• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

4.30's too much gear???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam95GT
  • Start date Start date Feb 13, 2009
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last

Adam95GT

New Member
Aug 14, 2006
2,564
3
0
Burlington, NJ
Feb 14, 2009
#21
  • Feb 14, 2009
  • #21
im on keith's side....i was thinking the same thing... he knows the bottom end on this engine... My highports ware going to flow like hell.... i figured without LT's i would be able to do 4.30's to make up for the lack of low end...
 

Grn92LX

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Feb 14, 2009
#22
  • Feb 14, 2009
  • #22
Go with 4.30's for that combo. Its should make decent power up top and your heavy convertable will need the gear.
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Feb 14, 2009
#23
  • Feb 14, 2009
  • #23
You just can't say ANY particular ratio is good or bad

It really does depend upon rpm capability, tire size, and use of the car

Take my little GT ... the tire diameter is quite small

I've always wanted to go with some Prostars

That would make my 373's like 361's
so
410's would be just dandy

Now ... If I had a B&Bed short block which turned to like 7K

I'd certainly consider 430's

Application ... Application ... Application

Grady
 

Pokageek

Active Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,767
0
46
MA, USA
Feb 14, 2009
#24
  • Feb 14, 2009
  • #24
Well..like I said guys, I would agree with 4.30's if you had a 6 speed with a better 1st gear ratio and an engine revving out to 7k like GRn's. With 3.90's a t-5 and my 306 revving out just about 6k they were great. It also depends on how far you drive, if DD and what exactly does and doesn't get on ur nerves. There is no right or wrong anser, its what YOUR preference is.

95 I always thought of you as more of a tracker: someone trying to get every ounce out of the car but doesn't care much in terms of driveability. It was nothing negative.

For the money$$ should NEVER be the sole reason. I drive 65-70mph all the time and I would be revving 2700rpm. Now for me thats no fun but if you dont care then dont worry about it.

In terms of heavy, my vert weighs less than most coupes. Verts dont have to be heavy and the difference is not anything unless you are tracking it.

p.s. I totally understand the argument of "well its only 150rpm" but each 150 makes a difference. If going from 3:73, 3:90, 4:10's to 4:30's didn't matter than neither would going to 4.56 and 5.02 or whatever and on up. It all adds up and at some point you end up hating it. Not that you will. Yo uare going to have a not so quiet V* and far from the 4cyl stock toyota revving at 3k@60mph. With v8's its different. All depends on the application. Tuff part is that u wont know until u try though.
 

95Vert

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
1,785
0
0
North Mexico (deep south Texas)
Feb 15, 2009
#25
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #25
Exacty Keith, he won't know until he tries and this is a good opportunity for him to do so. It IS about preference, and don't get me wrong, I can't stand driving a car with poor driveability on the street, but I like to compromise and get the most out of both aspects, street driving and 1320. Like I told NMCGRAWJ, I'll keep you guys posted.
 

BlackVert

15 Year Member
Oct 3, 2003
5,589
9
98
Bethesda, MD
Feb 15, 2009
#26
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #26
Adam, you still haven't said if you intend it to be a daily driver, for strip, or both
 

Adam95GT

New Member
Aug 14, 2006
2,564
3
0
Burlington, NJ
Feb 15, 2009
#27
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #27
BlackVert said:
Adam, you still haven't said if you intend it to be a daily driver, for strip, or both
Click to expand...

Ill drive it on the street.... i drive at the track like crazy.... but it will be a car for me and the g/f to head to the beach in... and cruise around in and scare the local kids and old men in their s197s
 

BlackVert

15 Year Member
Oct 3, 2003
5,589
9
98
Bethesda, MD
Feb 15, 2009
#28
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #28
thanks. i had 4.10s for over a year. at that time, my stang was my daily driver. i drove it to the grocery store, to work every day, to pick the kids up at school, everywhere.

starting from a dead stop, just cruising around, it was time to shift out of first gear in about 5 seconds. cruising through the neighborhood, the rpms were too high for 2nd and too low for 3rd. on the highway on my way to work, crusing at 70, iirc it was turning around 2500 rpm, which for me, was higher than i liked.

i will say though that out of the neighborhood, on a main road, the acceleration from 30-50 in 3rd was great!

over time, for me, the negatives outweighed the positives, and i grew to dislike the gears. i can only imagine that with 4.30s, the negatives would stand out even more.

but that was me, and i was using the car as a daily driver for everything i did and everywhere i went. and it sounds like your intended usage for your car may be different than mine was
 

Pokageek

Active Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,767
0
46
MA, USA
Feb 15, 2009
#29
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #29
That's why I liked the 3.90's! More 1st gear and more top end (in 4th). Chris I think you and I have similar taste..obviously lol ..look at our cars.
 

