Archive for March, 2010

There is probably a transmission shop in almost every town in the country that can build a bulletproof transmission for American made vehicles. Whether it is a late model Mustang or a 60’s Chevelle, there are lots of aftermarket components and many years of technology available for the transmission rebuilder to utilize.

The same cannot be said for the 4EAT automatic transmissions found in Subaru vehicles. In factory form, these transmissions demonstrate several problem areas that can cause failure in as little as 20,000 miles with a stock engine and even sooner in modified applications.

Poor shift quality, anemic factory components, and above all, improperly configured torque converters plague the automatic transmission equipped vehicle. This is in conjunction with the automatic’s propensity to burn out the high clutch pack (third gear) and the 2-4 clutches (second and fourth gear) with even moderate increases in engine output.

Realizing the need to take import and sport compact automatics to their fullest potential, IPT Performance Transmissions- a New Jersey based company, committed a large portion of their research time and dollars toward improving the Subaru automatic transmission.

First up on the hit parade of internal modifications is the need to address the issue of valve body calibration. The valve body mods are really the foundation of any performance trans rebuild. An automatic transmission utilizes a network of valves, servos, solenoids, orifices, accumulators and passages that control and route hydraulic pressure to the appropriate places to apply the clutches and bands.

Without going into elaborate detail which would fall outside the scope of this article, suffice it to say that modifying the valve body effectively changes the rate of clutch apply and also increases the clamping force with which these components have to work with. This is why shift kits and modified valve bodies produce that firm, performance type shift that increases the transmission’s overall capacity for power handling.

Next, all critical support bushings need to be replaced to insure that the centerline of the transmission runs in perfect alignment with the centerline of the crankshaft. Ignoring this step puts a lot of undue stress on the internal transmission components.

Many of the other parts also such as the pinion shaft, the front differential ring gear and the planetary gearset undergo various metallurgical processes such as heat treating, Meta-Lax stress relieving, and cryogenic treatment (freezing them in liquid nitrogen at -300 degrees Fahrenheit to ‘reset’ the part’s structure on the molecular level).

Lastly, all of the required seals and gaskets are changed to materials that are better able to cope with the heat and stress that is common in high powered applications. Performance clutches and steel reaction plates are installed and their clearances set to much more exacting specifications than those that are used by the factory. Most importantly, IPT utilizes a proprietary six disk high clutch pack and a five disk 2-4 clutch pack which increases the second, third, and fourth gear torque capacity by over 25% versus the factory set up- this is the key to getting a high powered vehicle make a 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 shift instead of just bouncing off the rev limiter.

As for the modifications outside of the gearbox, the next thing of importance is of course the torque converter. In an automatic equipped vehicle, one of the most important components in the entire car in regards to optimizing performance is a correctly configured converter.

In addition to being made with many strength improvements over the factory piece, a performance converter enables a vehicle to better take advantage of the RPM range at which maximum power is made. In simple terms, a properly designed converter will allow a vehicle to launch under more power by increasing the rpm at which the launch takes place. In essence, a torque converter is an infinitely variable transmission in and of itself, and altering its torque multiplying characteristics becomes absolutely necessary when other variables in the vehicle are changed (bigger turbos and bigger cams).

Even in otherwise stock turbocharged Subaru vehicles, ET reductions of over one full second are not at all uncommon with the addition of a properly configured converter.

Transmission, torque converter and valve body upgrades are not only for American made vehicles anymore. Increased performance, durability and more efficient shifting is now available for the vehicles of almost every manufacturer- thanks in part to the few companies that are willing to do the research and development work required for this rapidly growing segment of the automotive aftermarket.

Hybrid technology is, by and large, a good thing. On that we can all agree. But clean-running and environmentally responsible though they may be, hybrid cars have been out of reach for all but well-heeled buyers. Most consumers simply aren’t willing to – or can’t – shell out the $30,000 – $40,000 needed to get behind the wheel of a part-internal combustion, part-electric automobile.

