Timeslips of 3.92's
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timeslips of 3.92's
Everytime I read about the 3.92's, someone speculates that they would be good for X tenths in the 1/4. But after a fairly detailed search, I've not been able to find anyone that has timeslips for before/after the gear swap.
Does anyone know of any real-world numbers for this mod by itself?
Does anyone know of any real-world numbers for this mod by itself?
#2
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the same question but after doing the math these Zs really don't need them, first gear is really steep and in general already pretty aggressivly geared. Unless you have a raised limiter it also forces another shift in the 1/4.
The fastest cars on here are still running the stock ratio.
The fastest cars on here are still running the stock ratio.
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got an 05 g35 6mt sedan, so my redline is 7k already. Fuel cut in 1st is a registered 7100, and fuel cut in 2nd and 3rd both is a registered 7300, so I'm not worried about having to shift to 5th. I don't think I'll be trapping high enough.
The reason I ask about the 3.92's is because I'm considering getting a set of shorty drag radials(205/40/17's), which for my car, is about 10% shorter than stock, giving me the effect of the 3.92's. I just want to see some timeslips to help me manage my expectations.
The reason I ask about the 3.92's is because I'm considering getting a set of shorty drag radials(205/40/17's), which for my car, is about 10% shorter than stock, giving me the effect of the 3.92's. I just want to see some timeslips to help me manage my expectations.
#4
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
I was one of the first one's with the 3.9 and I did a write up here with before and after. After many runs, my conclusion was that I trapped about 1.5mph faster under almost all circumstances, but my e.t. was not reduced. Basically it makes it a little harder to get out of the hole. I had 295/35 street tires on and still couldn't get better than a 2.0- 60'.
#6
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Shawnee, KS
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trey,
I'm telling you, 205/40R17 DRs are just too short to do you any good. Get a set of light 16" rims (300ZX 16X8s 16lbs) and mount some 245/50 DRs. Forget the gears. The car is already optimally geared for natural aspiration unless you go to a signifcantly taller tire. Too many of the G/Z guys read about the gains Mustangs make from gear swaps (.2-.3 seconds 2mph) and think the same appiles to G/Zs, but they don't realize that Mustangs come from the factory woefully undergeared. A stock 97-01 Cobra with the stock 3.27 gears does about 52mph in 1st, 78mph in 2nd, and 115mph in 3rd. That's undergeared considering the car weighs about 3,400lbs and only makes about 265wtq. By stepping up to 4.11s, the NA Cobra will shed about .2 seconds and going with 4.33s will drop .3. By the way, take note at how much more torque multiplication it takes to get that Cobra to drop .2-.3. You're talking about increasing the ratio by .83 to 1.06. The Stang crowd agrees that going from a 3.27 to a 3.73 (.46) is a waste of time because there's hardly any gain. It "feels" a lot faster, but the ET/MPH will suggest otherwise. IMO, the same applies for a G35 goes from a 3.5 to a 3.9 gear. It's hardly an increase in torque multiplication to make much difference in ET/MPH. Sure it will feel a lot faster, but is it really faster under the lights?
And before some Mustang diehard calls me out on it, yes, there is no such thing as a 2000 Cobra
I'm telling you, 205/40R17 DRs are just too short to do you any good. Get a set of light 16" rims (300ZX 16X8s 16lbs) and mount some 245/50 DRs. Forget the gears. The car is already optimally geared for natural aspiration unless you go to a signifcantly taller tire. Too many of the G/Z guys read about the gains Mustangs make from gear swaps (.2-.3 seconds 2mph) and think the same appiles to G/Zs, but they don't realize that Mustangs come from the factory woefully undergeared. A stock 97-01 Cobra with the stock 3.27 gears does about 52mph in 1st, 78mph in 2nd, and 115mph in 3rd. That's undergeared considering the car weighs about 3,400lbs and only makes about 265wtq. By stepping up to 4.11s, the NA Cobra will shed about .2 seconds and going with 4.33s will drop .3. By the way, take note at how much more torque multiplication it takes to get that Cobra to drop .2-.3. You're talking about increasing the ratio by .83 to 1.06. The Stang crowd agrees that going from a 3.27 to a 3.73 (.46) is a waste of time because there's hardly any gain. It "feels" a lot faster, but the ET/MPH will suggest otherwise. IMO, the same applies for a G35 goes from a 3.5 to a 3.9 gear. It's hardly an increase in torque multiplication to make much difference in ET/MPH. Sure it will feel a lot faster, but is it really faster under the lights?
