svttech76 said:true different strokes for different folks. but he is tring too get people not too buy a gear for BS reasons. 4.10's are a very good gear.. 3.73's are good too. but he is just misguided.
plus now i am pissed about the comment he made about how i don't have gears on my car so my advice is unwanted..i bet he will think next time before he throws around the "you don't own this" arugument.
i still want too know how many rear ends has he rebuilt? how many trannies..
jstreet0204 said:Yes you did say that. go back and read post #46 where you used 4000 rpm as an example. Which was obviously an exagerasion just like most of the bad info you are spewing throughout this thread. Now you have changed your example from simply cruising speeds to high speed emergency situations. I think most of us consider cruising speeds a reasonable insterstate speed. 75-80mph. which fall under 3000 rpm.
jstreet0204 said:Funny, if that were true then why have many people reported and actual increase in city gas mileage. Because you aren't lugging the engine as much in stop and go situations. As far as shifting more, it depends on the driver. I shift less because I don't have to downshift as much even in stop and go traffic. Example, if I slow down to a creep I don't have to downshift to first to get it going again.
jstreet0204 said:I didn't say dump the clutch in third. I said get it moving in third. I can do it with 4.10's if I ease into it. Clutch won't last doing that with stock gears.
jstreet0204 said:I am well aware of how it all works. You are correct. They get hit as one. BUT the forces are greater on that hit with stock gears than 4.10s. If you put slicks on two cars, one with stock gears, one with 4.10's, the car with the stock gears will be more likely to break a tranny during that hit. The car with 4.10's will be more than likely to break an axle. This is not opinion, this is fact.
jstreet0204 said:Bottom line is that yes, if friction from the extra rpms were the only determining factor in the longevity of an engine, then you would be correct, but it isn't. The load on an engine plays a just as big a part in it, and 4.10's gears reduce that load. This is not opinion this is fact and can easily be proven by dataloging the load% from the eec during normal driving conditions.
You are welcome to your opinions about which gear is best for you, but don't blur the facts like you have been.
forpit2000gt said:Where do you get this info?? The diameter of the tires on a truck is larger than a car. That his the main reason for a larger gear. If the engine is running correctly, there shouldn't be detonation, it has nothing to do with rpm. You will get lugging at low rpms.
If a truck had a tire diameter of 26 inches it would have 3.27 from the factory, maybe 3.55. The truck engines also have a different power curve, because they have a different purpose than cars.
5spd GT said:So installing them means you know what they do to engines?So you drove them at the drag strip eh? Yeah that is what your average daily driver does
You are the one that keeps changing examples. Your first example cruising at 4k5spd GT said:Your getting to different situations mixed. I wasn't changing anything. I used both a cruising example and emergency situation example. Go re-read that and comprehend it. They are seperate
The steeper gear ratio in these cases does make less reliable. Simple up and down motion of the pistons will tell you that. The load factor is well shot up by then.
5spd GT said:Would you rather buy a car that has been cruised during it's life at 2,000rpm or 4,000rpm
Agreed too many variable, so lets agree to disagree. And leave the opinions out of this.5spd GT said:City driving is harder to compensate.
Not changing the point. Here is an earlier quote by you. This is just another example of you back tracking to make your posts sound legit.5spd GT said:You missed the point and are trying to change it. Let's play fair now kids
So it is easier to take off...but does that mean everything else is satisfied? Think about it...
The point was that steeper gears lessen the load on components from rear end forward. In that situation what causes the clutch to burn out. The load placed on it when trying to get the car moving. Steeper gears have lessened that load lessening the strain on the clutch.It really is simple. Also under traction the steeper gears will "hit" harder therefore hitting the tranny/clutch disc material harder along with the rear and all. The spring up rate of the engine has progressed the clutch to try to keep up even that much harder and for example, if by chance your clutch is about to go...that might be the straw that breaks the camels back.
5spd GT said:That is opinion, not fact. You are wrong sir. "Think about it"
5spd GT said:The load barrier is already crossed around the 3:27 gear ratio mark. I explained this a couple post back...read up. That load condition is overdone and becomes more of a drag in the engine than dragging the car along. It breaks the barrier. So I guess we better cruise at 5,500 rpm than 2,500 rpm right because of the decreased load on the engine. Well why didn't Ford put 7:14's in rear end?
Give Me TP said:This daily driver uses 4.10s and wouldn't have it any other way. Gets up to a dangerously high 3000 rpm at 90 mph, must be doing all sorts of bad things to the engine.
Give Me TP said:This daily driver uses 4.10s and wouldn't have it any other way. Gets up to a dangerously high 3000 rpm at 90 mph, must be doing all sorts of bad things to the engine.
