Rear Axle Ratio

[MikeA]

I guess I was looking for simple answer to a complex question. I was trying to settle a discussion with a friend of mine who has a '71 Stage 1. He keeps stating that the GSs would be "even quicker" had Buick installed 4.10s etc. in their rear axles. I was trying to get a handle an ET improvement with 4.10s. vs 3.42s

Mike

[Edited by MikeA (12-13-2001 at 08:02 PM).]

[MikeA]

What effect will changing the rear axle ratio from 3.42 to 4.10 have on a Ü mile ET? Should the elapsed time go down significantly?

Mike

[SuperNovaSS]

What kind of car is it? How is the drivetrain set up? The type of trans, engine RPM range, and engine RPM capabilities all play a factor.



Jason

[Keith Tedford]

I've read where torque engines such as Pontiac and Buick work very well with 3:55 gears. Something about making the big torque work for you. More may not always be better.

[MikeA]

Do you remember where you read that? Let me know if you find the article. Maybe you can fax it?

Thanks,

Mike

[Chevy454]

I don't know whether it has to do with the intake or head design, or WHAT it is, but those Buick engines make their power really LOW in the range. They were rated 510ft-lbs at only 2600rpms from the factory (360hp@4600rpms). I know most of the hardcore "stock appearing" racers run like a 3.42 gear, and say they are quicker with it than with a taller gear. You would think that with a big bore/short stroke engine (4.31x3.90, compared to the 4.15x4.21 of the Pontiac 455 and the 4.12x4.25 of the Olds 455) it would like to rev, but it makes it's power right off of the line.

[Edited by Chevy454 (12-14-2001 at 09:56 AM).]

[Stefano]

There are too many variables involved to make a blanket statement.

The torque multiplication of a numerically high gear ratio (4:10) can over power the 'stock'tires on just about any Muscle car.