|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: can.al]
#1571327
01/30/14 10:16 PM
01/30/14 10:16 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,161
CT
GTX MATT
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,161
CT
|
Nope, they suck IMO. Even with a stock 440 with 27 inch tall tires they got nothing on 3.55s
Now I need to pin those needles, got to feel that heat
Hear my motor screamin while I'm tearin up the street
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: MuuMuu101]
#1571330
01/30/14 11:47 PM
01/30/14 11:47 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,395
The Pale Blue Dot
Skeptic
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,395
The Pale Blue Dot
|
Quote:
I've got them in my '68 Dart. If you're looking for fun, don't get them. You want gas mileage, they do a pretty good job. I run a tired 273 behind a 904 and an open 7 1/4. I also run a 205/75/14 tire (26 inches tall). Let's just say I was going up a slight hill one time with my foot pegged on the gas and a late 90's Toyota Corolla passed me up. Besides that, I average high teens when it comes to mpg.
Your problem isn't the gear ratio. A tired 273 makes less power than a late 90's Corolla-period. Hell, my 68 Barracuda with a tired 318 couldn't spin the tires with a 3:91 sure grip. Things are different now and I'm considering a 2.94 for my tunnel rammed 400. The thing made 472 HP @ 5300/ 489 ft/lbs @ 4700 on the dyno and rolled over @ 5400 rpm. No reason to spin it tight, and it's not a drag car anyhow. 
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: Skeptic]
#1571331
01/31/14 12:14 AM
01/31/14 12:14 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,664
IN
ahy
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,664
IN
|
I've got 3.23's and 20% OD... about the same as 2.76 with a 1:1 top gear. It works great. It cruises at around 2700@75 MPH. RPM is actually higher than it needs to be for cruising but its nice to have plenty of reserve power without downshift. As posted above, it depends on the combo. This in an E with 496 and moderately big cam (243@.050).
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: Skeptic]
#1571333
01/31/14 12:29 AM
01/31/14 12:29 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,836
Florida
mopar346
Let me tell ya about fat chicks!
|
Let me tell ya about fat chicks!
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,836
Florida
|
My next built is a 71 Charger 500 with a Nascar theme for the highway and I was thinking of running 2.94s or even 2.76s behind a 440. It's an auto so it is my way of getting and overdrive, I figure the 440 should have enough torque to plus it no to mention it wont be a red light racer. But, yes, it will still need to get out of it's own way for me to be happy with it.
Careful, your character's showing!
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: dOc !]
#1571335
01/31/14 12:36 AM
01/31/14 12:36 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,999
Salem
Grizzly
Moparts Proctologist
|
Moparts Proctologist
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,999
Salem
|
2.94's are OEM in my '84 Ram. 318, 2bbl, 833od, and 29" tires. No probs here, the 3.09 1st grunts it from a stop sign at idle and with the overdrive I'm 1500 rpm out on the highway and getting 20mpg. Be that much better in one of my old girls and their few hundred horsepower advantage. 
Mo' Farts
Moderated by "tbagger".
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: dOc !]
#1571336
01/31/14 12:40 AM
01/31/14 12:40 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,493
Granite Bay CA
Kern Dog
Striving for excellence
|
Striving for excellence
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,493
Granite Bay CA
|
Quote:
I like my SHORT gearing ....and you will tooooo .....IF yurr motor has the "stones" to pull said SHORT-gear ... 
"Mister", you're off your meds again.
SHORT gears are higher numerically. ( 3.91, 4.10, etc )
TALLER gears are lower numerically. ( 2.76, 2.94, etc)
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: Kern Dog]
#1571341
01/31/14 07:44 AM
01/31/14 07:44 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
dOc !
The village idiot's idiot
|
The village idiot's idiot
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
|
Quote:
Quote:
I like my SHORT gearing ....and you will tooooo .....IF yurr motor has the "stones" to pull said SHORT-gear ...
"Mister", you're off your meds again.my
SHORT gears are higher numerically. ( 3.91, 4.10, etc )
TALLER gears are lower numerically. ( 2.76, 2.94, etc)
Well MisterBERRI .... no lack-o-meds here ... but yurr "statement" is very-much flawed. And I have heard this  before and I put out the "bait"(my capping the word SHORT) and you grabbed-it .....
IF what you say is "true" .... then a fat-tire car is limited to a 7" cheater slick. A big-inch motor is limited to a 225 slant six size. on and on and on .......
 .....
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: Skeptic]
#1571345
01/31/14 08:06 PM
01/31/14 08:06 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,375
SoCal
MuuMuu101
I got lucky at Woodward!
|
I got lucky at Woodward!
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,375
SoCal
|
Quote:
Quote:
I've got them in my '68 Dart. If you're looking for fun, don't get them. You want gas mileage, they do a pretty good job. I run a tired 273 behind a 904 and an open 7 1/4. I also run a 205/75/14 tire (26 inches tall). Let's just say I was going up a slight hill one time with my foot pegged on the gas and a late 90's Toyota Corolla passed me up. Besides that, I average high teens when it comes to mpg.
Your problem isn't the gear ratio. A tired 273 makes less power than a late 90's Corolla-period. Hell, my 68 Barracuda with a tired 318 couldn't spin the tires with a 3:91 sure grip. Things are different now and I'm considering a 2.94 for my tunnel rammed 400. The thing made 472 HP @ 5300/ 489 ft/lbs @ 4700 on the dyno and rolled over @ 5400 rpm. No reason to spin it tight, and it's not a drag car anyhow.
I will agree with you on that... Big horsepower and a numerically lower gear does sound like a nice combo.
