R-154/w58

SWD Fredester 3

Supramania Contributor
Apr 25, 2008
674
0
16
baltimore maryland
Just a question because I do not know; what is the difference between these
5 speed transmissions? Was the R-154 offered as an option and the W58 a
standard transmission? Please bare with me, although I have owned my
car since 1992, I just drove it. Suddenly with this forum the lights are
coming on and the questions pop up.
 

Nocheez

Probably posts too much
Apr 17, 2005
271
0
0
Charlotte, NC
A quick search would have probably netted you the answer: the R154 was mated to the turbo engine, the W58 was mated to the non-turbo engine. The A340e was the automatic used in both, however the internals were stronger in the turbo version.
 

SWD Fredester 3

Supramania Contributor
Apr 25, 2008
674
0
16
baltimore maryland
Nocheez;1034952 said:
A quick search would have probably netted you the answer: the R154 was mated to the turbo engine, the W58 was mated to the non-turbo engine. The A340e was the automatic used in both, however the internals were stronger in the turbo version.

Thanks for the clarification. What threw me, and I did search, was my cars
specs in the members list: 1992 MkIII 7MGTE-stock turbo W58 5 Speed.
Thanks, Fred
 

AF1JZ

Almost civilian status...
Jun 26, 2006
3,109
0
0
Fredericksburg, VA
Nocheez;1034952 said:
A quick search would have probably netted you the answer: the R154 was mated to the turbo engine, the W58 was mated to the non-turbo engine. The A340e was the automatic used in both, however the internals were stronger in the turbo version.

That about sums it up. The R154 is a beefier transmission compared to the W58. The shifting on the R154 is kinda notchy as the W58 is nice and smooth from what I have heard. The W58 is good for about 400whp before stuff starts breaking and I'm not exactly sure the max whp on the R154. Somewhere's in the 600-700whp (with an upgraded clutch of course).
 

SWD Fredester 3

Supramania Contributor
Apr 25, 2008
674
0
16
baltimore maryland
AF1JZ;1034970 said:
That about sums it up. The R154 is a beefier transmission compared to the W58. The shifting on the R154 is kinda notchy as the W58 is nice and smooth from what I have heard. The W58 is good for about 400whp before stuff starts breaking and I'm not exactly sure the max whp on the R154. Somewhere's in the 600-700whp (with an upgraded clutch of course).
Very good answer, I appreciate the information. I was reading some of the
other posts about rebuilding the transmissions and buying another to keep
as a spare in case of breakage and that is what prompted my question.
Thanks, Fred
 

SWD Fredester 3

Supramania Contributor
Apr 25, 2008
674
0
16
baltimore maryland
BasicMinusBA;1035010 said:
the differnce between the w58 and the R154 is the w58 sucks and the r154 dosnt
Well I guess that sums it up in a nutshell! You have a good looking car with
a beautiful engine. Nice attention to detail and color scheme. I have the
same Bomex front on my car with Piaa fog lights in the outside vents, works very well. I also added a fiberglass under belly to the front which helps
protect the oil pan and bottom front of the engine and it also works as a
lower inter cooler block off.
Thanks, Fred
 

1-2clutch-u

Member
Feb 18, 2006
379
0
16
chi town and ohio
i have a w58 and I like it. well it has grown on me. Iv had 2 r154s also with no probs but i like the w58 its a good trans in my book. and clutchs are cheeper. wink.
 

NewWestSupras

SoupLvr
Mar 1, 2006
611
0
0
White Rock
I've had both trannys respectively, and saying the W58 "sucks" is just one member's opinion. I thought the 58 shifted like butter compared to the 154...of course if you are just looking at hp capabilities, the 154 is a clear winner. Shift-wise, the non-turbo trans was much more user friendly imho.
 

SWD Fredester 3

Supramania Contributor
Apr 25, 2008
674
0
16
baltimore maryland
1-2clutch-u;1035109 said:
i have a w58 and I like it. well it has grown on me. Iv had 2 r154s also with no probs but i like the w58 its a good trans in my book. and clutchs are cheeper. wink.
Thanks for the feed back. Fortunately I've only had to replace my clutch
once in 105,000 miles. That was with an IAG TUNING stage, 3 so far so
good.
Thanks, Fred
 

SWD Fredester 3

Supramania Contributor
Apr 25, 2008
674
0
16
baltimore maryland
NewWestSupras;1035111 said:
I've had both trannys respectively, and saying the W58 "sucks" is just one member's opinion. I thought the 58 shifted like butter compared to the 154...of course if you are just looking at hp capabilities, the 154 is a clear winner. Shift-wise, the non-turbo trans was much more user friendly imho.
Yes, everyone has an opinion and I try to respect them all to filter my own.
I agree that the 154 can be difficult, almost chunky, especially on a double
clutch down shift w/ heel and toe. I thought I could remedy it somewhat
with a Supra Sport short shifter but it still can be a pain. Since I plan to
double the hp soon I guess I will have to live with it.
Thanks for your input, Fred