| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 03:21
|
 |
Just mulling over options on what box to stick behind my 1U. I've written off the R154 for various reasons. I have a RX7 Series V box that has the goods for strength but looks like a PITA to fit. I have 3 W50s just sitting there and they seriously don't look any weaker than a W58.
Does anyone have real world experience in the hp limits of these two boxes. and what is it that breaks when something does let go.
I have flogged a W50 on the track and street behind a big revving turbo 18RG and they handled it pretty well.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 04:44
|
|
I'd say the 1U will put out a little *read : shiteloads* more torque than ANY 18R-G
i'd say go the R154 or W58
but seeing as you have plenty of W-fiddys to beark, why not? 
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 05:03
|
|
No offense mate but that's just the kind of uninformed response i didn't ask for. You may have missed the word "TURBO" before the 18RG. This motor did in fact have more torque than a stock 1U and was capable of producing a shitload more with minimal mods.
All besides the point though as all i want to know is what a W50 WILL take and what a W58 WILL take and when something breaks, what is it. I have yet to see anyone break a gear set in either of these boxes (anyone who can drive that is). Bearings, syncros and input shafts i have seen broken and all can be substantially upgraded. Maybe a W50 is up to the task, i just want to know from someone who has the experience.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 05:06
|
|
Well, if you DO find out that the W50 is strong enough (Sorry, I can't help here), I'll take one off your hands to stick behind my 1U...
Let us know what you find out... (Off-list if you prefer).
Cheers
Michael
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 05:11
|
|
Justen, a guy who used to frequent these forums (Secoh from PF) had a 7MGTE Crown. I believe he blew 2 (possibly 3) W50s - apparently the gears or splines on 5th gear would shear off (you may wish to chat to him as my memory is vague), supposedly from the torque. He then sourced an R154 and I believe had no problems till it was eventually sold.
It's a one off anecdote, so it may not mean much. Certainly they used to put W50s behind 253s and 302s.
Cheers Dave.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 05:20
|
|
Michael,
I have a mate with a W50 with upgraded bearings behind his 1U. Not running as yet but rod Hatfield reckoned no probs. So if yours is n/a and you don't plan too many mods a W50 is a nice cheap option. Dellow and castlmaine rod shop use the same bellhousing as the W58 but drilled for the W50.
Mine will have twin turbos so a slightly different kettle of fish. Basically i'll have enough hp to break any easily obtainable box so i'm trying to balance cost with freq of replacement. An R154 is not good for this reason, plus they have an ugly shift and are big power sappers by all accounts. If there's not much difference between a W50 and 58 then the 50 is the way to go. The W50 has the best shift of any of the Toyota boxes i reckon.
Dave - Thanks for that mate, good info. Big torque will always hurt 5th because of the loading so that's not a major concern, you just have to be gentle with 5th  Good to know that's the only gear that went. With the 3.7:1 diff gearing i want 4th will be good for near on 200kph anyway so 5th will be a true overdrive and not used for big power acceleration.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 05:22
|
|
5th gear is a known weak point of the old W50's. They used to put them behind old-school V8's, but the advice was always given that you should take it easy in 5th gear (ie don't load it up at low speeds). The first 4 gears are strong as though - in fact W40's are popular with the rotary drag boys because they're strong, cheap and plentiful.
My late-model W58 is a much nicer box than any of the W50's I've owned or driven, and it's lighter to boot. Clearly these boxes are quite strong as mine has survived the massive torque of the 2JZ and a pretty strong ceramic clutch.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 05:31
|
|
That's my experience Norbie, as you well know
The main upgrade Toyota seem to have taken with the W50 onwards is getting the weight out and the rest of the differences are just ratio's. When you sit the boxes side by side there doesn't appear to be any reason why a W58 would be stronger (except for 5th gear).
I have always preferred the shift in the W50 to the W55 onwards, just seems to except fast shifts better. Maybe it doesn't feel as slick? but i think it's a quicker shift.
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 05:56
|
|
don't the W58's also have a steel sandwich plate vs an alloy one or something like that?
I'm not 100% on this, i just remember someone saying somthing like this a while ago - possibly TurboRA28 (blue Joel)
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 06:03
|
|
|
Yeah, the W57 as well i think. The W55 is the alloy plate. BUT the W50 is a steel case box so it has the rigidity anyway, and is possibly more rigid than the W58?
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 07:02
|
|
I seem to remember someone stating that the bearings in the W58 are stronger. But don't take that as a fact...
The only fact here is that my memory can't be trusted.
I would take the safe path and go with the W58 since we know that Jamie's managed to root a W58 already...
