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

The Magical Mustang Cure

  • Thread starter Thread starter hrspwrjunkie
  • Start date Start date Jan 17, 2006
H

hrspwrjunkie

Member
Dec 15, 2004
165
0
18
Jan 17, 2006
#1
  • Jan 17, 2006
  • #1
Hi everybody,

I wrote up a bit of a satiracle commentary on performance gearing choice and thought I would share it with everyone.

www.classicsandperformance.com/home.html
 

95riosnake

Member
Dec 21, 2003
630
0
17
Pittsburgh, PA
Jan 17, 2006
#2
  • Jan 17, 2006
  • #2
I like the part about having an idle problem, and being told 3.73's will fix it lol
 

VibrantRedGT

"STANGNET'S PENGUIN SMACKER"
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
14,679
424
154
Boca Raton, Florida
Jan 17, 2006
#3
  • Jan 17, 2006
  • #3
Nice write up. I'm going to move it to Talk.
 

GRGT1994

New Member
Sep 22, 2004
1,034
0
0
Jan 17, 2006
#4
  • Jan 17, 2006
  • #4
I missed the part that was satire.
 
H

hrspwrjunkie

Member
Dec 15, 2004
165
0
18
Jan 17, 2006
#5
  • Jan 17, 2006
  • #5
Thanks!

Ok, I'll remember that in the future.

Ryan

VibrantRedGT said:
Nice write up. I'm going to move it to Talk.
Click to expand...
 
H

hrspwrjunkie

Member
Dec 15, 2004
165
0
18
Jan 17, 2006
#6
  • Jan 17, 2006
  • #6
There are some crazy ideas out there. I'm assuming this person was just very uninformed, but when I saw that I just about fell over in astonishment!

Ryan

95riosnake said:
I like the part about having an idle problem, and being told 3.73's will fix it lol
Click to expand...
 

donjohn

New Member
Feb 7, 2004
1,757
0
0
Irvine - Southern California
Jan 17, 2006
#7
  • Jan 17, 2006
  • #7
GRGT1994 said:
I missed the part that was satire.
Click to expand...

the whole thing was a satire on gearing...
i liked it.. and will probably go with 3.73s
 
H

hrspwrjunkie

Member
Dec 15, 2004
165
0
18
Jan 17, 2006
#8
  • Jan 17, 2006
  • #8
Thanks!

I'm glad that you got that I hadn't meant it as a blast on people that used 3.73 gears (especially effectively) just a fun poke at the often innaccurate attributes people have tied to the gears and the legend that surrounds them that has grown over time and has seemed to take on a life of its own as it passed from one person to the next

I think 3.73s are fine and are a great gear choice for the right combination. My personal approach to gear use is that I only use gear ratios that ar emathematically correct for the application to provide a specific performance result, in essence, just like Ford did from the factory

Ryan

donjohn said:
the whole thing was a satire on gearing...
i liked it.. and will probably go with 3.73s
Click to expand...
 

GRGT1994

New Member
Sep 22, 2004
1,034
0
0
Jan 17, 2006
#9
  • Jan 17, 2006
  • #9
donjohn said:
the whole thing was a satire on gearing...
Click to expand...
I don't understand, you mean gears won't do all those things?
 

CManT1914

New Member
Feb 5, 2004
3,172
2
0
Killeen, Texas
Jan 17, 2006
#10
  • Jan 17, 2006
  • #10
GRGT1994 said:
I don't understand, you mean gears won't do all those things?
Click to expand...

Hmm........ I thought they were the key to getting 300rwhp out of my combo! But I STILL have a surging idle!



(kidding by the way for any brain-dead readers)
 

donjohn

New Member
Feb 7, 2004
1,757
0
0
Irvine - Southern California
Jan 18, 2006
#11
  • Jan 18, 2006
  • #11
GRGT1994 said:
I don't understand, you mean gears won't do all those things?
Click to expand...

haha, i thought you were serious before
 

Swarzkopf

Member
Sep 23, 2004
973
0
16
Pittsburgh
Jan 18, 2006
#12
  • Jan 18, 2006
  • #12
....so what's wrong with 3.73s for a bolt-on 5.0 Mustang?
 
