Many thanks for your very clear and comprehensible report, Andy. Your last sentence would have been my only question. Let me put it this way: Obviously the manual transmission is designed to be very long. Of course this engine has enough torque and power for that. Would shorter gears be better to make shifting more agile and fun, or would the engine be too powerful for that, because it has a lot of torque even at low revs?
I'm very curious if you also drive an automatic version, or do you simply miss in that case the fun of being mechanically involved? If you should test the automatic version and write something about it, I would be happy to read it as well.
If you accept that first gear is about right then shortening the other gears on manual version would almost certainly provide more fun by encouraging usage. An 80 mph second gear and a sixth gear of 45mph/1000 rpm just don't make sense though, unless the latter is needed to achieve approval economy. It's almost as though MMC have engineered the demanded manual version with reduced torque and high gearing, to encourage auto sales.
Further thoughts are that as with the 3.7 Roadster, MMC were obliged to accept what gearbox and associated ratio's were available to match engine and in so doing accept whatever gearing the individual ratio's provided. In the case of the 3.7 and some earlier Roadster variants I believe, you are left with a ridiculously low first gear, making it almost redundant.
Richard
2018 Roadster 3.7 1966 Land Rover S2a 88 2024 Royal Enfield Guerrilla 450 1945 Guzzi Airone
