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: 5,166 CT
GTX MATT
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,166
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: 6,017 Salem
Grizzly
Moparts Proctologist
|
Moparts Proctologist
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,017
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: 30,474 Florida STAYcation
dOc !
The village idiot's idiot
|
The village idiot's idiot
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,474
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.
|
|
|
|
|