There are a few exceptions, of course. General Motors’ Aura Greenline sedan has a reasonable price tag, all things considered, as does the Chev Malibu Hybrid, but in terms of what you get for your money, hybrid vehicles have yet to attract consumers in any significant numbers….especially younger buyers.

Honda is hoping to change that with the introduction of its second generation Insight hybrid. Priced below both the Civic Hybrid and popular Toyota Prius, it’s aimed squarely at first-timers and buyers under 35, according to Honda Canada manager of production planning, Ryan Kelly.

“The number of hybrid products on the market is six times greater than it was when we first introduced the Insight, in 2000,” he observed at the launch, in Scottsdale. “And there are 38 times as many of them on the roads….but few of them are being driven by younger buyers.” So when it goes on sale this Spring, the 2010 Honda Insight will be priced in a “sweet spot” around $20,000 or below, according to Ryan Kelly.

With technology fundamentally similar to that found in the current Civic Hybrid, the new Insight is expected to yield fuel consumption of 4.8 L/100 km in town and a miserly 4.5 L./100 km on the highway. These are better numbers than the Toyota Prius and only marginally inferior to those delivered by the first generation Insight, which is still the fuel consumption champ in Canada.

Like the Civic and original Insight, the new Insight will have a compact electric motor sandwiched between the vehicle’s internal combustion engine and a gearless CVT transmisison. The engine displaces 1.3 litres and the electric motor develops 10 kilowatts. Together they generate some 98 horsepower and 123 foot-pounds of torque. The engine also features Honda’s i-VTEC variable valve technology, drive-by-wire throttle, and is virtually identical to that found in the Civic Hybrid, if a smidgeon less powerful. It is purpose-built just for hybrid drivetrains and is what Honda calls a “low friction” powerplant. Total output for the nickel metal hydride battery pack is 128 volts, and Honda claims it will last for 15 years or 240,000 kilometres….whichever comes first.

Managing the combined output of the batteries, electric motor, and gas engine is Honda’s Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) system, which in this configuration, is more powerful and lighter than that found in the Civic or the original Insight. The IPU (Intelligent Power Unit) for the new Insight is located under the floor in the rear cargo area, along with the battery pack. Unlike its predecessor, this model will actually seat five adults, but back seat elbow room is still at a premium, and the guy in the middle will be snug. With the back seats folded flat, the Insight provides some 450 litres of cargo space.

Behind the wheel, drivers are confronted by a “two tier” instrument panel and multi-information display. An eye-shaped nacelle above the tachometer and IMA readout displays vehicle speed with a tri-colour background that shows you at a glance if you’re driving sensibly and gleaning maximum mileage from the drivetrain. Top fuel economy gives the display a green background, while “somewhat less than efficient” shows light blue, and inefficient driving behaviour shows dark blue. Like all good hybrid vehicles, the new Insight has regenerative braking that harvests electrical power during deceleration.

But that’s not all. An “Econ” switch located on the left side of the dash allow s you to choose driving modes, and the multi-information display also has a cute little “tree” graphic that “scores” your driving performance.

“The economy mode harmonizes the engine, electric motor and transmission,” explains Yuji Fujiki, Honda’s project leader for the Insight, “as well as reducing the time the air conditioner operates, and controlling the idle time of the engine when the car stops.” To wring optimum fuel economy out of the entire system, the driver would ideally be in “green” mode, with all the “leaves” of the tree in place.

It may sound kind of childish and maybe even a tad precious, but the whole arrangement actually works well and is easy to get along with and quite user-friendly. On a 45-kilometre driving loop laid out at the product launch, I managed a 5.0 L/100 km fuel economy average, and that was while keeping up with traffic and staying at the speed limits. The key is to avoid jackrabbit starts, letting the engine’s momentum carry the vehicle, coasting downhill, and braking gently and well ahead of stop signs/traffic lights. The system is designed to allow drivers to closely monitor their performance, and it’s almost fun to use. According to Honda, the whole idea is to encourage drivers to “take an interest in developing fuel-efficient driving habits over the long term.”