And there's better aftermarket support for them too.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 10:56
|
|
Yeah they may still make the W58 (slightly upgraded tho) but if toyota really thought it was up to the task of the 7M-GTE and 1JZ-GTE do you think they would have designed the R154?
Personally I think it will have a lot to do with driving style as well! 
Cheers
Wilbo
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 10:59
|
|
|
SUPRAGTE has a W58 behind his car, its not even a late model one like Norbie's. Speaking of mechanical sympathy, I've got a video of him doing a nasty burnout in it
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 10:59
|
|
They didn't design the R154... that's an Aisin Warner box from memory.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 11:04
|
|
|
Which Toyota owns anyway, or at least a big chunk of. When I've heard people talk about the R154 its usually referred to as the "Toyota" box as opposed to the Getrag V160/1.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 11:26
|
|
|
No it wont.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 11:28
|
|
|
what is different/ would i need to change?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 11:29
|
|
|
Probably the bellhousing for a start. I haven't checked.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 11:31
|
|
|
Standard? Since when does Toyota make anything standard?
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 12:22
|
|
| justcallmefrank wrote on Thu, 04 September 2003 21:31 |
Standard? Since when does Toyota make anything standard?
|
Ahhh so so funny (because its true!). 
Cheers
Wilbo
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 12:27
|
|
|
If you have a look at the Celica XX/Mk2 Supra, you will see once of the MOST WHACKED product lines ever released by a company.
|
|
|
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Thu, 04 September 2003 15:41
|
|
|
I have a 1JZ infront of my W58, no problems so far, a few burnouts, and sideways action.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Sat, 06 September 2003 04:46
|
|
Justin, I have 2 X W58's sitting in my garage, one is all alloy construction,(possibly from a Corona of some description)and the other has the steel sandwich plate, which was introduced to cope with higher torque loadings(This one came from behind an atmo 2JZGE.) The links at the front of this web site will get you to a Scandinavian guys site "Matti's Home Page", this guy has an extensive list of engines and boxes on his site, and tells which box was bolted to which engine. The list also indicates the HP going into the boxes ex factory.
regards Chuck.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth, Western Australia
Registered:
December 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Sat, 06 September 2003 05:32
|
|
Justen, do you need the 5th gear or is it more luxury than neccesity? If not, go for a Ford bull nosed Top loader, more expensive than a W50 but also the strongest production four speed made in the world. Not the cheapest option if you have enough power to break them regularly, but then I don't see a W50 last much longer than clutch drop! The bull noses also come from the factory with a 31 spline output shaft and heavy duty uni's and yoke too.
The W57 has an alloy sandwich plate too, and I'd suggest any W58 that doesn't have a steel sandwich plate is if fact a W55 or W57 (I've only ever seen W58's and W59's with steel sandwich plates)
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Sun, 07 September 2003 02:28
|
|
And apparently the MA4x W50's are stronger then normal W50's apparently a few needle roller barings inside and other goodies
Yet to open one up to find out if its true or not!
Allan
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Sun, 07 September 2003 14:22
|
|
yeah, the 6cyl w50's (crown's, supra's, mk2 corona's) have roller bearing on input shaft
the 4cyl w50's, just have normal bearing
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 02:52
|
|
Thanks for all the responses guys. It's helping build a better picture at least.
Another question. Is the W58 the same bolt pattern onto the bellhousing as the earlier W55/57? I should know this and suspect they are but need to be sure.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth, Western Australia
Registered:
December 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 02:54
|
|
|
Yep, they are!
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 03:01
|
|
Thanks Clint,
I considered the toploader option but if i went with another box it would be the RX7 series V box i have. In suspect anything other than the toyota box with dellow etc bellhousing will be a bitch to fit.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth, Western Australia
Registered:
December 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 03:05
|
|
|
Considering you're up for a bellhousing and new trans tunnel anyway, I'd consider every option!
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 03:51
|
|
|
Nothing is being discounted Clint...even the auto is still on the table. A V160 is the dream box but a tad hard to justify the cost. Looks like the w58 is nosing into the lead again.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth, Western Australia
Registered:
December 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 03:56
|
|
|
A twin turbo 9.2second 1UZ over here in Perth runs a modified 2 speed Powerglide gearbox without problems. He does have around 1000hp though and is known to lift the heads making quarter mile runs interesting when the oil and water hit the back tyres!
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 05:16
|
|
| JustenGT4 wrote on Mon, 08 September 2003 12:52 |
Another question. Is the W58 the same bolt pattern onto the bellhousing as the earlier W55/57? I should know this and suspect they are but need to be sure.
|
Yeah, identical.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 07:18
|
|
I'd love V160 Norbie but cheapest i could find was $3K. That was new but still!
