MustangWorks.com - The Ford Mustang Power Source!

Go Back   MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums > Mustang & Ford Tech > Classic Mustangs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-21-2000, 05:50 AM   #1
Mo65
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Ontario, California
Posts: 43
Question A question of torq and rear end ratio.

Can any body tell me how the concept of rear ends work. In my 65 I hace a 2:80 rear-end ratio. I am still working on my car and have not driven it yet. I have a 302 and a c-4 transmission from a Ford Futura.I do not know what I will expect as far as rpms, torq, etc. I am not building this car for racing purposes. I want low rpms in freeway speeds. However, I preffer low-end torq. 0-60 performance. In the car I have petronix ignition, and petronix 40,000 volt coil. The engine is stock and has a new holley 2 barrel carburator with a K&N fitler and a 289 high perfomance type air filter.I have a pair of tri-Y headers and panning to install a 2 1/4 inch double exhaust with a balance tube and Dyno Max super turbo mufflers. I did these mild modifications to make it run more effecient and aquire a little bit more low end torq and not for top end speed racing.
Will the 2:80 rear end give me low Rpm at freeway and better low end torq? I have not purchased tires yet, and some people say that I need taller tires to aquire low end torq and drop the rpms. Other say that I need tires that are about 24-25 inches tall to get a better low end torq.
Can anyboby that has the knowlege, explain to me what the 2:80 will give me, and with the combination I have, what height tires do i need to aquire low-eng torque and keep the freeway rpms to a minimum.
One last thing, is the dyno max super turbo the best bet for a quit performance muffler. I was planing to instal a Flowmaster 3 chamber, but everyones said it is noiser and it is an overkill because the engine is under 300 hps, and it would not make a diffrence.
I appreciate anyones input and advise, thanks.
Mo65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2000, 09:37 AM   #2
tom351
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The 2:80 (this means the driveshaft turns 2.8 times to make the rear wheels turn once) gears will give you a high top speed and good fuel mileage, But a 3:55 would be a good choice for better acceleration. The rear end gears work similar to bicycle gears. On a 10 speed or mountian bike, the lowest gear will be easy to pedal and you can accelerate fast, but you will have a low top speed beacause your speed will be limited to how fast you can move your legs. This would be similar to a 4:10 gearset where acceleration would be fast, but top speed would depend on how high you want to spin your motor. In the highest gear on a bike, you have trouble starting because it is so hard to pedal, but once you get moving it gets a little easier. You can go much faster moving your legs at the same speed as before. Your acceleration would be slow, but you would have a high top speed. This would be similar to a 2:80 gear. I would recommend 3:55 for your application for the best combo of acceleration and reasonable highway rpms.


------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W 415 hp, Trick Flow Alum. Heads, C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2000, 10:29 AM   #3
John Z
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 102
Post

TOM351's answer is very good and the 3.55:1 rear end is generally a good overall compromise recommendation. However, just as you use low gears for accelerating on a bicycle and high gears for cruising, the automatic transmission in the car slects a low gear for acceleration and a high gear for cruising. The basic equation for estimating speed from engine speed and drive train data is:
speed = (tr/168)x(rpm/(tg x rg)
where
vehicle speed in mph
tr = tire radius in inches
rpm = engine revolutions per minute
tg = transmission gear ratio
rg = rear gear ratio
168 = units conversion factor
(This equation assumes no slip in the transmission.)
example
tr = 14
rpm = 2400
tg = 1
rg = 2.8
Speed = 71.4
If you change the tire radius to 17 in the speed would increase to 86.7 for the same rpm. Or for the same speed, the rpm would be 1975.
As a rule of thumb, when you lower rpm at cruise speed, you increase economy but hurt acceleration. You cannot select a tire size that gives you both good acceleration and cruizing economy. That can be acheived with selection of the right transmission and rear end. An over drive transmission combined with a low (high number) rearend is the ticket to get both acceleration and reasonable economy.
John Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2000, 02:25 AM   #4
Mo65
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Ontario, California
Posts: 43
Smile

Thanks guys for answering my question. Your examples make it clear to me and make sense.
Mo65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 PM.


SEARCH