is this a normal rear gear??
06-22-2012, 07:23 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 6
is this a normal rear gear??
hey im 17 years old and im taking on my first restoration...its a rough one but it looks like with alot of hard work, it will be a sweet ride
my question...my mustang came stock with a 2.80 rear gear...that seems really tall to me...usualy they have around a 3.00 to 3.75 rear gear...but for some reason mine is way low...is there a reason for this....and with a 2.80 rear gear what rpms should i be turning at 60mph assuming the car is stock 289 2v c4 transmission and stock tire diameter
~kyle.
here is the data sheet http://s1078.photobucket.com/albums/...upeinfotag.jpg
my question...my mustang came stock with a 2.80 rear gear...that seems really tall to me...usualy they have around a 3.00 to 3.75 rear gear...but for some reason mine is way low...is there a reason for this....and with a 2.80 rear gear what rpms should i be turning at 60mph assuming the car is stock 289 2v c4 transmission and stock tire diameter
~kyle.
here is the data sheet http://s1078.photobucket.com/albums/...upeinfotag.jpg
06-22-2012, 07:43 PM
#3
Personally, I would keep the 2.80 rear gear unless you are going to race it.
With the cost of gas today, it will help.
You really don't want to build a car that you can't afford to drive because it only gets 8 or 10 MPG. With a stiff gear set and some engine upgrades, you could be in that range pretty quickly.
Keep the gears stock and a relatively stock engine (plus headers!) you should get well over 20 MPG easily.
With the cost of gas today, it will help.
You really don't want to build a car that you can't afford to drive because it only gets 8 or 10 MPG. With a stiff gear set and some engine upgrades, you could be in that range pretty quickly.
Keep the gears stock and a relatively stock engine (plus headers!) you should get well over 20 MPG easily.
06-22-2012, 08:03 PM
#4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 6
Personally, I would keep the 2.80 rear gear unless you are going to race it.
With the cost of gas today, it will help.
You really don't want to build a car that you can't afford to drive because it only gets 8 or 10 MPG. With a stiff gear set and some engine upgrades, you could be in that range pretty quickly.
Keep the gears stock and a relatively stock engine (plus headers!) you should get well over 20 MPG easily.
With the cost of gas today, it will help.
You really don't want to build a car that you can't afford to drive because it only gets 8 or 10 MPG. With a stiff gear set and some engine upgrades, you could be in that range pretty quickly.
Keep the gears stock and a relatively stock engine (plus headers!) you should get well over 20 MPG easily.
that and i got some headman headers for 60 bux...in great shape... and thats what i was worried about...the gas, ouch but i assume running the c4 with the 2.80 would be fair on the rpms...but i was also thinking about the t5 tranny swap...my dads 93 302ci ran 1500rpm in 5th with that thing with a 3.00 rear...so if i decide to go that route eventualy ill put the 3.00 gear in it because 2.80 would be way too tall for that tranny
06-23-2012, 09:51 AM
#5
It would cost you a fair amt of money to do the gear swap. Plus you really wouldn't notice a difference between the 2.80 and 3.00 gears.
Save your money and use it to upgrade something else, like a MSD ignition system. You would definitely see a difference with that upgrade.
Save your money and use it to upgrade something else, like a MSD ignition system. You would definitely see a difference with that upgrade.
06-23-2012, 02:46 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 6
It would cost you a fair amt of money to do the gear swap. Plus you really wouldn't notice a difference between the 2.80 and 3.00 gears.
Save your money and use it to upgrade something else, like a MSD ignition system. You would definitely see a difference with that upgrade.
Save your money and use it to upgrade something else, like a MSD ignition system. You would definitely see a difference with that upgrade.
its all helps thank you.
06-23-2012, 04:47 PM
#7
Just a FYI your going to get better responses in the classic section. Yes there are a few people in this section that have knowledge for your car but this section is the 4.6L 96/04 Modular Motor section
06-24-2012, 01:54 AM
#8
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 6
sorry im still new to this site...but im pretty sure the 289ci is a 4.7L engine...