I have found a W58 cheap but needs a new input shaft. Anyone got one or know of one kicking around. The W50 has the same spline, any chance it's the same shaft?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 07:59
|
|
|
Thats one way to look at it, but what you also have to weigh up is, the time and the $ of replacing "lesser" boxes when you break them.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth, Western Australia
Registered:
December 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 08:17
|
|
Hmm, mental note to self, start stockpiling W50 and W58 boxes, there may be a run on them?!?
Norbie, The Bullnosed Toploaders have been used in just about every high torque Ford application of their day, and saw duty in both factory race cars (eg, the phase 3 GTHO Falcon that everyone acknowledges, had one), and also truck duties. I'll happily admit technology wise they are past their used by date, especially their external gear selector linkages, however they are still a formidable box when compared to other four speeds produced since, both for price and availability.
With the type of mass horsepower and torque a twin turbo 1UZ will produce, I'd be looking at the auto route too, it's not like it's gonna turn a corner quickly, and I can think of better ways to go fast around corners.
Justen, what do you want set the car up for?
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 10:21
|
|
| Nark wrote on Mon, 08 September 2003 15:16 |
| JustenGT4 wrote on Mon, 08 September 2003 12:52 |
Another question. Is the W58 the same bolt pattern onto the bellhousing as the earlier W55/57? I should know this and suspect they are but need to be sure.
|
Yeah, identical.
|
So a W58 bellhousing will without a doubt fit a W55 and W57 as well as a W58? (I do seem to remember nark changing from a W57 to W58 at one stage?)
Cheers
Wilbo
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 10:25
|
|
|
Externally, apart from the sandwich plate, they all look identical. I had my W57 and my W58 apart today, and apart from the sandwich plate, it would be hard to tell them apart at all.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 12:14
|
|
| clintgodde wrote on Mon, 08 September 2003 18:17 |
Norbie, The Bullnosed Toploaders have been used in just about every high torque Ford application of their day, and saw duty in both factory race cars (eg, the phase 3 GTHO Falcon that everyone acknowledges, had one), and also truck duties.
|
Yes I'm aware of that, but the forces experienced by a Toploader in a Phase 3 (a high 13 second car if you're generous) is absolutely nothing compared to a full-weight 8-second drag car launching off the line! I'm not aware of any manual drag cars using a factory box that come close to an 8-second pass, apart from the Mk4 Supra - and that's sort of what I was getting at.
Of course most sensible people with sub 10-second drag cars opt for a built auto, which brings us back to that topic.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 12:16
|
|
| justcallmefrank wrote on Mon, 08 September 2003 20:25 |
Externally, apart from the sandwich plate, they all look identical. I had my W57 and my W58 apart today, and apart from the sandwich plate, it would be hard to tell them apart at all.
|
Yup, I had my 2JZ-GE W58 apart next to (I assume) a W57 and everything looked nearly identical, including the bellhousings. In fact there are some W57 parts in my W58 right now!
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 12:29
|
|
Justen's not building a drag car (I seriously doubt it anyhow), I was just using drag racing as an example because nothing else is harder on transmissions.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Mon, 08 September 2003 12:31
|
|
|
yeah i realise that...just cant see a twin turbo v8 cruising around the streets...either way, i dont think a w50 - w58 will be enough for you.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Tue, 09 September 2003 04:10
|
|
Definitely not a drag car urrgh, although it will no doubt see the drags a coupla times for the fun factor. It definitely will be cruising around the streets and depending on how long my points last it'll be the daily driver. It will also corner very nicely thanks as the expected weight distribution is better than from factory.
A V160 is the box i need...too expensive not gonna happen. Jamie's W58 is doing an admirable job and i've seen first hand the curry that car takes and dished it some myself. A 22 is very light though.
At this stage i'll be going W58 and see how we go. If breakages become common a W160 will be the replacement and i can sell off the UZ conversion gear.
Now back to my question - anyone know if a W50 and W58 share the same input shaft? They do have the same spline
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Tue, 09 September 2003 04:39
|
|
|
Same spline on the input shaft.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Tue, 09 September 2003 04:42
|
|
Yup i know that
Are the shafts interchangeable though?? I have an ex Commodore Cup W58 but it has the crummiedoor spline on the input shaft. I have a W50 i can sacrifice to get the shaft if it's the same.
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: W50 versus W58
|
Tue, 09 September 2003 13:57
|
|
| JustenGT4 wrote on Tue, 09 September 2003 12:10 |
At this stage i'll be going W58 and see how we go. If breakages become common a W160 will be the replacement and i can sell off the UZ conversion gear.
|
sold!!
|
|
|
