Re: 4.10 gears...not what I expected.
 

Paul,

Your results in the 1/2mile mimic how Lee and I ran with VERY similarly modded 92s several years ago at Byron. Lee got to the big end about .3-.4 quicker than me. His 1/8 trap was about 2 mph faster than mine, however I would gain on him in the second 1/8 (not enough to get around him) and our 1/4mile traps were virtually identical. Lee has 4.10s and I had the 3.45s

Re: 4.10 gears...not what I expected.
 

Hey David,

Yes, I definitely like them better than I did at first. It sounds like we had similar experiences relative to inflated expectations. Once I came to grips with the fact that I had simply expected too much, I began evaluating the mod more objectively. The car moves away from a stop easier and feels more "drivable" in almost all circumstances. I'm happy with them now. Glad you are too!

Re: 4.10 gears...not what I expected.
 

It was a standing start, but with slightly less aggressive rpm and clutch release than typical of a "balls to the walls" quarter mile "ET" contest. This was for top-end primarily: not ET per se'.

Re: 4.10 gears...not what I expected.
 

I thought you might be. It feels like the car went on about a 500 lb diet. Very froggy and eager to run.

Paul, I think with modded motors like ours the taller gears are fine. That's why I did 3.90's vs 4.10's. We have the power to pull those tall gears in 1st and 2nd. For the same reason if I added boost I would never do 3.90's or 4.10's. Don't need to. Shorter gears are a great equalizer when you are short on power. IMHO, the more power you have the less gear you need.

Re: 4.10 gears...not what I expected.
 

I installed 3.73s for mine and when power is transmitted through 19" wheels, acts like a 3.55. I would be tempted to try 3.90s

Re: 4.10 gears...not what I expected.
 

Dave, I have come to agree with much of your (and Dom's) opinion. I too am starting to lean toward the 3.90s as having favor between the 4.10 and 3.90 ratios. Fact is, I just LOVE that 2nd gear/90 mph roll-out...and the resulting look on a few ricer's and LS drivers' faces...priceless! :jawdrop:

Re: 4.10 gears...not what I expected.
 

Paul,

Just to clarify, I'd consider 3.90's due to the 19" wheels. That would get me to a real world ~3.73. A 4.10 gets me to 3.90s. Having a 3.73 would be a nice compromise gear but its nothing compelling. Not sure it would even be that noticeable. When I had the stock 3.45s, my real gear was about a 3.30.

Re: 4.10 gears...not what I expected.
 

Yep. In your case, Dom, the bigger wheels/diameter would affect the ratios us mortal Z drivers are discussing. It is very easy to factor for your app by d1/d2 x R1*

*where d1 is the distance your new (bigger) wheels cover in one revolution vs. d2 the distance the stock 17" wheel/tire size covers in one revolution, and R1 being the stock 3.45 ratio.

Re: 4.10 gears...not what I expected.
 

You constantly try to mess with the conversation. Your REAL GEAR is what ever the numerical numbers (ring gear/pinion) dictate. Your tire diameters alter your 'final drive' but you constantly fail to mention that. You mention 'real world' - real world is same as 'real gear' - it's the mathematical numbers of the gear set.

19" wheels don't have anything to do with ratio's either and you constantly mention that. There is absolutely no truth to the conversation of yours that I just quoted.

If you want to discuss final drive ratio mention the tire specifications, rear gear and people can maybe relate better.

You might try referring to the tire dimension change as effective ratio and mention the tire dimensions (real measured vs. advertised) and it could more easily be understood. I don't recall you mentioning the tire size but maybe just once, that's the real relevance for comparisons 15", 16" 17" or 20" wheels have no effect on any of it. It's the 'outer circle'.

Re: 4.10 gears...not what I expected.
 

This gear ratio discussion has my head (and tires) spinning!
R R R
;)