4.10's vs 3.73's

Discussion in 'SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech' started by 04gtdrop, Jul 13, 2005.

  1. Okay I will.
  2. I'm misguided? Lol, you have to be kidding :)

    So what does rebuilding anything have to do with anything specific? Are all machinist practical?

    That's like me saying how many paintball guns have you put together? If you have put a bunch together does that mean you can play the game good? Point taken?

    You haven't proven anything. I have just been very busy the last couple days...I won't let this down :nice: Trust me. Hang out in the 5.0L section a bit more and find out...
  3. Your getting to different situations mixed. I wasn't changing anything. I used both a cruising example and emergency situation example. Go re-read that and comprehend it. They are seperate :nice:

    The steeper gear ratio in these cases does make less reliable. Simple up and down motion of the pistons will tell you that. The load factor is well shot up by then.

    Very simple. City driving involves more variables than a highway cruise. Did you stop the same amount of length behind the stop sign or light? Behind the same "Mph" of cars? Same traffic conditions? It becomes the laws of probabilities or luck of the draw in the numbers you get back when you do the math. City driving is harder to compensate. The 3:27 gears that come in the 99+ as standard get rid of the lugging. In the stock 5.0L's (less power) and less gear the increase to a steeper gear will/can give an increase in city mpg literally. But with the efficiency of the 99+ and it's gear ratio. Doesn't happen to the point it is made out to be.

    You missed the point and are trying to change it. Let's play fair now kids :p

    So it is easier to take off...but does that mean everything else is satisfied? Think about it...

    That is opinion, not fact. You are wrong sir. "Think about it"

    The load barrier is already crossed around the 3:27 gear ratio mark. I explained this a couple post back...read up. That load condition is overdone and becomes more of a drag in the engine than dragging the car along. It breaks the barrier. So I guess we better cruise at 5,500 rpm than 2,500 rpm right because of the decreased load on the engine. Well why didn't Ford put 7:14's in rear end?
  4. Thank you, I'm glad I wasn't the only one to catch his misdirecting post. I guess he thinks the less educated or familiar people will read right over that. We didn't :nice:
  5. :lol: This daily driver uses 4.10s and wouldn't have it any other way. Gets up to a dangerously high 3000 rpm at 90 mph, must be doing all sorts of bad things to the engine.
  6. You are the one that keeps changing examples. Your first example cruising at 4k
    Then it changed to in emergency situations. You obviously are trying to exagerate in order to justify your posts.

    Agreed too many variable, so lets agree to disagree. And leave the opinions out of this.

    Not changing the point. Here is an earlier quote by you. This is just another example of you back tracking to make your posts sound legit.
    The point was that steeper gears lessen the load on components from rear end forward. In that situation what causes the clutch to burn out. The load placed on it when trying to get the car moving. Steeper gears have lessened that load lessening the strain on the clutch.

    Not wrong. Steeper gears lessen the load on the drivetrain components before the rearend. You don't seem to understand the physics behind it. I will give you one more tangible example here.
    Steeper gears multiply torque (fact)
    Think of the gears as a lever with a short handle picking up a weight at the other end.
    Now take a rubber band and attach it to the end of that handle and pull down on it.
    Measure the length of the rubber band.


    Multiply the torque by adding a longer handle to the lever, and do it again. the rubber band will not stretch as far because the is not as much load on it.

    In the example the rubber band would represent the drivetrain components before the rearend. Now I have explained this so if you can't come up with something better than "You're wrong" please just stop trying...

    We aren't talking about cruising at 5,500 as I already stated cruising at or below 3,000 rpm is the range in question. Stop exagerating. And yes there is a point where it becomes excessive, but not because of the of the simple "up and down motion of the pistons" example you gave. I will give you another chance to prove you know what you are talking about if you can tell me what is most damaging to an engine at high rpms. I'll even give you a hint. its 2 words and the first word starts with "I"?

    Ford engineers did not have longevity as the only thing in mind when they chose 3.27 gears. I guarantee you that gas mileage played a bigger part in that decision.
    And load and rpm are not connected. You can be at 0% load at 6000 rpm if the throttle is closed. Load is how hard the engine has to work to keep it at that rpm.
    It is physics my friend. You try to spout technical knowledge with no tangable examples. "load condition is overdone" "load barrier is broken" do you even know wtf you are talking about? and if so where did you get the technical specs on these specific points. Pulling them out of your ass does not count.
    Again, I don't have a problem with anyone choosing what ever gears they want. My problem with what you are doing is the fact that you are exagerating some of the risks, and bluring some of the facts.
  7. OK, I have two suggestions...

    1. Don't get your tech advice from StangNet
    2. Go with nothing less than 4.10's
  8. RPM"S equal less lifespan ????

    WHO CARES. This is about acceleration. Build a second motor if you want longer life. I am into mustangs to go fast and to kick the next guys a$$. If i want long life then i buy a diesel truck.(by the way diesels have 4.10 and last for 200,000 miles)
  9. Who are you replying to???

    Tell me something I don't already know Sherlock
  10. Finally someone understands :hail2:

    You forgot to mention you have a 6,800rpm redline engine. Setup a bit differently and can take the revs better :nice: Conveinent amnesia?
  11. You genious :)
  12. :rlaugh:

    If you don't like stangnet...get off.

    That second option is WAY to general. Is it for everybody?
  13. thankyuh.....thankyuhverruhmuch
  14. Lol...go read it again. 2 different examples...reading comprehension is your friend :nice:

    Oh it did eh? How about reading it again :) Reading comprehension is your friend. Two different examples...

    I exaggerate huh? Okay.

    Now wait a minute, so you can give your opinion out but my opinion doesn't count? Okay. We got to start leaving out opinions once I put mine down :shrug:

    That quote doesn't mean anything and doesn't even go along with what your trying to point out. The engine revs quicker when gears are added and if your clutch is already having slipping problems...well guess what: "that could be the straw that breaks the camels back" :nice: Gears (under traction) will be harder on the driveline. Very simple process.

    Yeah but the engine doesn't rev quicker...and guess what has to keep up with it - clutch disc/flywheel/pressure plate as one...along with the driveshaft/tranny/rear end/tires.

    "Your wrong."

    So your comparing a rubberband to a ring and pinion :shrug:

    Is that the range in question? I have seen many blank general statements made on how the higher rpm (not being specific in some cases) lessens the load...so why can't I give an example of a non-specific rpm?

    With the movement of the up and down on the pistons (the piston ring is "wrapped" around it :) ) that causes more friction and wears the piston rings down more.

    Hint away...

    Did I say that is all they had in mind? Nope. Gas mileage is pretty well in-line with longevity and should be considered in the same category of their market. The word "efficiency" comes into play for both longevity and gas mileage. "Think about it".

    6,000rpm would cause engine braking...so no load? :)

    Wrong...I'm not blurring any facts...just giving real world examples. Is that too harsh? I even put how you can gain mph with 4:10's in my first post...but I tried to give reasons why a daily driver might want to choose against it? Too harsh for you?
  15. Yes, nobody needs less than 4.10's.
  16. He's alive :p

  17. Sometimes it might be best to take your own advice eh?

    A fairly unintelligent post was given by you...I didn't expect that :shrug:
  18. Too many uninformed opinions are expressed here.
  19. this thread should be closed.
  20. You've yet to back a single thing you've said, and continue to pull this info out of your ass, so I'm not going to bother explaining to you anymore. Take a physics class, then maybe you'll grasp the concepts. BTW the answer to the question was Inertia Load which is much harder on an engine at high rpm than the friction caused by the rings on the cyl walls.