NoGo95GT

Man, try driving a 95 GT with 3.08's. 3500lbs + 215hp/285trq= slower than *****. I have to launch at 2000rpm just to get in head of a freaking Honda Civic. They used the 3.08's for economy reasons, but I always have to wring the car out just to get it moving. Plus, every full throttle shift drops the rpm right out of the car's "power range" But, 75mph is less than 2000rpm, so that's a plus. Too bad I never hit the freeway. Just my rant

Morbid Intentions

not sure if this has been said before... but it depends on how much power you are putting down and at what RPM's you are making power IMO

3.31's would be perfect for a 4.6L 2V or 3V if you equip it with a twin screw, TT it or nitrous... a centrifugal or a single turbo I would go to 3.73's to get the RPM's jumping

from my experience 4.10's are too much if you plan on making any kind of power and getting it to the ground on stockish rubber

it comes right down to whether or not you plan on making a decent amount of power and torque low in the RPM range to get the car off the line fast enough to take advantage of it's long legs

if you plan on leaving the car all motor with just bolt on's I'd opt for 3.73's if you plan on drag racing AND driving it on the highway

Stone629

Wheel sizes make a difference too. My car really doesn't feel like it has 4.10s with these stock 18s. As long as I'm moving at least 3-5 mph, I can slam it to the floor with very little if any wheel spin in 1st gear, and only get very little of 2nd, bark 3rd. I know they are two totally different cars, but my Mach would light the tires up at any speed in 1st gear right on thru 2nd and part of 3rd, and/or would do a 2nd gear burnout from here to Egypt. I tried doing a 2nd gear burnout in this S197 once, and it smoked the clutch. Any less than 4.10s in an S197 with stock 18s is not cutting it imo. I don't know if its the wheel weight, or the ratio being thrown off by the extra 1 inch of wheel, or the just the overall physics of the car itself. I want to get some 17s for the track so I can take advantage of these gears.

Riptide

The ratio isn't thrown off much. With a 28.5" tall wheel on my car it only took me from a 4.10 down to a 3.90 final.

Between the heavier 18x10 wheels with the bigger tires, and also the small reduction in final ratio, I did notice it lost a little bit of snappiness that it had with the stock tires/wheels.

The plus side was the extra traction.

BTW, even with the stock 17s and pirellis, I was unable to bust it loose from a roll in first gear. Didn't matter whether I stabbed it at 1K or 3K rpm from a roll it would not come loose.

TommyV8

Yup. With the kind of Kansas topography power curve my car makes, 2.73 gears work just fine.

Going for broke

when your comparing all of these different cars (vette's, older stangs t/a's, camaros etc.. you have to remember that rear gear ratio is all relative to the overall gear ratio and the gears in the tranny not just the rear axle. the gm cars have always had a very low first gear thus allowing them to get away with rear ratios like 2.73's they also have a lot more torque down low because of bigger displacement.

TommyV8

Yeah, I think the first gear ratio in my 4L60E is 3.06. Still feels slow though, and first will still run up to 55 mph.

Johnboy7701

I ran a 13.3 with 3.31 so we'll see when I finally get to the track with my 4.10's, oh and I had just a CAI and a tune...