4.10 not worth it!!!

[Stang2003GT]

!!!Revised Simulator Runs of 3.27 vs 4.10s!!!

Read all information please.

Now I can't simulate every driving condition out there for you. We all drive on roads which are comprized of Asphault or concrete and dragstrips with different levels of traction compound. So I have to simulate data that will work for both people who cruise to hard core drag racers. It is very hard for me to argue anything with so many variable. So I've come together with a driving condition that hopefully will meet everones criteria. Your driving along on new fresh asphault it happend that today is a SAE condtioned day and that means the weather condtions meet an exact spec (which you will see below). This condtion is extremely unlike to happen and I can simulate any condition but i needed to pick a standard. You Stop at a light and the light goes green you give it all you have. So I will run the data for that kind of driving. A quarter mile is to be the simulation.

Spec were pulled from: http://www.mach1registry.com/images/2004mustangs.pdf

Driving conditions:

(SAE standard condtions)
-29.6 MG inchs <- Atmosphere Pressure
-77 Degs F <-Out side air temp
-49 Dew point <- The dew point (Moisture)
-No wind <- NO wind at all

Driver:

Average driver who has been to the track a few times to racer.
-3000 Rpm launch <- The launch rpm.
-5700 Rpm shifts <- Rev 1st to 5700 shift/2ed 5700 shift/3rd 5700 Shift/4th 5700 Shift/5th
-.4 sec shift times <-The time it take for the driver to shift gears
(This is typical, as .2 is like a shiftkit on an auto)
-And rpm matching <- Matching the Engine Rpm to the transmission rpm before releasing the
clutch (Running 100% without lifting is too dangerous to the tranny and
wont be simulated even know It will increase performance)

Engine Infromation:

!!!Engine was now simulated fully on 91 octain on an SAE day!!!
!!!This is a full curve instead of the computer est of the full power curve as before
-Cubic Inches 280.1
-255hp @ 5250 @ fly wheel <-- If I change to STD condtions of 29.92 and 59F 260hp is
avaliable
-299 lbs torque @ 4000 @ fly wheel <-SAE not STD

Clutch Information:

-Diameter: 10.5 Inches
-Force: 1600lbs <-est. (But close)
-Singe metal disk

Transmission:

!!!Corrected data!!!
-With the T-3650 (3.35)(1.99)(1.32)(1)(.68)
-97% eff which is the average effeicny of a manual (Spec sheet)

Rearend:

-LSD (50%)<-- Amount of slip in the rearend
-3.27 and 4.10 gears

Tires:

-8.8 x 24.9 Tires @ 34 lbs (weight) each <-Radial style tire
-80% tractions (This simulates the level of traction on the road 80% = Tire on good asphualt, 95% = Drag strip with good Traction compound)

Car Body information:

!!!Corrected data!!!
-The car weighted 3642lbs = (3347 dry + 96lbs of gas + 200lbs Driver)
-.42 drag coef <- Amount of drag
-57% front weight and 43% rear weight - Weight distribution
-101.3 In wheelbase
-60.1 Inch rear track
-20 Inch center of gravity
-Suspension stiffness of a modern car

Strip Simlation
-Good Asphault
-Distance of 1320 feet
-A 10 inch rollout.

3.27s

4.10s

Keep In mind this is not at a drag strip and the soul purpose is to see the difference in 3.27 vs 4.10s.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Impressive!

 

[merc123]

I still wouldn't trade my 3.73's back to 3.27's

 

[jerry S]

I guess it all depends on your power band. I believe that the gears by themselves (no other mods) do little for you. But if you swap out your stock cam for a bigger cam and your power band shifts upwards by 200-600 rpm, then yes, the gears give you the mechanical advantage of getting you to the sweet spot sooner.

 

[Barrier]

Of course there's no top speed gain... the top speed decreases because of the gears... all you get with a lower gear is the engine working harder to turn the wheels at the same rate, thus an increase in acceleration. Now if you can conform to the traction and such the 4.10s can have quite impressive gains in acceleration but that's only if you can get past the lack of traction.

Otherwise great little program and nice test.

 

[deftsound]

ive always been doubtfull about the actual performance gains gears give you. Ive read COUNTLESS threads about people who were dissapointed that they got beat by completely stock mustangs when they had 3.73's or 4.10's

 

[WillDuhhBeast]

it puts downshifts in a more aggressive position with normal driving also.


Of course, that has nothing to do with drag racing.


If this lack of any improvment is true.. why does just about ANYone building a strip car go with steeper gears?

 

[blackfang]

Nice idea you had, but the problem is, its a computer simulataor that doesn't add real world and drag issues found on the street. They make a good tool for ideas, but shouldn't always be used to base a result off a cars setup. Gears are and never were designed for hp increases. Actually they tend to lose ~2-5 rwhp with steeper gears.

Of course there's no top speed gain... the top speed decreases because of the gears... all you get with a lower gear is the engine working harder to turn the wheels at the same rate, thus an increase in acceleration.

100% false. Gears do allow the car to reach a higher top speed. They allow the car to pull in the 4th and 5th gear allowing the car to overcome wind resistance unlike 3.27's.

Also the engine works less to turn the wheels with a steeper gear. That has been known and proven years ago.