Black Stampede

Founding Member
Sep 3, 2002
1,811
2
39
Grand Rapids, MI
Feb 15, 2009
#30
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #30
I have driven a car with a similar mild hci setup with 4.10s and DRs and it was the perfect gear for it. With that being said, I have no experience with 4.30s. 4.10s however were great for that mild setup. WITH DRs mind you. If you plan on running regular tires forget about the 4.30s. It would be faster in a race if you left the gears that are in it now.
 

BlackVert

15 Year Member
Oct 3, 2003
5,589
9
98
Bethesda, MD
Feb 15, 2009
#31
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #31
Black Stampede said:
WITH DRs mind you. If you plan on running regular tires forget about the 4.30s. It would be faster in a race if you left the gears that are in it now.
Click to expand...
just curious ... why? traction?
 

Black Stampede

Founding Member
Sep 3, 2002
1,811
2
39
Grand Rapids, MI
Feb 15, 2009
#32
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #32
BlackVert said:
just curious ... why? traction?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 

95Vert

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
1,785
0
0
North Mexico (deep south Texas)
Feb 15, 2009
#33
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #33
Like blackvert said, it's about preference and I drove my SN with 4.10s everywhere as well. I was a recruiter for the university and regularly drove the car over 150miles per day. MPG's wasn't bad at all. I made sure I checked and I got @ 24-25 mpg on highway and about 19 in city. It's all about preference. I even think about putting 4.30s in it when I rebuild my rear end. Hell, if I like these 4.56s enough in my fox, I'll just swap them out.

I say to try it and you'll find out for sure.
 

Black Stampede

Founding Member
Sep 3, 2002
1,811
2
39
Grand Rapids, MI
Feb 15, 2009
#34
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #34
:fairyfight:

Just get 2.73s and be done with it.
 

95Vert

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
1,785
0
0
North Mexico (deep south Texas)
Feb 15, 2009
#35
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #35
Black Stampede said:
:fairyfight:

Just get 2.73s and be done with it.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say. My SN came with 2.73's. My SN was auto and is a vert, talk about a slow heavy pig. Didn't even know I was hitting the rev limiter when I first got on it.
 

Pokageek

Active Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,767
0
46
MA, USA
Feb 15, 2009
#36
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #36
I remember 3.08's and this car was the slowest mustang I had ever driven. REDICULOUS slow. Shifting was a PIA too. CONSTANTLY pushing the clutch in. That is what is great about higher ratio gears, in traffic you can crawl at 10mph and never push clutch in.
 

Black Stampede

Founding Member
Sep 3, 2002
1,811
2
39
Grand Rapids, MI
Feb 15, 2009
#37
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #37
But can you imagine the pull of those long fricken gears if you had gobs of power. Not that I would ever have 'em, just saying.
 

BlackVert

15 Year Member
Oct 3, 2003
5,589
9
98
Bethesda, MD
Feb 16, 2009
#38
  • Feb 16, 2009
  • #38
Black Stampede said:
But can you imagine the pull of those long fricken gears if you had gobs of power. Not that I would ever have 'em, just saying.
Click to expand...

lol, i have stock 3.27s. but i wouldn't say i had GOBs pf power
 

Pokageek

Active Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,767
0
46
MA, USA
Feb 16, 2009
#39
  • Feb 16, 2009
  • #39
I had 3.27's and just bumped to 3.55's again, lol. I can never make up my mind.
 

Black Stampede

Founding Member
Sep 3, 2002
1,811
2
39
Grand Rapids, MI
Feb 16, 2009
#40
  • Feb 16, 2009
  • #40
Pokageek said:
I had 3.27's and just bumped to 3.55's again, lol. I can never make up my mind.
Click to expand...

Is it that time of the month?
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Megasquirt base tune for 94 5.0
  • wrx757
  • Mar 6, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
191
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 6, 2026
wrx757
W
T
Progress Thread 2002 Mustang 3.8L CV
  • TheIncompetentMechanic
  • May 26, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
1
Views
69
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Jun 1, 2026
TheIncompetentMechanic
T
P
rear Impact absorbers.
  • Praetorious
  • May 4, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
139
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 5, 2026
Praetorious
P
S
Progress Thread 1989 LX 5.0 convertible - mild project
  • Scott_S
  • Aug 18, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
3K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 26, 2026
AeroCoupe
6
2010 V6 Sees differently than GT?
  • 6t9Mach1
  • Mar 31, 2026
  • 2010 - 2014 Specific Tech
Replies
2
Views
174
2010 - 2014 Specific Tech Apr 1, 2026
6t9Mach1
6
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?