stangbear427
Active Member
ponyboy19 said:Who said anything about trapping out at 95mph and only using 2 gears. I was simply trying to make you see how soft that gearing senerio is.
OK, everything looks the same as it did when I quoted it this morning, except the "3-4 gears". I said what did in response to "what you'd use the last 4 gears for?" I must have somehow missed the 3 while I was rushing this morning, at least now you know what I was thinking when I posted it. My friends LT1 is useless in 6th gear, just as much as the 5th in a stock stang with a T5. That car barely has highway torque in 5th, it never needed a T56- except perhaps in GM's looking ahead assuming we would change the rear gears anyway.ponyboy19 said:...and to use your little set up.. viper + 2.73's in second gear would do 95 mph at 6040rpms and 55 mph at 3500 rpms.. I can only wonder what you'd use the last 3-4 gears for?
OK, agreed. I wouldn't say I was trying to prove you wrong, per say. The only reason I went into the discussion at all was in response to your first response to me:ponyboy19 said:If your trying to prove "I was wrong" then perhaps i was. I've already admitted it's "my guess", "IMO" and so forth. Fact is you can run all the #'s you want. things will vary on clutch set ups, hp ratings, Hp of the car, how close the HP is to capablities of the clutch and drive train, Condition of the clutch set up, amount of stick on the track, and so on.. but bottom line if you run the numbers a 2nd gear start is not needed neither on the street nor on the track. and a Dodge Viper is a dog with stock gearing as would be a Mustang with 2:73/3:08's and a viper tranny..
Now, "launch" was a bad word for me to use, because taking off like grandma is seldom reffered to as a launch. However, what I was addressing was the concern of forced87GT that 1st gear with 4.10's would be too short- which was an observation of my own everytime I drove or rode in a stang with 4.10's (note: none of them had a T56), 1st gear was useless. Taking off in 2nd was far easier, smoother, and didn't exhibit any problems. Maybe with the pathetic stock HP under the hood (although my wife's bone stocker takes of in second with ease), but never on an even mildly modified engine. I have no trouble taking off in 2nd, or even 3rd in my GT with 3.73's. Now, while it isn't remotely ideal, I have also launched in 2nd on the clock, and by only launching 2000 rpm's higher than in 1st was able to run within half a second of the times set launching in first. My TKO may have a lower 2nd gear ratio than a Viper T56, but not so much that another 140HP wouldn't more than make up for it. If it falls on it's face, the clutch isn't up to it or the R's are too low. But I wasn't meaning track talk, just daily drivability concerns about a 1st gear that's too short. If it isn't too short after all, fantastic. Of all of us, you would know. You've opened up something else even more disturbing now though- how could anyone consider a car that in 1992 would do 0-60 in four and a half seconds and run the quarter high 12's at 113mph in stock trim to be a dog? The slowest year I know of for the GTS was '96, and they were going 0-60 in 4.1 and the quarter in 12.4 @118mph on factory rubber- I can only wonder what that car would've done with slicks. If you think this car is a dog, I would love to ride in yours sometime... you aren't very easily impressed.ponyboy19 said:with my car and the power i had there is no way you could launch in 2nd gear with 3.73's