The new Honda Insight will be offered in two trim levels: LX and EX. Most of the usual modcons – power windows, etc – will come standard with the LX, and the EX will have extras such as a Navigation system, steering wheel-located paddle shifters, Bluetooth capability, steering wheel-mounted audio controls, and lightweight alloy wheels.

          Gas prices continue to soar, your SUV gets 16 mpg, and your paycheck isn’t increasing.  Consumers feeling their pockets getting empty are starting to ask questions.  Could the high gas prices just be temporary? If not, then I guess it’s time to trade the SUV in and get a fuel efficient vehicle, right?  Actually that might not be the smartest idea.  In order to answer these questions we need to understand the current SUV situation and determine what this means financially.     

            Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV’s) have become the norm for a vehicle purchase over the last 10-15 years.  As many cars became smaller over this timeframe compared to the cars in the 1970’s, people became interested in sport utility vehicles and why wouldn’t they?  These vehicles have plenty of leg room, a large storage area, four-wheel drive, feel very safe due to their size, and are powerful.  One of the biggest selling features is they provide a higher seating position allowing the driver to view more of the road and surroundings. 

Not only did consumers have a desire for SUV’s, but they wanted larger SUV’s.  The big three U.S. vehicle manufacturers, Chrysler, Ford, and GM, were making extremely large profits on these vehicles.  The Ford Excursion, Chevy Suburban, Hummer, GMC Yukon, and Chevy Tahoe are the largest SUV’s on the market.  These vehicles were being bought by families, shuttle drivers, and small business owners.  Due to a tax break many small business owners and mostly anyone who could write off the vehicle as a work related expense became consumers for these enormous vehicles.  They were able to write off almost the entire cost.  This encouraged lawyers, doctors, accountants, and real estate agents to buy these SUV’s, when they really have no use for this type of vehicle.

            The U.S. vehicle manufacturers and consumers were both happy until the one major flaw of SUV’s was magnified.  These vehicles were gas hogs.  Hurricane Katrina started to reveal this flaw in 2005 when this hurricane caused disruption to refineries.  Gas prices soared above $3 a gallon.  Prices would start to come down as the refineries got back into full production, but not down to where they were before the hurricane.  This was due to the price of a barrel of crude oil rising to over $50.  In 2004 the average price of a barrel of crude oil was $37.  This brings us to July 4th, 2008 as the price of a barrel of crude oil is now over $145 and the price of a gallon of gas is over $4. 

            This has caused U.S. vehicles manufacturers to slow down and terminate some SUV lines which have been their most profitable over the last decade.  Consumers are now buying small fuel efficient cars and hybrid vehicles.  The problem for many consumers is they are looking to trade in or sell their SUV’s to purchase a fuel efficient vehicle, but there are not many takers for at least what the consumer feels is fair value.  Typical supply and demand has caused very fuel efficient cars and hybrid vehicles to sell for the ticket price or above.  SUV’s are selling way below ticket price since there are a lot more sellers than buyers.  Vehicle manufacturers are overloaded with SUV’s and the dealerships can’t sell the ones they already have on the lot.            

            Just this data makes it seem foolish to trade or sell a SUV at this time, but the financial numbers is what will really influence the decision.  There are many different situations a consumer might be in.  A consumer who is not able to afford fueling their SUV might need to trade their SUV in.  Perhaps there is no loan against it and the value of the SUV is high enough to get them an equally or lower priced car.  This means they directly cut down their gas expense and haven’t changed their monthly budget. 

            Some examples using numbers can probably give everyone a general idea to help with their decision making.  $30,000 is close to an average cost of a SUV.  To set-up this example we will say John purchased a $30,000 SUV four years ago.  With zero down and a 6% interest rate his payments are $580 a month and he has a current loan balance of $6000.  Let’s also examine Joan who purchased the same year and model SUV for the same amount but her loan is paid off.  Currently, a dealership is offering $9,000 for the SUV.  Therefore each consumer has sunk costs of $21,000.  Also this means John will have to use $6000 of the $9,000 trade in to pay his existing loan.  His balance of $3000 will go towards his new purchase and all of Joan’s $9,000 will be put towards her new purchase.  We will take a look at these situations in two different ways.    

