4K vs. 2Y, not much difference?

[rfkellner at snet.net (Rick Kellner)]

Ron, thanks for the reply.  Any particulars why you prefer the 2.0l, 2Y
combination over the 4K?  Does the HP and torque match better with the
slightly longer 2Y (again, first through fifth, I plan on a .75 fifth)?
Thanks, Rick.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Pieper [mailto:rapieper@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:49 AM
To: Rick Kellner; 'Scirocco list'
Subject: Re: 4K vs. 2Y, not much difference?

>From my experience, yes there will be a noticeable difference caused by
the final drive ratios. 
The 4K is definitely more "sporty" but this can be irritating in daily
driving situations.  For a
2.0L, I'd prefer the 2Y.

Ron

--- Rick Kellner <rfkellner@snet.net> wrote:

> I used Ron's excel sheet and data to graph the 4K vs. the 2Y in first
> through fourth gears from 2000 rpm to 7000 rpm.  Since the only
> difference between these two transaxles (other than fifth) is the ring
> and pinion ratio.  This results in the lines being very similar.  As
an
> example, at 6000 rpm in first there is only 2 MPH difference and by
the
> time you are in fourth, at 6k, there is only a 7 mph difference.
> Now the question, the data does not show a dramatic difference between
> the two transaxles however; is there a real difference on the road and
> in particular with a 2.0l 16V motor.
> Any input would be appreciated.  Thanks, Rick.
> 
> As far as other differences, I do realize that the 2Y does have 100mm
> axles and the drive shaft on 4th gear is stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> 





 
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the
New Yahoo.com 
(http://www.yahoo.com/preview)