4.10 not worth it!!!

Stang2003GT said:

By the way for all the calc haters out and ones who heard about the stock mustang hitting 200mph in the calc, this is for you.

Stock mustangs tops speed is 148mph @ 4124rpms, over a 5 mile distance of acceleration, with SAE condtions.

Stock mustang with 4.10s is 154mph @ 5380rpms, over a 5 mile distance of acceleration, with SAE condtions.

One other thing you all have to realize is, if you ran ur car at the track with 3.27 and ran a 14 and then a week later you ran again and got a 14.2 and a week later you run it again and you get a 13.9. You drove the car the sameway and never adjusted the tire pressure then why did the times change. Atmosphic conditions are the cause. You could never test this out unless you ran a baseline then swap gears realy quick then raced again with in a very close time frame.

So I believe the sim.

Click to expand...

I will believe in the real world like DA, weather, track set up, engine conditions(hot or cold) Cars set up(suspension and tires) over that little program you have.

BTW that sim has a 2V GT running 14.5's and that has to be the slowest damn 2V ever as many run 13.8-14.0 bone stock.

Seriously, this thread needs to be removed and sent to 4.6L talk as there is nothing tech related in it but alot of bull*****.

Stang2003GT said:

Im simulating how two identical cars with the only difference being gears would differ. This is math and physics they dont lie.

Im not compairing a 96-98 cobra 3.27 vs a 2003 GT with 4.30!!!!

Click to expand...

Neither was I. Read my post mad scientist. I said another 96-98 cobra with 3.27's. Good eye you got there. The sad part is the track with hundreds of thousands of Mustang are proving that calculator you have wrong

blackfang said:

Seriously, this thread needs to be removed and sent to 4.6L talk as there is nothing tech related in it but alot of bull*****.

Click to expand...

That is pretty harsh considering the obvoius time and effort the thread starter put into making it. Why don't you f'n make a better one before you criticize his?

You went to a lot of work sir i applaud you for that. The thing is i doubt you simulator is completely acurate. Yes the 4.10 gears will make it so the car's traction is more of an issue however at a track with some of that spray stick um they put down traction is never a huge issue unless you are a huge hp car. I have 3.73's in my 5 spd car and i can vouch for the fact that my 5th gear on the street is way more usable then it was with stock 2.73's. Peeple have even said to me your car pulls in fifth the way mine does in third. I do believe that 4.10 car on the street or at the track with good traction is going to beat a 3.27 car easily by 2 or 3 tenths. i use desk top dyno when i am considering new parts for my engine in my car. that being said i still ask peeps with simular setups what they have done and what worked and what didn't. my car is usally not strapped to a dyno or being timed at a track so for the most fun it has to be the seat of my pants that gets excited.

Stang2003GT said:

Im simulating how two identical cars with the only difference being gears would differ. This is math and physics they dont lie.

Im not compairing a 96-98 cobra 3.27 vs a 2003 GT with 4.30!!!!

Click to expand...

come on sir math and physics do lie. I believe there was a time they said it would be impossible for a car to hit speeds of over 300mph. hrrrmm back to the chalk board because it was done. I'm not saying that the calc is 100% wrong however. it is a good tool to use to help you decide what mods to do. however i believe it has been proven time after time that gears are a good mod.

Kilgore Trout said:

That is pretty harsh considering the obvoius time and effort the thread starter put into making it. Why don't you f'n make a better one before you criticize his?

Click to expand...

Because it is 100% innacurate and wrong. What good is that to the new guy who comes here looking for tech and how to make his car faster. Then he sees this post and decides not to get gears by basing it off this data. Then he is going to say I saw that on stangnet and of course people are going to laugh. The info is wrong and not even tested. it's just a program.

If any of you believe that i have beachfront property real cheap to sell ya in Idaho.

I challenge the thread starter to back his data up and go to the dragstrip the way the car sits. I bet he will run faster than what that damn program says he will. Timeslips and video must be shown. I also bet if he got gears and practiced to drive the car and ran again, he sure wont be running a high 14.

The data is pretty cool, but Id bet my car that if you race 2 identically modded cars (gt's), or stock cars for that matter, both with the same tires (dr's or slicks) and same driver, identical weather conditions...the car with 4:10's vs 3:27's will win by at least 3-4 car length's every time. My car is at least .4 quicker with 4:10's/dr's than it was with stock gears/running bfg kd's at that time.