            First we will look at the situations by monthly budget.  Since car payments are monthly payments we need to determine how much money is spent on gas each month.  We will use the current average U.S. gasoline price of $4 a gallon.  Joan’s roundtrip to her full-time job each day is 30 miles.  On the weekend she drives on an average 100 miles.  Therefore, Joan drives 1,000 miles a month.  At 16 miles per gallon she pays $250 a month.  Currently she doesn’t have a monthly car payment so her monthly total for gas and car payment is $250 a month.  Joan is looking to purchase a car which is the same model year as her SUV.  The car costs $15,000, but gets 27 miles per gallon.  After her $9000 SUV trade-in her monthly car payment will be $116 (using 6% interest rate).  Her monthly gas expense will be $150.  This equates to $266 a month for gas and car payment.  Her monthly expense for a car payment and gas is actually higher now which is mainly due to her only getting $9,000 for her SUV. 

John’s roundtrip to his full-time job each day is 60 miles.  On the weekend he drives 100 miles.  Therefore, John drives 1,600 miles a month.  John pays $400 a month in gas.  If John purchases this same car, then his monthly gas expense is $237.  After the $3000 John will be able to put towards his purchase, his car payment is $232.  His total expense for gas and car payment will now be $469.  John will actually save over $100 a month.  However he was in the last year of his SUV payments and now his car payments will continue for five years.   

            The second way we will look at these situations is to determine the break even point.  We can determine how many miles it will take in order to make up for the loss on the SUV.  The loss on the SUV is not the $21,000 sunk cost, but the difference in trade-in value from the time before gas prices skyrocketed to the present time.  The sunk cost has to do with trading in a vehicle for another one.  We won’t use the $21,000 since we are strictly looking at if the SUV is worth trading in just to get better fuel efficiency.  Before there was a large increase in gas prices, a typical SUV like John’s and Joan’s would have a trade-in value around $14,000.  Now the trade-in value is $9,000 which equates to a $5,000 difference.  In using cost accounting we need to determine the sale per mile and the variable cost per mile.  The $4 per gallon gas price needs to be converted to a cost per mile since we need to get the break even point in miles.  The sale per mile is just the SUV’s fuel cost per mile.  This is $4 a gallon divided by 16 miles per gallon which equates to a cost of 25 cents a mile.  The variable cost per mile is the car’s fuel cost per mile.  This is $4 a gallon divided by 27 miles per gallon which equates to a cost of 15 cents a mile.  Next we determine our contribution margin per mile which is the sale per mile of 25 cents minus the variable cost per mile of 15 cents which results in a 10 cents per mile contribution margin.  Finally we use the $5,000 loss and divide by the contribution margin per mile of 10 cents which provides the answer of 50,000 miles.  The
break even point of 50,000 miles is the amount of miles that need to be driven in the car to recover the $5,000 loss on the SUV.   To simplify the problem we simply converting both vehicles’ cost of gas per mile and took the difference.  Then we divided the loss on the SUV by this difference.  It will take Joan over 4 years of driving the car to recover the SUV loss at her current usage and it will take John over 2.5 years. 

          The future of the gas prices is unknown which makes the future value of the SUV unknown also.  However, we know the value of an SUV has dropped significantly.  If we could have predicted this drop, then trading in the SUV before this occurrence would have avoided the $5,000 decline in value.  The problem is most SUV owners couldn’t make this prediction so they are presented with the situations we have examined.  In these examples we only looked at the financial numbers which alone didn’t strongly favor trading the SUV in for a car.  Also, like in the stock market, it doesn’t make sense to sell low and buy high which is currently happening when SUV’s are traded in for fuel efficient cars.  When we consider the advantages of a SUV which have led them to their popularity over the years it doesn’t make much sense to give these advantages up.  Perhaps the next time a consumer is ready to buy a new vehicle they won’t purchase a gas guzzling SUV, but for current SUV owners it makes sense to continue to enjoy the great features of these vehicles.