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: loren kraker]
#1571346
01/31/14 08:47 PM
01/31/14 08:47 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
383man
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,421
Balt. Md
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I guess I'm the odd man out. I do have 2.94s in my 1970 Roadrunner and think it is a great gear for my combo and how I use the car. Running on the highway it is doable, and I have no problem with acceleration with a stroked 469 engine. In fact I was able to run a 12.48 in the 1/4 mile with this car. 3.55s are fun around town, but not on the highway with the engine screaming 3400 rpm at 60 mph while Hondas and Prius' climb our backs. It all depends on you set-up and how you intend to use the car.
3400 @ 60 sounds more like 4.30s than 3.55s, how tall are your tires 22 inches?
3.91 are 3000 @ 60mph with n50 tires  
I agree with that about 3.91's. I run 4.30's and a 30" tall tire and I run 3200 rpm at 60 mph. But this eng loves it as it sings real nice cruisin along at 3200. Ron
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: GTX MATT]
#1571347
01/31/14 10:39 PM
01/31/14 10:39 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,249
North Carolina
469runner
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,249
North Carolina
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I guess I'm the odd man out. I do have 2.94s in my 1970 Roadrunner and think it is a great gear for my combo and how I use the car. Running on the highway it is doable, and I have no problem with acceleration with a stroked 469 engine. In fact I was able to run a 12.48 in the 1/4 mile with this car. 3.55s are fun around town, but not on the highway with the engine screaming 3400 rpm at 60 mph while Hondas and Prius' climb our backs. It all depends on you set-up and how you intend to use the car.
3400 @ 60 sounds more like 4.30s than 3.55s, how tall are your tires 22 inches?
OK, so I was guessing. I don't know the exact engine speed at 60 mph with 3.55s All I know is I've had my share of short gears in these cars, maybe its just old age, or being spoiled by my daily driver loafing along at 2000 rpm at highway speed, but I just don't believe we need to be winding these engines out to get good performance if we have planned our builds. For all out acceleration, I agree nothing beats torque multiplication. 
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: 469runner]
#1571348
01/31/14 10:57 PM
01/31/14 10:57 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 15,831
Central Florida
larrymopar360
Stud Muffin
|
Stud Muffin
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 15,831
Central Florida
|
I love them. I have them in all three of my cars. All have factory 15" wheels and 235/70/15 tires. One is MP 360, one is factory E58 360 and one is factory 318-4. They are perfect for me for mixed driving. I had 3.21 in another old police car that I also had a MP 360 and 727 trans and there were annoying after any more than about 15 minutes at highway speed.
Facts are stubborn things.
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: larrymopar360]
#1571349
02/01/14 01:01 AM
02/01/14 01:01 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,915
Calgary, Alberta Canada
a12rag
master
|
master
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,915
Calgary, Alberta Canada
|
That was the original gear in my 74 Duster360. I went to 3.55:1 and really didn't notice that much difference, other than higher rpms on the highway . . . stock E58 360, 727 auto with factory stall convertor (approx. 2600rpm), and 235/60/14 tires. . . .
Before taking trip to Carlisle in 1999, change complete rear end out, for one from Gold Duster, with 2.45:1 gear !! YEAH !! I like to drive long distances, and this makes a great package, rpms are about 2600 RPM @ 70 mph, 22mpg all day long !! . . . haven't changed em since !
Gotta look at what you are using your car for, and build it for you !!!
Cheers
Mark
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: can.al]
#1571354
02/03/14 01:32 PM
02/03/14 01:32 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
|
FWIW, 2.94 and lower will not fit an Alum MP housing without a lot of grinding, I think, since I yet to grind on mine.
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: jcc]
#1571355
02/03/14 01:43 PM
02/03/14 01:43 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,190
SW MO
closer9
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,190
SW MO
|
I've got a 2.94 Suregrip in my little cruiser with no complaints. I plan on running it till I can come up with an affordable overdrive setup. Cruises great on the highway, still chirps the tires around town, but then I've never implied I had a race car...
Daily:
'19 Frontier 4WD
Belle:
'67 Belvedere Convertible, 318/727 in Go ManGo!
Other:
'64 C10, 283/3 on the tree
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: closer9]
#1571356
02/04/14 09:29 AM
02/04/14 09:29 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,437
Omaha Nebraska
Brian_wo
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,437
Omaha Nebraska
|
My 67 vert came with 2.94s,those are being replaced by a set of 3.55s. Quote:
I've got a 2.94 Suregrip in my little cruiser with no complaints. I plan on running it till I can come up with an affordable overdrive setup. Cruises great on the highway, still chirps the tires around town, but then I've never implied I had a race car...
who is that guy?
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: can.al]
#1571358
02/08/14 02:03 AM
02/08/14 02:03 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
indiana
mcmopars
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
indiana
|
Quote:
..for those using this gear set,how do you like it.
..long duration cams need not apply.
depends on what you are after,for the most part they are sh#t for a reving 340.i mean who would want an a body with a 340 with those gears?unless your going to calfornia.i wouldnt.355 or 391
|
|
|
Re: 2.94 rear gears
[Re: mcmopars]
#1571359
02/08/14 02:07 AM
02/08/14 02:07 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
indiana
mcmopars
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
indiana
|
Quote:
Quote:
..for those using this gear set,how do you like it.
..long duration cams need not apply.
depends on what you are after,for the most part they are sh#t for a reving 340.i mean who would want an a body with a 340 with those gears?unless your going to calfornia.i wouldnt.355 or 391
sorry dont where the a body 340 came from,still unless you have a 5-6 speed
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