And before some Mustang diehard calls me out on it, yes, there is no such thing as a 2000 Cobra
#7
Originally Posted by Dave B
Trey,
I'm telling you, 205/40R17 DRs are just too short to do you any good. Get a set of light 16" rims (300ZX 16X8s 16lbs) and mount some 245/50 DRs. Forget the gears. The car is already optimally geared for natural aspiration unless you go to a signifcantly taller tire. Too many of the G/Z guys read about the gains Mustangs make from gear swaps (.2-.3 seconds 2mph) and think the same appiles to G/Zs, but they don't realize that Mustangs come from the factory woefully undergeared. A stock 97-01 Cobra with the stock 3.27 gears does about 52mph in 1st, 78mph in 2nd, and 115mph in 3rd. That's undergeared considering the car weighs about 3,400lbs and only makes about 265wtq. By stepping up to 4.11s, the NA Cobra will shed about .2 seconds and going with 4.33s will drop .3. By the way, take note at how much more torque multiplication it takes to get that Cobra to drop .2-.3. You're talking about increasing the ratio by .83 to 1.06. The Stang crowd agrees that going from a 3.27 to a 3.73 (.46) is a waste of time because there's hardly any gain. It "feels" a lot faster, but the ET/MPH will suggest otherwise. IMO, the same applies for a G35 goes from a 3.5 to a 3.9 gear. It's hardly an increase in torque multiplication to make much difference in ET/MPH. Sure it will feel a lot faster, but is it really faster under the lights?
And before some Mustang diehard calls me out on it, yes, there is no such thing as a 2000 Cobra
I'm telling you, 205/40R17 DRs are just too short to do you any good. Get a set of light 16" rims (300ZX 16X8s 16lbs) and mount some 245/50 DRs. Forget the gears. The car is already optimally geared for natural aspiration unless you go to a signifcantly taller tire. Too many of the G/Z guys read about the gains Mustangs make from gear swaps (.2-.3 seconds 2mph) and think the same appiles to G/Zs, but they don't realize that Mustangs come from the factory woefully undergeared. A stock 97-01 Cobra with the stock 3.27 gears does about 52mph in 1st, 78mph in 2nd, and 115mph in 3rd. That's undergeared considering the car weighs about 3,400lbs and only makes about 265wtq. By stepping up to 4.11s, the NA Cobra will shed about .2 seconds and going with 4.33s will drop .3. By the way, take note at how much more torque multiplication it takes to get that Cobra to drop .2-.3. You're talking about increasing the ratio by .83 to 1.06. The Stang crowd agrees that going from a 3.27 to a 3.73 (.46) is a waste of time because there's hardly any gain. It "feels" a lot faster, but the ET/MPH will suggest otherwise. IMO, the same applies for a G35 goes from a 3.5 to a 3.9 gear. It's hardly an increase in torque multiplication to make much difference in ET/MPH. Sure it will feel a lot faster, but is it really faster under the lights?
And before some Mustang diehard calls me out on it, yes, there is no such thing as a 2000 Cobra
Trending Topics
#9
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave B
Trey,
I'm telling you, 205/40R17 DRs are just too short to do you any good. Get a set of light 16" rims (300ZX 16X8s 16lbs) and mount some 245/50 DRs. Forget the gears. The car is already optimally geared for natural aspiration unless you go to a signifcantly taller tire. Too many of the G/Z guys read about the gains Mustangs make from gear swaps (.2-.3 seconds 2mph) and think the same appiles to G/Zs, but they don't realize that Mustangs come from the factory woefully undergeared. A stock 97-01 Cobra with the stock 3.27 gears does about 52mph in 1st, 78mph in 2nd, and 115mph in 3rd. That's undergeared considering the car weighs about 3,400lbs and only makes about 265wtq. By stepping up to 4.11s, the NA Cobra will shed about .2 seconds and going with 4.33s will drop .3. By the way, take note at how much more torque multiplication it takes to get that Cobra to drop .2-.3. You're talking about increasing the ratio by .83 to 1.06. The Stang crowd agrees that going from a 3.27 to a 3.73 (.46) is a waste of time because there's hardly any gain. It "feels" a lot faster, but the ET/MPH will suggest otherwise. IMO, the same applies for a G35 goes from a 3.5 to a 3.9 gear. It's hardly an increase in torque multiplication to make much difference in ET/MPH. Sure it will feel a lot faster, but is it really faster under the lights?
