looks goodis it on the road yet? if so, how does it handle?
Another intelligent post with backed up info. Have you looked at the unit? Did you talk to R&C?
I talked to Heidts and looked at the unit, I sent it back. The quality was not even close. The R&C unit had much higher grade components and it built to a high standard. I also chose to weld mine in for added strength. I was also impressed with R&C's front end which is why I choose them after seeing the quality of the Heidt's unit.
Now Reen said he drove in a car with this unit and he liked it, but no one has driven in the a car with the R&C unit; so I'd wait until others check it out before you rip it.
Heres the Martz 4 link, it is the best
the Griggs system is awesom for sure but too damn much money and i hate the 8.8" rear, i'll stick with my 9" thank you very much, now if someone ever comes out with a hybrid 9" that uses the 8.8 gearset similar to the strange engineering setup that uses chevy 12 bolt gearset i might consider it, but i hate c-clip axles and i really like the drop-out 3rd member of my 9" inefficient as it is but it's still almost bullet proof even in stock form.
now if was starting out with a six banger car or something that originally had an 8" rear i might consider an 8.8" but as it is both of my cars have the 9"
Why would you want to use anything other than the 9" gear set? The Ford consumes about 5-7% of the torque due to the low (and thereby stronger) engagement of the rign-pinion. If you look at the gear you will see that more than 1 tooth is engaged all the time. While this uses more power it IS stronger....AND lighter than either the Chevy-12-bolt or the Dans 60. Plus you have far-far more ratios available. And it cost less to build if you are going to build the Chevy to the same strength.
There is a very good reason most racers and street rodders use the 9"....it is just plain BETTER. Same with the top-loader vs any other stock 4-speed.
Ron, RRS has changed the design of torque arm and the way it mounts, it has a link similar to the TCP pushrod rear suspension's link now and they have also redesigned the way it mounts to the rearend, so that should take some, though probably not all, of the bind out of the system.
there's just no pleasing you, though, is there. we talk about ford motors and cars and you always say that the chevy's are better, then i bring up the chevy gears and you're all over me about how the ford gears are better. i don't get you at all, dude.
Well, maybe if YOU read all my posts you would see that I, unlike most others on this forum are not blinded by the light of ANY manufacturer. I've pointed-out Chevy's problem with the 3/8" rod bolts and weak rockers on the BB. I also pointed out the lack of support by Ford and Chrysler and the too short rods in the Ford BOSS-302. The FACT that the SBC was a better engine than the SBF is not in doubt. The FACT that the Ford 9" and toploader were better than their counterparts is also not in doubt. Why do you think most of the reallly fast Chevyu's on the street ran toploaders and 9"r's.
I call them like I see them. Just like most other REAL auto enthusiasts do. Now, if you want to go through life believing Ford is perfect, fine. But here in upstate SC we just had ANOTHER early Mustang gas tank fire fatality and the Taurus that hit them was only going about 15 mph at impact. It didn't even buckle the rear quarter panels and the front damage where it hit the car in front of it didn't buckle the front fender, but the fire engulfed the passenger compartment and killed the driver.
Care to talk about automatic transmissions?
But here in upstate SC we just had ANOTHER early Mustang gas tank fire fatality and the Taurus that hit them was only going about 15 mph at impact. It didn't even buckle the rear quarter panels and the front damage where it hit the car in front of it didn't buckle the front fender, but the fire engulfed the passenger compartment and killed the driver.
I can't find this story on the intardnet - care to provide a link?
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?