Stangdriver1119 said:

+1 without a doubt

Click to expand...

+1, u need a ride in a car w/ 4.10's ,this will b u

blackfang said:

100% false. Gears do allow the car to reach a higher top speed. They allow the car to pull in the 4th and 5th gear allowing the car to overcome wind resistance unlike 3.27's.

Click to expand...

And your statement's 50% false. I was talking about the redline top speed, and in fact assuming the car could get up to that point... I understand that wind resistance would hinder the car from reaching it way before, but once you get enough horsepower to get up to that mechanical top speed it will be slower if you have the 4.10 gears as opposed to if you could reach your mechanical top speed with the 3.27s. Next time I'll elaborate a bit more... or you can just not nitpick at my little argument thar

Barrier said:

And your statement's 50% false. I was talking about the redline top speed, and in fact assuming the car could get up to that point... I understand that wind resistance would hinder the car from reaching it way before, but once you get enough horsepower to get up to that mechanical top speed it will be slower if you have the 4.10 gears as opposed to if you could reach your mechanical top speed with the 3.27s. Next time I'll elaborate a bit more... or you can just not nitpick at my little argument thar

Click to expand...

No according to the statement you made, it is 100% false. You never stated redline top speed. The fact is you take a modular Mustang with stock gears and run it to a top speed on a clear road for 3 miles. Then take that same car with 4.10's or 4.30's and it will hit a higher top speed than when using the stock gears. The gears allow 4th and 5th gears to be more usable and allow the engine to pull the car in higher gears at a higher mph where the stockers won't.

I even did this with my 99 cobra which in stock form hit 150, but when I had 4.10's the car went to 160 on the same road a week later.

Stang2003GT said:

This is my final post, because people arnt thinking about what im saying just trying to defend 4.10s and put down computer simulation.

Click to expand...

because it is a simulation, not fact.

So here is my final try to make you believe that my sim is not crap.

Click to expand...

I gave you a chance to prove it isnt crap. Do that and i will take my words back.

I adjusted the sim so the driver launches at 3000 rpms instead of 2000 and shifts gears in .4 of a second instead of .8 secs. Now the average non-racer is now a typical drag racers.

Click to expand...

So what is the DA of the simulator? Whats the track conditions, temp, etc? Will the simulator tell you that? What was the shift points of the 1st to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd? How was the 60'? Did he spin real bad or what? What was the tire PSI at? how hot was the engine. What kind of tires? What suspension did it have? What was the race weight and how much fuel?

Those my friend are all factors that change an ET that are not on that simulator

What does a stock GT with 3.27 run? 13.8 @ 99 mph (SAE Conditions)

AH HA BONE STOCK 13.8 so why did I produce a 14.5? Well derr I was simulating the average driver who has never been to the race track. dee dee dee 14.5!!!!

Click to expand...

The average driver runs 13.8-13.9 in a 5 speed and autos run 14.3-14.5 proving that the simulation isnt accurate.

So don't DIS my calc man, you obviously dont know anything about it or how it works.

Click to expand...

I will untl you can prove 1005 concrete proof. All that calc is, is a tool to guestimate mods and conditions. It should never ever be used as a sole reference on how fast a car should be with certain mods. The dyno and dragstrip are the best ways to use as a tool, not some computer prigram that doesnt factor 80% of the conditions that will change an ET.

SO READ MY POST AGAIN THEN READ IT AGAIN, THEN THINK ABOUT SOME MORE AND READ IT AGAIN. I HAVE VERY !!!!SPECIFIED CONDITIONS!!!!, READ AND UNDERSTAND THEM.

Click to expand...

No thanks, I did and still basing my 6 years of racing in real conditions and trying things out in real conditions over a computer game.

EDIT: by the way I said this for a reason "In conclusion if you're a guy like me and don't plan on a !!!!!!tire upgrade!!!!!! and don't care about 60 foot times or a .1 sec decrease in time in the quarter and care about your 0 to 60 times, I'd avoid gears."

Click to expand...

Too bad that 99.9999% of the dragracing community disagrees with you and they run gears. Dragracers that actually care about the hobby concentrate on that first 60" as it will make or break that run.