And before some Mustang diehard calls me out on it, yes, there is no such thing as a 2000 Cobra
I'm telling you, 205/40R17 DRs are just too short to do you any good. Get a set of light 16" rims (300ZX 16X8s 16lbs) and mount some 245/50 DRs. Forget the gears. The car is already optimally geared for natural aspiration unless you go to a signifcantly taller tire. Too many of the G/Z guys read about the gains Mustangs make from gear swaps (.2-.3 seconds 2mph) and think the same appiles to G/Zs, but they don't realize that Mustangs come from the factory woefully undergeared. A stock 97-01 Cobra with the stock 3.27 gears does about 52mph in 1st, 78mph in 2nd, and 115mph in 3rd. That's undergeared considering the car weighs about 3,400lbs and only makes about 265wtq. By stepping up to 4.11s, the NA Cobra will shed about .2 seconds and going with 4.33s will drop .3. By the way, take note at how much more torque multiplication it takes to get that Cobra to drop .2-.3. You're talking about increasing the ratio by .83 to 1.06. The Stang crowd agrees that going from a 3.27 to a 3.73 (.46) is a waste of time because there's hardly any gain. It "feels" a lot faster, but the ET/MPH will suggest otherwise. IMO, the same applies for a G35 goes from a 3.5 to a 3.9 gear. It's hardly an increase in torque multiplication to make much difference in ET/MPH. Sure it will feel a lot faster, but is it really faster under the lights?
And before some Mustang diehard calls me out on it, yes, there is no such thing as a 2000 Cobra
I'm not gonna sit here and say I don't agree with you, but I got some other opinions from some local drag racers(all fbody and mustang types). I specifically asked about going with the shorties, and the concern for sidewall flex(or not) during launch. Other than what you've said, everyone locally agreed(unanimously) that sidewall flex shouldn't be a concern in drag radials. Paraphrasing: "Drag radials are still radials afterall, just a different compound. And there's only so much flex to be induced in a radial." Everyone pretty much agreed that for the price, go with the shorty DR's. At the worst, I'll still match my current 60 foots.
I'd like to get some lightweight wheels, but I'm just not in a position to spend a bunch of money for wheels AND tires at this point.
As for expected gains, that's the reason I posted this message in the first place. I don't want to expect 3 or 4 tenths, and only see 1 tenth. Now that I know I'll only see a marginal gain, I must reconsider the tire size.
#10
Originally Posted by trey.hutcheson
Dave,
I'm not gonna sit here and say I don't agree with you, but I got some other opinions from some local drag racers(all fbody and mustang types). I specifically asked about going with the shorties, and the concern for sidewall flex(or not) during launch. Other than what you've said, everyone locally agreed(unanimously) that sidewall flex shouldn't be a concern in drag radials. Paraphrasing: "Drag radials are still radials afterall, just a different compound. And there's only so much flex to be induced in a radial." Everyone pretty much agreed that for the price, go with the shorty DR's. At the worst, I'll still match my current 60 foots.
I'd like to get some lightweight wheels, but I'm just not in a position to spend a bunch of money for wheels AND tires at this point.
As for expected gains, that's the reason I posted this message in the first place. I don't want to expect 3 or 4 tenths, and only see 1 tenth. Now that I know I'll only see a marginal gain, I must reconsider the tire size.
I'm not gonna sit here and say I don't agree with you, but I got some other opinions from some local drag racers(all fbody and mustang types). I specifically asked about going with the shorties, and the concern for sidewall flex(or not) during launch. Other than what you've said, everyone locally agreed(unanimously) that sidewall flex shouldn't be a concern in drag radials. Paraphrasing: "Drag radials are still radials afterall, just a different compound. And there's only so much flex to be induced in a radial." Everyone pretty much agreed that for the price, go with the shorty DR's. At the worst, I'll still match my current 60 foots.
