94 GT rear end ratio
#11
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.
#12
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.
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.
#15
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.
#17
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!!!
And, no, you're not the first to find it odd. I think it's pretty odd, too!!!
#18
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!
#20
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
I've never heard anyone complain about 3.73 not being enough of a gear unless they never drive on the highway.
PB