebyz300 23:42:38 02/13/05 uhhh dun tink so - Rage (SoCal) 23:43:43 02/13/05 thats not true.... - Zluster(Project Platypus) 00:28:15 02/14/05 You're numbers are all whacked. (n/m) - YugoBernie (NoVA) 00:48:29 02/14/05 i need to post this dyno already... - Zluster(Project Platypus) 00:52:58 02/14/05 I believe that auto was lower HP so the trans would - KaZ (VaBch) 07:34:30 02/14/05 The auto has taller gearing. All autos have taller gearing - FlawleZ (San Antonio) 08:22:51 02/14/05 See... - KaZ (VaBch) 08:24:24 02/14/05 i know you need to have one... and that slushboxes are bad. - schuss 09:49:52 02/14/05
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.