2001 Mustang ring and pinion
07-20-2011, 07:24 PM
#1
2001 Mustang ring and pinion
Hey everyone. New to this Site. Usually not in a rush for imformation. But I ordered a Ford Racing gearset part no. FMS-M4209F327 from Summit and am waiting for it in the mail. But I just remembered reading something about anti-lock brakes and something about ordering parts for this rear-end. Question is are these the correct gears for this car? A quick response would be great as I'm not a big fan of the tech help lines of the Big Two aftermarket supply companies. A BIG thanks in advance to help on this.
Todd
Todd
07-20-2011, 07:36 PM
#3
I'm very satisfied with the factory gear. Just had a crack in my pinion. This car moves with cold air and flowmasters. 245hp/275tq to the tires and I'm ok with that. Does anyone know what I recall reading about an anti-lock exiter ring or something?
07-20-2011, 07:55 PM
#4
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: sttesuhcaxaT (The State you love to hate)
Posts: 1,360
That shouldnt interfere with swap of gears at all I believe.
Do you have the skills to do this job? Its not a beginners jobs.
It can be frustrating crushing the sleeve for pinion.
07-20-2011, 08:17 PM
#5
yes I am up to the task. Been tinkering for many years. I was sitting in the house with the AC keeping me cool when I got to thinking about what I had read. Rear-end is already torn down out in garage. Putting in a complete new trac-lok and all new bearings and seals also.
07-20-2011, 08:54 PM
#6
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,481
Todd,
You can ignore my reply to the other thread you postd in the general section. I see your response to the question about the 3.27 ratio.
If I were going to all the trouble, and expense to replace a ring and pinion, I would at least bump the ratio to 3.55. It is no doubt hard for any of us here to understand why you would want to keep the tall ratio that came in the car. A 3.55 would not change your fuel mileage or driveability, but the additional 8.5% increase in torque multiplication would be of benefit.
Just my opinion though, if you are happy with the 3:27 ratio, you certainly won't be disappointed with it again.
BTW, how did your stock gears get a crack in them? That is HIGHLY unusual.
You can ignore my reply to the other thread you postd in the general section. I see your response to the question about the 3.27 ratio.
If I were going to all the trouble, and expense to replace a ring and pinion, I would at least bump the ratio to 3.55. It is no doubt hard for any of us here to understand why you would want to keep the tall ratio that came in the car. A 3.55 would not change your fuel mileage or driveability, but the additional 8.5% increase in torque multiplication would be of benefit.
Just my opinion though, if you are happy with the 3:27 ratio, you certainly won't be disappointed with it again.
BTW, how did your stock gears get a crack in them? That is HIGHLY unusual.
07-20-2011, 09:42 PM
#7
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Delaware
Posts: 801
Todd,
You can ignore my reply to the other thread you postd in the general section. I see your response to the question about the 3.27 ratio.
If I were going to all the trouble, and expense to replace a ring and pinion, I would at least bump the ratio to 3.55. It is no doubt hard for any of us here to understand why you would want to keep the tall ratio that came in the car. A 3.55 would not change your fuel mileage or driveability, but the additional 8.5% increase in torque multiplication would be of benefit.
Just my opinion though, if you are happy with the 3:27 ratio, you certainly won't be disappointed with it again.
BTW, how did your stock gears get a crack in them? That is HIGHLY unusual.
You can ignore my reply to the other thread you postd in the general section. I see your response to the question about the 3.27 ratio.
If I were going to all the trouble, and expense to replace a ring and pinion, I would at least bump the ratio to 3.55. It is no doubt hard for any of us here to understand why you would want to keep the tall ratio that came in the car. A 3.55 would not change your fuel mileage or driveability, but the additional 8.5% increase in torque multiplication would be of benefit.
Just my opinion though, if you are happy with the 3:27 ratio, you certainly won't be disappointed with it again.
BTW, how did your stock gears get a crack in them? That is HIGHLY unusual.
07-22-2011, 12:00 PM
#8
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 414
Wow, stock ratio is 3.27 and people are going all the way up to 4.10? I'm new to manual transmission, but would that make 1st gear's useful range even shorter? Seems like first gear barely lasts half a second as it is. haha
07-22-2011, 12:15 PM
#9
Todd,
You can ignore my reply to the other thread you postd in the general section. I see your response to the question about the 3.27 ratio.
If I were going to all the trouble, and expense to replace a ring and pinion, I would at least bump the ratio to 3.55. It is no doubt hard for any of us here to understand why you would want to keep the tall ratio that came in the car. A 3.55 would not change your fuel mileage or driveability, but the additional 8.5% increase in torque multiplication would be of benefit.
Just my opinion though, if you are happy with the 3:27 ratio, you certainly won't be disappointed with it again.
BTW, how did your stock gears get a crack in them? That is HIGHLY unusual.
You can ignore my reply to the other thread you postd in the general section. I see your response to the question about the 3.27 ratio.
If I were going to all the trouble, and expense to replace a ring and pinion, I would at least bump the ratio to 3.55. It is no doubt hard for any of us here to understand why you would want to keep the tall ratio that came in the car. A 3.55 would not change your fuel mileage or driveability, but the additional 8.5% increase in torque multiplication would be of benefit.
Just my opinion though, if you are happy with the 3:27 ratio, you certainly won't be disappointed with it again.
BTW, how did your stock gears get a crack in them? That is HIGHLY unusual.
07-22-2011, 12:57 PM
#10
I understand the usual gear up grade is not for everyone but I can't even understand why you wouldn't at least slap the 3.55's in there you already have it apart. Hell I have 4.30's and have gotten 24mpg hwy.
Anyway the ABS rings are not in the rear-end they are at the end of the axles.
Anyway the ABS rings are not in the rear-end they are at the end of the axles.