5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang Technical discussions on 5.0 Liter Mustangs within. This does not include the 5.0 from the 2011 Mustang GT. That information is in the 2005-1011 section.

94 GT rear end ratio

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-23-2006, 06:44 PM
  #11  
ToplessPony94
Thread Starter
 
ToplessPony94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 20
Default RE: 94 GT rear end ratio

Sure. I was under the impression that this is what I calculated, though indirectly. To go the same distance at the same speed requires more RPMs after I change the gears. Yes? and the difference in RPMs to go the same distance at the same speed should be the be (roughly, but not exactly) the ratio of the gear ratios. They are not exactly comparable because shift points change and gas usage is not a linear ratio with engine RPM, but it seems to me (unless I'm missing something) the calcs I did should be a reasonable ballpark estimate. I'd be interested to know why if they are not. I'm a software engineer, not a mechanical engineer.
ToplessPony94 is offline  
Old 09-23-2006, 07:20 PM
  #12  
PX429
5th Gear Member
 
PX429's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: OC, Cali
Posts: 3,293
Default RE: 94 GT rear end ratio


ORIGINAL: ToplessPony94

Sure. I was under the impression that this is what I calculated, though indirectly. To go the same distance at the same speed requires more RPMs after I change the gears. Yes? and the difference in RPMs to go the same distance at the same speed should be the be (roughly, but not exactly) the ratio of the gear ratios. They are not exactly comparable because shift points change and gas usage is not a linear ratio with engine RPM, but it seems to me (unless I'm missing something) the calcs I did should be a reasonable ballpark estimate. I'd be interested to know why if they are not. I'm a software engineer, not a mechanical engineer.
lol
PX429 is offline  
Old 09-23-2006, 08:09 PM
  #13  
sc94gt
3rd Gear Member
 
sc94gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 501
Default RE: 94 GT rear end ratio

Load is also what determines gas mileage.
Momentum plays a major part.
For instance you can run 2,500 rpm uphill and use a lot more fuel than 2,500 rpm downhill, right?
sc94gt is offline  
Old 09-23-2006, 08:10 PM
  #14  
gbtrout
2nd Gear Member
 
gbtrout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 271
Default RE: 94 GT rear end ratio

If you do alot of highway driving I would stay away from 4.10's. I would probably lean more toward 3.55's
gbtrout is offline  
Old 09-23-2006, 08:16 PM
  #15  
gr84u
3rd Gear Member
 
gr84u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 563
Default RE: 94 GT rear end ratio

Am I the first to find it odd his mustang (M/T) has 2.73s? My 87 LX notch has them only because it was a swap. Are you the first owner OP? Probably was swapped most likely because I don't think they did that. My first gear is so long in my notch, but I still do burnouts no problem with 2.73s.
gr84u is offline  
Old 09-23-2006, 08:58 PM
  #16  
ToplessPony94
Thread Starter
 
ToplessPony94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 20
Default RE: 94 GT rear end ratio

Yes. I didn't cosider that because I expected it would even out over time. If I go up the hill now, I'll probably come down the hill later in most cases.
ToplessPony94 is offline  
Old 09-23-2006, 09:02 PM
  #17  
ToplessPony94
Thread Starter
 
ToplessPony94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 20
Default RE: 94 GT rear end ratio

I'm the original owner. I got it from the dealer with 600 miles on it, most of that put on in parades and driving to auto shows. It was their "show pony" that they sold at the end of the year, so I got a good deal. I'm as sure as I can be that it wasn't swapped. Actually, I don't know what's in there because I haven't opened it yet. I'm just believing the axle code on the V.C. label, which is "M" which translates to Traction-Lok 2.73:1. Since the V.C. label says this, I don't see how it could be a swap if that's what's really in there.

And, no, you're not the first to find it odd. I think it's pretty odd, too!!!
ToplessPony94 is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 02:55 AM
  #18  
BlackGT5.0
1st Gear Member
 
BlackGT5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 144
Default RE: 94 GT rear end ratio

I have a 94 aode automatic tanny'd GT and it has 2.73 gears and yeah your car might feel fast but 4:10:1's and you'll really like the seat of the pants launch you'll get! dont fear the gear!
BlackGT5.0 is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 03:16 AM
  #19  
Wick001
3rd Gear Member
 
Wick001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 680
Default RE: 94 GT rear end ratio

Automatic =4.10 Stick= 3.73
Wick001 is offline  
Old 09-26-2006, 01:08 AM
  #20  
Pabradford
 
Pabradford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Default RE: 94 GT rear end ratio

Gears and gas mileage are just one consideration. If your continiously running 75 mph or faster with 4.10s, your motor will wear out faster than 3.55s or 3.73, don't ask how I know. In the past I have gotten better mileage out of a 5 speed with 3.73 over 3.55s. I think it has to do with the cam. All engines have certain rpms they are more efficient at. That's why sometimes 3.73 give better mileage than lower and higher gears, within reason of course. I suggest you go with 3.73, they are tried and true for both street and highway.
I've never heard anyone complain about 3.73 not being enough of a gear unless they never drive on the highway.

PB
Pabradford is offline  


Quick Reply: 94 GT rear end ratio



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16 AM.