I'd like to get some lightweight wheels, but I'm just not in a position to spend a bunch of money for wheels AND tires at this point.
As for expected gains, that's the reason I posted this message in the first place. I don't want to expect 3 or 4 tenths, and only see 1 tenth. Now that I know I'll only see a marginal gain, I must reconsider the tire size.
I think the weld 15x10 with the 6.5bs will fit too but don't hold me to it, both of these sizes are used alot on the mustang
#11
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Shawnee, KS
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by trey.hutcheson
Dave,
I'm not gonna sit here and say I don't agree with you, but I got some other opinions from some local drag racers(all fbody and mustang types). I specifically asked about going with the shorties, and the concern for sidewall flex(or not) during launch. Other than what you've said, everyone locally agreed(unanimously) that sidewall flex shouldn't be a concern in drag radials. Paraphrasing: "Drag radials are still radials afterall, just a different compound. And there's only so much flex to be induced in a radial." Everyone pretty much agreed that for the price, go with the shorty DR's. At the worst, I'll still match my current 60 foots.
I'm not gonna sit here and say I don't agree with you, but I got some other opinions from some local drag racers(all fbody and mustang types). I specifically asked about going with the shorties, and the concern for sidewall flex(or not) during launch. Other than what you've said, everyone locally agreed(unanimously) that sidewall flex shouldn't be a concern in drag radials. Paraphrasing: "Drag radials are still radials afterall, just a different compound. And there's only so much flex to be induced in a radial." Everyone pretty much agreed that for the price, go with the shorty DR's. At the worst, I'll still match my current 60 foots.
Your friends are correct in that DRs don't need a lot of sidewall flex and don't behave like a wrinkle wall slick, but a 1.5" tall sidewall is going to be like a rock and the DRs won't grab like they should. Also, the 3" shorter height will increase your gearing so it's my opinion you'll totally smoke the DRs through 1st because they'll be easily overwhelmed.
Take a look at the cars in the BFG adds that hold world record DR times and you'll see that they're running 15 to 16" rims with very tall sidewalls. DRs are designed to wrinkle somewhat assuming you've got the sidewall height.
#12
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Shawnee, KS
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Armitage
So the threads I had seen that said the 3.917 gears drop your 1/4 mile time upwards of .4-.5 seconds is a farce? They are still useful for tracking the car though, no?
#13
OGPremierMafia
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cincinnati OH
Posts: 5,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not sure, but from racing pre and post on street, i have noiced a 2 car improvement... my previous time was 13.9@ 101 with 2.0 60ft... im goin to the track in a month or so when it opens ill post my findings.
#14
New Member
iTrader: (41)
not sure how much this info will help, but i had a mustang GT 5.0 about 10 years ago, it was an automatic with 3.23 gears. I ran 15.5 at the track, dont remember the trap (average of 5 runs total) switched out the 3.23 gears with 3.73 gears and ran 14.7 (average of 3 to 5 runs total, dont remember exactly), no other mods.
#15
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys are using the 1/4 as a reason to switch out the gears. When they were designed for more track purposes. The true test of the effectiveness of the 3.9 gears is to have 2 Z's, one stock, and one with the gears to do a 0-top speed run. The 3.9 gears still allow you to hit the limited ~155 mph mark. This is where you would see the true gains the 3.9 gears give you.
#16
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Shawnee, KS
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by faris13
You guys are using the 1/4 as a reason to switch out the gears. When they were designed for more track purposes. The true test of the effectiveness of the 3.9 gears is to have 2 Z's, one stock, and one with the gears to do a 0-top speed run. The 3.9 gears still allow you to hit the limited ~155 mph mark. This is where you would see the true gains the 3.9 gears give you.
#17
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is the car does accelerate faster in every gear with the 3.9, which is the point is was trying to convey in my earlier post. Now this might not be beneficial for the 1/4 because of traction and shifiting points. , but a 0-top speed run between a stock Z and 3.9 Z would show the 3.9's gains
#19
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Originally Posted by Armitage
So in the end, this is really only a beneficial mod for cars that are tracked.