There is no way 4.10 vs 3.27 on stock tires would improve by .4.

DragRadials unlock a whole new discussion, then 4.10s are KING!!!!!!!

this sim results is worthless. gears are a proven way to reduce your et. years and years of track results have proven this.

what happened here is the sim program factored in additional wheel spin with the 4.10 gears

plus this program has the 4.10 car shifting into 5th gear before the end of the 1/4

thats all the performance loss there. the 4-5 shift and the idiot driver that can't hook in first ( i hook in first)

this is misleading and i strongly suggest this "test" be disregarded

with 3.27's on a flat stretch of rt 3 i ran 13.89 very close to my real track times at new england dragway. both on the g-tech and at the track i ran a 2.0 60 ft

now i have not had my 4.10's to the track but i have tested in hotter weather on the same strech of road and ran a 13.56 with a 2.1 60 ft.


i give this simulation the for the misleading 4-5 upshift

blackfang im with ya on your thinking of the 4.10s but the average driver with a stock GT dosent run 13.8s bro, come on u know that. Its honestly around 14.1s 14.7s on stock tires. To be honest the lowest times iv seen posted for a stock GT 5spd is a 13.9, so i dont see where your comin from.

Stang2003GT said:

I really don't care about gas and rpm, I want true performance and this is why I'm testing this.

Click to expand...

Stang2003GT said:

"In conclusion if you're a guy like me and don't plan on a !!!!!!tire upgrade!!!!!! and don't care about 60 foot times or a .1 sec decrease in time in the quarter and care about your 0 to 60 times, I'd avoid gears."

Click to expand...

You have contradicted yourself in these two statements. If you want to justify your decision not to get gears with this calulator, that is your choice. And I would also reccomend anyone who only cares about winning calulator races follow your lead.


But if you want to be quicker at the track, do some REAL research. Find out what the quickest guys at the track have done that resulted in gains and what they have done that have resulted in losses.

Bottom line is you want the lowest gear ratio that will allow you keep your trap speed under the redline in 4th gear.

When u say average driver by the way im talking the occasional track appearence. im not talkin your every weekend racer.

03GTconv said:

blackfang im with ya on your thinking of the 4.10s but the average driver with a stock GT dosent run 13.8s bro, come on u know that. Its honestly around 14.1s 14.7s on stock tires. To be honest the lowest times iv seen posted for a stock GT 5spd is a 13.9, so i dont see where your comin from.

Click to expand...

between Mustangworld, Modular Depot, Modularpowerhouse, Corral, Stangnet, SVTP, SN95 forums and others I see alot of the guys with 99+ 5 speed 2V's running 13.8-13.9 bone stock. I also see it at the track too. yeah some will run 14.2-14.3 but the majority are 13's.

JayC on here in 2002 ran a 13.45 with a bone stock 5 speed GT with a x pipe and weld in mufflers. My old buddy ran his 02 GT 5 speed to a 13.5 with just a DR. it can be done, and people are doing it.

03GTconv said:

When u say average driver by the way im talking the occasional track appearence. im not talkin your every weekend racer.

Click to expand...

I am talking the average track guy that makes 1-2 visits a month.

I think part of the problem is the thread title. Instead of saying authoritatively that "4.10s are not worth it" it would have been better to have a title something like "Interesting simulator data on 4.10 gears"

blackfang said:

between Mustangworld, Modular Depot, Modularpowerhouse, Corral, Stangnet, SVTP, SN95 forums and others I see alot of the guys with 99+ 5 speed 2V's running 13.8-13.9 bone stock. I also see it at the track too. yeah some will run 14.2-14.3 but the majority are 13's.

JayC on here in 2002 ran a 13.45 with a bone stock 5 speed GT with a x pipe and weld in mufflers. My old buddy ran his 02 GT 5 speed to a 13.5 with just a DR. it can be done, and people are doing it.

Click to expand...

I agree with ya bro, im just sayin the average joe shmo dosent run those times. Thats very impressive with the 13.5s though

Ya know even the pros with the NHRA use their drag runs as a test and compare each run and figure out a better way to run faster. They use a computer as a tool, but by no means is it the only tool and do they base it all off a computer.