gear ratio and rpms

dastang2

Active Member

Dec 11, 2003

2,020

0

46

tx

Feb 18, 2004

#1

• Feb 18, 2004

• #1

i have a 95 5 spd. when i cruise at 75 the rpms are around 1800. are these stock and what are they

 

GREENBIOCH

Founding Member

Mar 22, 2002

1,241

0

0

In an Igloo

Feb 18, 2004

#2

• Feb 18, 2004

• #2

If that is in 5th gear then yes more than likely I would say stock. I have 3.73's and at 75 I'm around 2400-2500 rpms. Stock gear ration on 94 to 98's are 2.73.

 

SonicBlue02-3.8

New Member

Jun 28, 2003

112

0

0

Fairfield County, CT

Feb 18, 2004

#3

• Feb 18, 2004

• #3

yeah thats definitely stock. I have on 02 so, 3.27's, but my tach is if i remember alittle above 2000 if i remember at 75.

 

Double T

New Member

Jul 24, 2003

44

1

0

Bay Area California

Feb 22, 2004

#4

• Feb 22, 2004

• #4

SOnic Blue kicks azz.
I have an o2 sonic blue 3.8l
awsome color. Ford only made 2,898 Mustangs in that color for 02 out of 129,000 mustangs built for 2oo2

 

SonicBlue02-3.8

New Member

Jun 28, 2003

112

0

0

Fairfield County, CT

Feb 22, 2004

#5

• Feb 22, 2004

• #5

Sonic Blue definitely does kick ass, i get so many compliments on it

 

J

Jamez

Founding Member

Mar 2, 2000

2,609

0

0

Tulsa, Ok

Feb 22, 2004

#6

• Feb 22, 2004

• #6

Thats the only blue I like. As far as rpm, I was 1750 @70 with stock gears and now 2K @70 with 3.27's.

 

ndotym

New Member

Aug 5, 2003

24

0

0

los angeles

Feb 24, 2004

#7

• Feb 24, 2004

• #7

Sonic blue it's cool

The color is True Blue very unique

 

S

SpectorV

Founding Member

Sep 3, 2000

1,872

0

36

Florence, Alabama

Feb 24, 2004

#8

• Feb 24, 2004

• #8

buy 3.73s or dont waste your money unless you want higher gears. I now have better gas milage thatn i did with 3.27s and its much much more pleasurable to drive.

 

J

Jamez

Founding Member

Mar 2, 2000

2,609

0

0

Tulsa, Ok

Feb 24, 2004

#9

• Feb 24, 2004

• #9

Ya gotta remember tho that most '99+ guys go from 3.27 to 3.73 which is mechanically similiar to going from 2.73 to 3.27. The rpm difference would be about the same which it should be considering '94-8s have a lower redline than '99+ so we don't have much rpm to play with.

 

dastang2

Active Member

Dec 11, 2003

2,020

0

46

tx

Feb 24, 2004

#10

• Feb 24, 2004

• #10

i think the reason th 94-98 v6's had less or a rpm range is because the lack of the balancer shaft. i have a 2000 ford direct replacement engine and it has the balancer shaft in it. so i think i am good on that. but the reason i was asking about the rpm range is for mileage purposes. i am doing nothing to this car since i got an 89 fox body street car to play with now and it has 4.11 and a spool along with a t5 so it will eat gas up like nothing

 

Crai-zy horse

New Member

Jan 7, 2004

75

0

0

Fairfax

Feb 24, 2004

#11

• Feb 24, 2004

• #11

Yeah, those are stock gears. I have a '95 five-speed and at 80mph, its at 2,000 rpms.

 

S

SpectorV

Founding Member

Sep 3, 2000

1,872

0

36

Florence, Alabama

Feb 24, 2004

#12

• Feb 24, 2004

• #12

well the pre 99 guys a can put in 3.27s and be about .3 faster or 3.73 and be .5+ faster, back when i had my 97 3.73 was definatly the better gear made SUCH a huge difference in the car.

 

D

DanM

Founding Member

Jul 31, 2002

332

0

0

Feb 24, 2004

#13

• Feb 24, 2004

• #13

dastang2 said:

i think the reason th 94-98 v6's had less or a rpm range is because the lack of the balancer shaft. i have a 2000 ford direct replacement engine and it has the balancer shaft in it. so i think i am good on that.

Click to expand...

That and the fact that the 94-98s just don't breathe well enough (neither the intake tract nor the cam) to make power at anything more than 5k-ish. The torque drops off like mad above 5k. 99+s breathe better, we don't start to drop significantly until 5.5+k.