bobaru Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 my trans is not on this chart http://www.gearhack.com/myink/ViewPage.php?file=docs/Subaru%20Transmission%20Chart Its a ty752vabca the car is a 96OBW 2.2 I found some trany's in local yards none of which match. I know I need a 4:11, Its the 5th gear where im lost I found a ty752vacba and a ty752vacca plus others thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinthe202 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 That's funny, I have a '96 OBW 2.2L and had the same experience. My trans was not listed on the chart. By using a gear calculator like this one, http://www.scirocco.org/gears/ I found my 5th to be .871 but It really doesn't matter as long as the final drive is the same (4.11) you could use either one. And the clutch type, hydro vs. cable. In fact the .780 might yield slightly better MPG on the highway. Will- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edrach Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Yea, someone who actually checked the gear chart. Sadly, not all transmissions are listed and for the life of me, I can't understand how some of them get left out. It's surprising to me that your OBW has a 4.111 rear/gearbox since they were going with the 3.900 during the mid '90's to get better gas consumption. I'd give my eye-teeth to figure out how they assign the letters that identify the transmission. I'm sure it has something to do with the final ratio as well as individual gear ratios, but it's beyond me. Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobaru Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) thank you guys Ok the way Im reading this .780 is the taller gear and if I used that I'd possably get better mileage right now Im getting 31 mpg. Im guessing I got the .871 , My reason of guessing OBW taller tires only needs the shorter gear and what Will said in post 2 Edited February 2, 2010 by bobaru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edrach Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) That's funny, I have a '96 OBW 2.2L and had the same experience. My trans was not listed on the chart. By using a gear calculator like this one, http://www.scirocco.org/gears/ I found my 5th to be .871 but It really doesn't matter as long as the final drive is the same (4.11) you could use either one. And the clutch type, hydro vs. cable. In fact the .780 might yield slightly better MPG on the highway. Will- Speaking of clutch type, hydraulic versus cable. You can with a little effort convert from one to the other. My '97 Impreza has a cable clutch and the transmission I installed came from a '95 WRX (JDM) front clip which used a hydraulic clutch. Long story short, remove the hydraulic stuff from the transmission, replace the clutch fork, move the pivot point for the fork (hole was already in the casting...just needed to tap it and screw in the pivot ball), replace the rear diff and the transmission works just fine. I wanted the 4.111 rear and with the JDM gearbox got the closer ratio gears. I'm a happy camper. I know someone will ask, transmission number is TY752VB3FA. Edited February 2, 2010 by edrach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobaru Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 Speaking of clutch type, hydraulic versus cable. You can with a little effort convert from one to the other. My '97 Impreza has a cable clutch and the transmission I installed came from a '95 WRX (JDM) front clip which used a hydraulic clutch. Long story short, remove the hydraulic stuff from the transmission, replace the clutch fork, move the pivot point for the fork (hole was already in the casting...just needed to tap it and screw in the pivot ball), replace the rear diff and the transmission works just fine. I wanted the 4.111 rear and with the JDM gearbox got the closer ratio gears. I'm a happy camper. I know someone will ask, transmission number is TY752VB3FA. glad you posted that. the trans Im thinking about Getting is a 97 with 97000 mile and a hydro cluth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edrach Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 glad you posted that. the trans Im thinking about Getting is a 97 with 97000 mile and a hydro cluthActually, you might be better off converting your cable clutch to hydraulic; it just requires adding more parts to your car. The easier conversion is what I had done since it requires fewer parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinthe202 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 thank you guys Ok the way Im reading this .780 is the taller gear and if I used that I'd possably get better mileage right now Im getting 31 mpg. Im guessing I got the .871 , My reason of guessing OBW taller tires only needs the shorter gear and what Will said in post 2 31 is about my average mpg too, which I think is pretty good. It's also possible that the OBW's got the .871 because of the taller tires like you mentioned. It may be that .871 gears put the engine in it's optimal efficiency range for 65-70 mph and that using the .780 gears will actually hurt mpg. Probably not, but report your findings if you end up with a box with .780 Will- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnceggleston Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) It's surprising to me that your OBW has a 4.111 rear/gearbox since they were going with the 3.900 during the mid '90's to get better gas consumption. when they introduce the 2.5L engine both the manual and the auto trans final drives went to a lower gearing, higher number, by one step. manuals went from 3.9 to 4.11 and autos went from 4.11 to 4.44. this was for the 2.5L cars only 96 - 99. I'd give my eye-teeth to figure out how they assign the letters that identify the transmission. I'm sure it has something to do with the final ratio as well as individual gear ratios, but it's beyond me. Anyone know? in the auto trans world, 95 - 99, these things are generally true: the 1st character, T is for trans. the 2nd and 6th characters designate AWD or FWD. A is for FWD and Z is for AWD. so a TZ102Z... trans is AWD and a TA102A... trans is fwd. the 3rd, 4th, and 5th characters designate the series of trans. in autos the 102 was used form the beginning, 90 - 99. then there was an odd duck transition year, 1A2 maybe and then they went with 1A4. i do not know how long that series ran. the 7th character designates the final drive ratio, if the 7th character was a 2, it was a 2.5L car and had the 4.44 final drive (auto trans remember). if the 7th was a letter, usually/always an A, it was the 4.11. if you search the tranny chart you may find a similar correlation for manuals. the 8th character, 3rd to last, generally refers the where this particular trans falls in the series, A comes before B and C comes after B. often this changes with model years but not always. the last 2 characters, 9th & 10th, refer to the model of car the trans was in. generally BA = outback, AA = legacy, and CA = GT. but they sometimes varied away from this, i'm not sure the LSi fits and the GT may have been considered a legacy in its first year. but the BA is generally good. so much so that i think some of the outback sport impreza auto trans ended with BA. this is what i know about auto trans code numbers. you will have to do some research to see if there are similarities in manuals trans. Edited February 2, 2010 by johnceggleston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinthe202 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 when they introduce the 2.5L engine both the manual and the auto trans final drives went to a lower gearing, higher number, by one step. manuals went from 3.9 to 4.11 and autos went from 4.11 to 4.44. this was for the 2.5L cars only 96 - 99. And for the 2.2L manual Outbacks (being 4.11) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnceggleston Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) And for the 2.2L manual Outbacks (being 4.11) yes, but this is the only case, 95 - 99 when a 2.2L manual had a 4.11. a bit of an odd duck. basically, the engine is an odd duck, the trans and final drive are outback. on a side note, the interchange software for the salvage yards does list a 2.2L engine in an auto trans outback in 96, but no one has ever seen one and every one swears they do not exist. i tend to agree. Edited February 2, 2010 by johnceggleston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinthe202 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 ah, gotcha I see what you meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now