 

[Stang2003GT]

it puts downshifts in a more aggressive position with normal driving also.


Of course, that has nothing to do with drag racing.


If this lack of any improvment is true.. why does just about ANYone building a strip car go with steeper gears?

In my statement I claimed gears are only effective with tires. On a strip car it makes sense because you got some sticky rubber on ya. Street tires will slow you down.

If you took 10 hp away from the Mustang and had the horsepower peak at 6500 rpms instead of 5250 and then had 4.10s it would be faster then the car with 10 more horsepower and 3.27s. Don't believe me and I'll prove it on the simulator.

 

[bakos24]

that was a real good test. Even if the 4.10s dont give you actual performance gains over stock I dont think I would even consider going back. I will take that seat of the pants feeling anyday.

 

[01Steeda]

Screw the simulator, :Track:

I use to play a Nascar simulator.. doesnt mean I could hang with JR @ daytona

Simulators are for speculation, real world is where the proof is. I am not saying your wrong, I just dont believe everything a simulator spits out.

 

[Stang2003GT]

It's physics and math and all that simulator is, is a big calculator. Its very accuarate infact some can do what I did on paper. Plus taking it to the track is expensive, im not going to waste $700 to find out. This simulator can tell me what I want to know before I try it. No waste of money. I now know gears are not the answer to cheap performance.

 

[01Steeda]

I dont know about all that, but if you pulled next to a car with the exact same mods that you have , only difference being your gears are 3.27's and his are 4.10's... My money is on the 4.10's

 

[Stangdriver1119]

I dont know about all that, but if you pulled next to a car with the exact same mods that you have , only difference being your gears are 3.27's and his are 4.10's... My money is on the 4.10's

+1 without a doubt

 

[blackfang]

LOL@ the logic of this thread. I seen a calculator that staes a stock geared mustang can go as fast as 200 mph. Maybe I should believe the calculator huh and not the real world.

I bet that if you run your car with the stock gears it will be slower than with 4.10's.

 

[03GTconv]

Nice test....im actually considering goin with 3.73s cause of the cams im getting. U might be right but i have to agree with the rest when they say a computer is one thing and real life track use is another. My buddy has a stock 01 conv gt auto. He ran 14.4 in stock trim and then added 3.73s and ran a 14.1. Now maybe he just ran better but he seems to thing the gears did it for him.

 

[Stang2003GT]

Look at the data.

Gears- 3.27 4.10
330(ft) 6.21(s) 6.22
1000 12.27 12.25
1320 14.62 14.56

The car with 3.27s would get slightly ahead in the first 330ft. By the 1000 ft mark the car with 4.10s would have caught up and got slightly ahead of the 3.27 car. By the end the 4.10 car wouldnt even be past the 3.27 car.

So if two Mustangs pulled up one with stock gears the other with 4.10s and the exact same drivers and the cars were in similar condition the 4.10 car should win slightly. But we live in a world were everyone is different and the cars will have different mileage, so once again its realy a drivers race.

 

[blackfang]

Look at the data.

Gears- 3.27 4.10
330(ft) 6.21(s) 6.22
1000 12.27 12.25
1320 14.62 14.56

The car with 3.27s would get slightly ahead in the first 330ft. By the 1000 ft mark the car with 4.10s would have caught up and got slightly ahead of the 3.27 car. By the end the 4.10 car wouldnt even be past the 3.27 car.

So if two Mustangs pulled up one with stock gears the other with 4.10s and the exact same drivers and the cars were in similar condition the 4.10 car should win slightly. But we live in a world were everyone is different and the cars will have different mileage, so once again its realy a drivers race.

OMG I cant even believe there is someone that actually believes this crap over a damn computer program. How about going to the dragstrip and see real results. Not some hypothesis from a program that doesnt factor in alot of variables that changes that data.

So next time when a 96-98 cobra with 3.27's pull up I should not win by alot even though I run 4.30's

 

[Stang2003GT]

By the way for all the calc haters out and ones who heard about the stock mustang hitting 200mph in the calc, this is for you.

Stock mustangs tops speed is 148mph @ 4124rpms, over a 5 mile distance of acceleration, with SAE condtions.

Stock mustang with 4.10s is 154mph @ 5380rpms, over a 5 mile distance of acceleration, with SAE condtions.

One other thing you all have to realize is, if you ran ur car at the track with 3.27 and ran a 14 and then a week later you ran again and got a 14.2 and a week later you run it again and you get a 13.9. You drove the car the sameway and never adjusted the tire pressure then why did the times change. Atmosphic conditions are the cause. You could never test this out unless you ran a baseline then swap gears realy quick then raced again with in a very close time frame.

So I believe the sim.

 

[Stang2003GT]

OMG I cant even believe there is someone that actually believes this crap over a damn computer program. How about going to the dragstrip and see real results. Not some hypothesis from a program that doesnt factor in alot of variables that changes that data.

So next time when a 96-98 cobra with 3.27's pull up I should not win by alot even though I run 4.30's

Im simulating how two identical cars with the only difference being gears would differ. This is math and physics they dont lie.

Im not compairing a 96-98 cobra 3.27 vs a 2003 GT with 4.30!!!!