Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech' started by 04gtdrop, Jul 13, 2005.
Please lock this thread and ban everyone in it (except me)
Just because the engine revs faster doesn't mean the clutch will slip. I'm quite sure that the clutch would be more likely to slip with more load and less revs than more revs and less load.
And the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of mechanical advantage in the form of torque multiplication is simply stunning given your post count.
I mean, c'mon, someone with 5,500 posts on stangnet has to know EVERYTHING by now right?
I didn't really care what the answer was...
I'm not pulling anything out of anywhere...
So one has to take a physics class to understand physics or post on stangnet and make real world sense?
By the way I have took two classes in Physics I can go on forever...
Give Me TP - Why ban? A lock is fine...but on banning...no name-calling has taken place (that isn't in fun)...and no threatening or "bad" pictures are posted A nice quick lock will do the job
jimfitzgerald - Correct. Both sides. It takes two too argue/debate.
Look in the bold: That is what I stated..."the straw that could break the camel's back". Reread what I posted...do you think some don't read the other post? I never said it would automatically slip. I said it would be more likely to slip than before the gears. All in context my friend
What is post count? I'm not for sure what your real point is here. When did I not understand mechanical advantage? They kept using this "load" deal...when the revs overcame the effiecent advantage. Then they try changing it up...I challenge them to reread all of that. If their bored of course.
That was a joke
You didn't make real world sense, you can't give a single thread or proof to back up anything you've said.
You stated that the lower gears (numerically higher) put more load on the drivetrain components forward of the rear-end, which is not true at all. If this was the case, the car would be slower than before due to the extra load put on the drivetrain.
You make no sense and remind me of another back-tracking poster that we had on here named EddieHaskell.
Lol...no it doesn't...the steeper gears get that "torque" to the ground and overcompensates the "more load" (as you put it) on the drivetrain. That is silly to think that under traction that a lesser gear won't put less strain than a steeper gear. Why do you think people get a nice SOTP feel from steeper gears...because of the "hit" they provide. "Think about it."
Your thinking is quite a bit off...possibly reversed
So I need to come up with something better than a rubberband theory huh?
I haven't given a single thread or proof (confused on that anyways)...you mean post I'm assuming. That's funny...I guess if that is the case then you haven't either and where back at square one...so let's start over on this "debate"
I've given plenty, and even tried to break down to the simplest terms with the rubberband example, which you still can't seem to comprehend. This isn't a debate over what gear is the best to choose. Laws of physics are not debatable, all of which go against the points you've tried to make.
Reread the thread...
wow this thread is still alive? i already got my gears put in...LOL ahh man. thanks guys
Has any one ever compared quarter mile times when it comes to 3.73's and 4.10's? Is the difference really THAT big?
I always thought times would improve any where from 0.3-0.5 seconds (correct me if I'm wrong).
I already bought 3.73's, so I'm not going to go with 4.10's lol. I'm just curious what the time differences are stock for stock (One GT with 3.73's and nothing else, one GT with 4.10's and nothing else).