1-4 Shift
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 41,732
Likes: 1,718
From: Springfield MO
Safety Car
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,547
Likes: 609
From: Southeast, WI
I guess I don't understand why someone would want to shift a manual transmission that soon. Your close to bogging down with that few rpm's. slight exaggeration.
Last edited by speedlink; Apr 22, 2017 at 04:09 PM.
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 41,732
Likes: 1,718
From: Springfield MO
I normally shift out of first at around 2,000 RPM in traffic(17.44 MPH) and after shifting into 2nd gear, my RPM's drop to 1,340.
Believe me, my car's LS7(with the same low end torque of the LT1) will accelerate very well at 1,340 RPM in traffic, without a hint of lugging.
We're driving a honking big V8, not a Honda tiny 4 cylinder S2000.
Last edited by JoesC5; Apr 22, 2017 at 04:36 PM.
Thread Starter
Advanced
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 67
Likes: 20
I let it once just to see where the revs would be at. Pretty ludicrous.
Team Owner
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 31,791
Likes: 2,415
From: DFW/Long Island
The bottom line is to stop slogging the engine and shift at higher RPMs. I've had 3 manual vettes since 2004 and I think I've bumped into the 1-4 shift maybe 5 times.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8,847
Likes: 795
From: Longview Texas
I had the CAGS bypass on my C5, but the window in which it activates has been reduced so much on the C7 that I never notice it.
I put together my own CAGS bypass resistor, but have never installed it.
I put together my own CAGS bypass resistor, but have never installed it.
Team Owner
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 25,583
Likes: 16,942
More precisely, it was a scheme to get a better EPA mileage rating. Because there is a message telling the driver to shift between 16 and 19 mph, the car qualified to be tested that way during the EPA mileage certification. The scheme worked.
Moreover, that mileage certification was critical in the C5, C6, and non-C7 Z06 manual transmission models avoiding the federal gas guzzler tax. That put money back into the pocket of every buyer.
I don't think anyone at GM ever expected most Corvette owners to drive it that way.
Moreover, that mileage certification was critical in the C5, C6, and non-C7 Z06 manual transmission models avoiding the federal gas guzzler tax. That put money back into the pocket of every buyer.
I don't think anyone at GM ever expected most Corvette owners to drive it that way.
Last edited by Foosh; Apr 22, 2017 at 04:47 PM.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvette Engines RANKED by Peak Torque (70+ Years of Muscle!)
Joe Kucinski
Corvette ZR1X Will Be Pacing the Indy 500, And Could Probably Race, Too!
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvettes Coming to Mecum Indy 2026!
Brett Foote
Top 10 C9 Corvette MUST-HAVES to Fix These C8 Generation Flaws!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Revolutionary 'Corvette Firsts' Most People Don't Know
Joe Kucinski
5 Reasons to Upgrade to an LS6-Powered Corvette; 5 Reasons to Stay LT2
Michael S. Palmer
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 41,732
Likes: 1,718
From: Springfield MO
More precisely, it was a scheme to get a better EPA mileage rating. Because there is a message telling the driver to shift between 16 and 19 mph, the car qualified to be tested that way during the EPA mileage certification. The scheme worked.
Moreover, that mileage certification was critical in the C5, C6, and non-C7 Z06 manual transmission models avoiding the federal gas guzzler tax. That put money back into the pocket of every buyer.
I don't think anyone at GM ever expected most Corvette owners to drive it that way.
Moreover, that mileage certification was critical in the C5, C6, and non-C7 Z06 manual transmission models avoiding the federal gas guzzler tax. That put money back into the pocket of every buyer.
I don't think anyone at GM ever expected most Corvette owners to drive it that way.
The 1X4 CAGS shifting was to improve GM's CAFE(which is different from the gas guzzler tax).
Only the C6 ZR1(21.5 MPG) and the C7 Z06(20.7 MPG) had to worry about tripping the gas guzzler tax at 22.5 MPG and is calculated different than how the CAFE is calculated.
Last edited by JoesC5; Apr 26, 2017 at 12:08 PM.
Safety Car
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,547
Likes: 609
From: Southeast, WI
My C6 Z06 is geared the same as the base C7 StingRay(W/O Z51).
I normally shift out of first at around 2,000 RPM in traffic(17.44 MPH) and after shifting into 2nd gear, my RPM's drop to 1,340.
Believe me, my car's LS7(with the same low end torque of the LT1) will accelerate very well at 1,340 RPM in traffic, without a hint of lugging.
We're driving a honking big V8, not a Honda tiny 4 cylinder S2000.
I normally shift out of first at around 2,000 RPM in traffic(17.44 MPH) and after shifting into 2nd gear, my RPM's drop to 1,340.
Believe me, my car's LS7(with the same low end torque of the LT1) will accelerate very well at 1,340 RPM in traffic, without a hint of lugging.
We're driving a honking big V8, not a Honda tiny 4 cylinder S2000.
E-Ray, 3LZ, ZER, LIFT
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 34,937
Likes: 12,351
From: NE South Carolina
I spent the $20 for the CAGS eliminator so I could be in charge of when/how I shift from 1st to 2nd gear 100% of the time, and not when the computer thinks I should.
No need to make a special effort to watch the RPM's/speed etc to decide when to shift, with the 1X4 shift disabled. There is no point in taking a 460-470 lb-ft engine to 3,000 RPM's when driving in heavy traffic/slow speeds. Especially in a shopping mall parking lot.
No need to make a special effort to watch the RPM's/speed etc to decide when to shift, with the 1X4 shift disabled. There is no point in taking a 460-470 lb-ft engine to 3,000 RPM's when driving in heavy traffic/slow speeds. Especially in a shopping mall parking lot.
I did the same on my C6, 2014 Z51 and just last week on my new Grand Sport! The OP asked what can be done not why he shouldn't spend $20! 
Yep it seldom occurs in the C7 but for $20 it will never occur!
Pro
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 582
Likes: 170
From: Indiana
Le Mans Master
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 9,900
Likes: 1,841
From: Hot Springs AR
Ditto. I've dealt with CAGS with my '94 Z-28, '00 C5 FRC, and our new '14 C7. It was really annoying on the Z-28 (CAGS delete went in pronto!), less annoying in our C5 (still got the CAGS treatment), but I've stumbled into CAGS mode only twice in the past month with our C7 and 2500 miles. Not saying I won't put CAGS delete on it in the future, but it's just a non-issue for us, and I drive the same now as I did with the previous two versions of the T56.
Have a good one,
Mike
Thread Starter
Advanced
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 67
Likes: 20
Burning Brakes
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 983
Likes: 364
From: Stafford Virginia
You're absolutely right, it only blocks you once, then is deactivated, so just pull immediately back into second.
There's no downside to the CAGs eliminator, it's just completely unnecessary, unless your driving habits are so programmed that you can't break the habit of 1-2 shifting at low rpms in that very tiny window.
I've been a manual person all my life, and I've always revved to at least 3K before the 1-2 shift in everything. In fact in smaller displacement, lower torque engines, that's almost a necessity. That's the way I'm programmed, and it's also more fun to drive that way.
There's no downside to the CAGs eliminator, it's just completely unnecessary, unless your driving habits are so programmed that you can't break the habit of 1-2 shifting at low rpms in that very tiny window.
I've been a manual person all my life, and I've always revved to at least 3K before the 1-2 shift in everything. In fact in smaller displacement, lower torque engines, that's almost a necessity. That's the way I'm programmed, and it's also more fun to drive that way.