H

hrspwrjunkie

Member
Dec 15, 2004
165
0
18
Jan 18, 2006
#13
  • Jan 18, 2006
  • #13
There's nothing "wrong" with 3.73s as a bolt on for 5.0s, but they don't provide a "performance improvement" in specific applications over a better gear choice when 3.73 gears don't meet those needs, say like a stock 5.0 with 3.08s in a drag race, which will run faster running through the traps in 3rd gear (which it is built to do) than in 4th with 3.73s.

The reason I poked fun at 3.73s is because they are a popular performance mod that people put in their cars without understanding that it doesn't work as well as they might think for all or even most applications. You might notice a "seat of the pants" improvement on the street when compared to stock or other higher (numerically lower) gearing when using the same transmission gear, but it doesn't actually improve performance for say, straights or corners on a road course or quarter mile time...especially when that gearing for, as an example, a completely stock 5.0 Mustang will only provide excessive wheel spin under hard launch (or hard throttle coming out of a corner) where there was none before.

Realistically, if a driver wants more seat of the pants feel, instead of swapping gears, all that would be needed is to downshift, run the transmission gear out further or launch at a higher RPM and use clutch modulation to keep wheel spin from occuring.

Ultimately, for specific performance applications a mathematically accurate gearing choice is much better than a random gear choice. Ford did this with the 5.0 from the factory, as I stated above, by gearing the car to finish a drag in third gear while still providing traction with the smaller/less sticky (than serious performance tires) tires.

In the case of the stock 5.0 Mustang, where the stock tire HEIGHT is used, but with more width (or a transmission with a numerically lower 1st gear such as a T5Z), you would see better acceleration over the entire quarter mile with 4.10 gears (provided the extra shift wasn't something that slowed the car down because the driver couldn't perform it quickly and smoothly enough), which is the gear that will allow the stock motor to provide the most power over the distance of a quarter mile drag (the stock 3.08/3rd gear combination is 3.94 for 85-89 cars and 4.12 for 90-95 cars). 3.73s or 3.55s don't allow the motor to fully spin in 4th gear in a stock 5.0 configuration and thus the motor doesn't get a chance to provide the most propulsion at the end of the track like the 3.08s in third...and they add an extra shift (which is time the car doesn't see power going down the track). But the key here is in a STOCK APPLICATION for DRAG RACING. Once the drivetrain is modified or the performance application changes, the gearing need is probably going to change...and in surprising ways.

Ryan

Swarzkopf said:
....so what's wrong with 3.73s for a bolt-on 5.0 Mustang?
Click to expand...
 

Black95GTS

Active Member
Jan 8, 2004
1,644
3
38
Marlborough, MA
Jan 19, 2006
#14
  • Jan 19, 2006
  • #14
hrspwrjunkie said:
There's nothing "wrong" with 3.73s as a bolt on for 5.0s, but they don't provide a "performance improvement" in specific applications over a better gear choice when 3.73 gears don't meet those needs, say like a stock 5.0 with 3.08s in a drag race, which will run faster running through the traps in 3rd gear (which it is built to do) than in 4th with 3.73s.

The reason I poked fun at 3.73s is because they are a popular performance mod that people put in their cars without understanding that it doesn't work as well as they might think for all or even most applications. You might notice a "seat of the pants" improvement on the street when compared to stock or other higher (numerically lower) gearing when using the same transmission gear, but it doesn't actually improve performance for say, straights or corners on a road course or quarter mile time...especially when that gearing for, as an example, a completely stock 5.0 Mustang will only provide excessive wheel spin under hard launch (or hard throttle coming out of a corner) where there was none before.

Realistically, if a driver wants more seat of the pants feel, instead of swapping gears, all that would be needed is to downshift, run the transmission gear out further or launch at a higher RPM and use clutch modulation to keep wheel spin from occuring.