Give Me TP said:Who are you replying to???
Tell me something I don't already know Sherlock
jimfitzgerald said:OK, I have two suggestions...
1. Don't get your tech advice from StangNet
2. Go with nothing less than 4.10's
jstreet0204 said:You are the one that keeps changing examples. Your first example cruising at 4k
jstreet0204 said:Then it changed to in emergency situations. You obviously are trying to exagerate in order to justify your posts.
jstreet0204 said:Agreed too many variable, so lets agree to disagree. And leave the opinions out of this.
jstreet0204 said:Not changing the point. Here is an earlier quote by you. This is just another example of you back tracking to make your posts sound legit.
jstreet0204 said:The point was that steeper gears lessen the load on components from rear end forward. In that situation what causes the clutch to burn out. The load placed on it when trying to get the car moving. Steeper gears have lessened that load lessening the strain on the clutch.
jstreet0204 said:Not wrong. Steeper gears lessen the load on the drivetrain components before the rearend. You don't seem to understand the physics behind it. I will give you one more tangible example here.
Steeper gears multiply torque (fact)
Think of the gears as a lever with a short handle picking up a weight at the other end.
Now take a rubber band and attach it to the end of that handle and pull down on it.
Measure the length of the rubber band.
NOW
Multiply the torque by adding a longer handle to the lever, and do it again. the rubber band will not stretch as far because the is not as much load on it.
In the example the rubber band would represent the drivetrain components before the rearend. Now I have explained this so if you can't come up with something better than "You're wrong" please just stop trying...
jstreet0204 said:We aren't talking about cruising at 5,500 as I already stated cruising at or below 3,000 rpm is the range in question. Stop exagerating. And yes there is a point where it becomes excessive, but not because of the of the simple "up and down motion of the pistons" example you gave. I will give you another chance to prove you know what you are talking about if you can tell me what is most damaging to an engine at high rpms. I'll even give you a hint. its 2 words and the first word starts with "I"?
jstreet0204 said:Ford engineers did not have longevity as the only thing in mind when they chose 3.27 gears. I guarantee you that gas mileage played a bigger part in that decision.
And load and rpm are not connected. You can be at 0% load at 6000 rpm if the throttle is closed. Load is how hard the engine has to work to keep it at that rpm.
It is physics my friend. You try to spout technical knowledge with no tangable examples. "load condition is overdone" "load barrier is broken" do you even know wtf you are talking about? and if so where did you get the technical specs on these specific points. Pulling them out of your ass does not count.
Again, I don't have a problem with anyone choosing what ever gears they want. My problem with what you are doing is the fact that you are exagerating some of the risks, and bluring some of the facts.
Yes, nobody needs less than 4.10's.5spd GT said:
That second option is WAY to general. Is it for everybody?
jimfitzgerald said:Yes, nobody needs less than 4.10's.
jimfitzgerald said:1. Don't get your tech advice from StangNet
Too many uninformed opinions are expressed here.5spd GT said:Sometimes it might be best to take your own advice eh?
A fairly unintelligent post was given by you...I didn't expect that
jimfitzgerald said:Too many uninformed opinions are expressed here.
5spd GT said:Lol...go read it again. 2 different examples...reading comprehension is your friend
Oh it did eh? How about reading it againReading comprehension is your friend. Two different examples...
I exaggerate huh? Okay.
Now wait a minute, so you can give your opinion out but my opinion doesn't count? Okay. We got to start leaving out opinions once I put mine down
That quote doesn't mean anything and doesn't even go along with what your trying to point out. The engine revs quicker when gears are added and if your clutch is already having slipping problems...well guess what: "that could be the straw that breaks the camels back"Gears (under traction) will be harder on the driveline. Very simple process.
Yeah but the engine doesn't rev quicker...and guess what has to keep up with it - clutch disc/flywheel/pressure plate as one...along with the driveshaft/tranny/rear end/tires.
"Your wrong."
So your comparing a rubberband to a ring and pinion
Is that the range in question? I have seen many blank general statements made on how the higher rpm (not being specific in some cases) lessens the load...so why can't I give an example of a non-specific rpm?
With the movement of the up and down on the pistons (the piston ring is "wrapped" around it) that causes more friction and wears the piston rings down more.
Hint away...
Did I say that is all they had in mind? Nope. Gas mileage is pretty well in-line with longevity and should be considered in the same category of their market. The word "efficiency" comes into play for both longevity and gas mileage. "Think about it".
6,000rpm would cause engine braking...so no load?
Wrong...I'm not blurring any facts...just giving real world examples. Is that too harsh? I even put how you can gain mph with 4:10's in my first post...but I tried to give reasons why a daily driver might want to choose against it? Too harsh for you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?