Ultimately, for specific performance applications a mathematically accurate gearing choice is much better than a random gear choice. Ford did this with the 5.0 from the factory, as I stated above, by gearing the car to finish a drag in third gear while still providing traction with the smaller/less sticky (than serious performance tires) tires.

In the case of the stock 5.0 Mustang, where the stock tire HEIGHT is used, but with more width (or a transmission with a numerically lower 1st gear such as a T5Z), you would see better acceleration over the entire quarter mile with 4.10 gears (provided the extra shift wasn't something that slowed the car down because the driver couldn't perform it quickly and smoothly enough), which is the gear that will allow the stock motor to provide the most power over the distance of a quarter mile drag (the stock 3.08/3rd gear combination is 3.94 for 85-89 cars and 4.12 for 90-95 cars). 3.73s or 3.55s don't allow the motor to fully spin in 4th gear in a stock 5.0 configuration and thus the motor doesn't get a chance to provide the most propulsion at the end of the track like the 3.08s in third...and they add an extra shift (which is time the car doesn't see power going down the track). But the key here is in a STOCK APPLICATION for DRAG RACING. Once the drivetrain is modified or the performance application changes, the gearing need is probably going to change...and in surprising ways.

Ryan
Click to expand...

Nice write up, both on the site and here.

EXACTLY why I went with 4.10s. Also, Grn92LX (sorry I forget your name cause I suck) would have found out where I live and beat me to death with a 75mm TB.

- Adam
 
H

hrspwrjunkie

Member
Dec 15, 2004
165
0
18
Jan 19, 2006
#15
  • Jan 19, 2006
  • #15
Thanks, Adam!

Being the owner of a 95 GTS, I know these cars are considerably more sluggish off the line than the earlier Fox-bodied cars and I can easily see where you would really benefit from going to 4.10s (over the original 3.08s) especially since these cars have both the tire size from the factory to plant the extra gear-derived torque as well as a much improved rear suspension...and of course, the added weight. From my perspective, that was a very intelligent performance decision. I would consider doing the same thing myself were I not redesigning the drivetrain entirely.

Ryan

Black95GTS said:
Nice write up, both on the site and here.

EXACTLY why I went with 4.10s. Also, Grn92LX (sorry I forget your name cause I suck) would have found out where I live and beat me to death with a 75mm TB.

- Adam
Click to expand...
 

Pokageek

Active Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,767
0
46
MA, USA
Jan 19, 2006
#16
  • Jan 19, 2006
  • #16
Nice write up and comments.
 
H

hrspwrjunkie

Member
Dec 15, 2004
165
0
18
Jan 19, 2006
#17
  • Jan 19, 2006
  • #17
Thanks!

Ryan

Pokageek said:
Nice write up and comments.
Click to expand...
 

TheDamned

"I am Canadian and Damned for it!"
Jul 22, 2003
457
0
48
Montréal, Québec, Canada
Jan 19, 2006
#18
  • Jan 19, 2006
  • #18
My english sux too much but I sense alot of irony in this write up, no ?
Anyway, I just bought 3.73 for my stock'ish 5.0.
 
H

hrspwrjunkie

Member
Dec 15, 2004
165
0
18
Jan 19, 2006
#19
  • Jan 19, 2006
  • #19
You can still change your mind

Ryan

TheDamned said:
My english sux too much but I sense alot of irony in this write up, no ?
Anyway, I just bought 3.73 for my stock'ish 5.0.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Intake
  • James S
  • Jul 10, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
150
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sunday at 8:21 AM
James S
J
R
Progress Thread A small update on our first-gen Mustang project
  • Restomotive
  • Apr 24, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
93
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Apr 24, 2026
Restomotive
R
T
2002 3.8L V6 - My second Mustang
  • Taylortoxicity
  • Jan 27, 2026
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
1
Views
215
The Welcome Wagon Jan 27, 2026
Warhorse Racing
J
Transmission
  • Jraesims
  • Mar 7, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
172
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 8, 2026
JD1964
A
Discussion on mild budget build/ top end
  • Acesario
  • Feb 21, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
709
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 23, 2026
General karthief
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?