2.73's and big stalls? (4000+)
03-31-2004, 05:31 PM
#21
TECH Resident
Originally Posted by 42NightZ28
Speaking of the 2.73 geared cars if you are still running the steel drive shaft toss that SOB in favor of a 3.5in Aluminum the one i got does actually weigh half that of the steel one.
or is it just something to put in the sig?
notice how even the smooth bellows advertise a paltry 5hp.
why wouldnt the driveshaft advertise any at all?
im going to buy a carbon fiber one soon,
do some runs before and after,
and if there isnt a noticeable difference,
im returning it saying i got the wrong one,
i actually have a thunderbird, not a firebird, sorry i always get them confused.
03-31-2004, 06:10 PM
#22
TECH Senior Member
You'de be hard pressed to accurately measure the difference in performance at the track from switching to a CF shaft. You'd have better luck on a dyno and even then, I doubt you'd be able to see it conclusively since the pull would be made in direct gear when the shaft is accelerating slowly.
03-31-2004, 06:20 PM
#23
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL Western Burbs of Chicago
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i don't know about any ET gains but its bound to be good for other reasons, Less weight, less recipricating mass and less vibration is all good in my book.
03-31-2004, 06:21 PM
#24
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the steel drive shaft what is causing the tailhouse problems in the f-bodies. I put one in my Mustang only thing good about it was it was balanced better than the stock one.
Last edited by mshiznitzh; 04-01-2004 at 05:19 PM.
03-31-2004, 09:16 PM
#25
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dover,De
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jay_99z runs a TCS 4200 stall and 2.73 gears. Although it sounds like he has a powerglide at the track he managed to pull off 11.90's with Stock Internals! It's pretty loose but he gets great highway gas mileage 
04-01-2004, 08:00 PM
#26
TECH Resident
Originally Posted by 42NightZ28
i don't know about any ET gains but its bound to be good for other reasons, Less weight, less recipricating mass and less vibration is all good in my book.
is because it equates to lower ETs.
if changing the DS doesnt lower ETs,
why should less weight and less recip. mass even be considered?
04-02-2004, 04:02 PM
#27
I run a TCS 4200. I am back to 2.73's. It is pretty loose and the converter doesn't lock up util I get aroud 50mph. I had a 3.42 rear in it and it felt much tighter. Converter locked up around 30mph. Also felt much better from a roll.
As far as performance it's great. Stock internals runs 11.94. Hoping for 11.8x's soon. With the QA1's it's pulling consistant 1.6 60's. You CAN make a car go fast with 2.73's but you lose a little drivability on the street. You get used to it though. I didn't notice how loose it was til I broke my 3.42 rear and had to switch back.
As far as performance it's great. Stock internals runs 11.94. Hoping for 11.8x's soon. With the QA1's it's pulling consistant 1.6 60's. You CAN make a car go fast with 2.73's but you lose a little drivability on the street. You get used to it though. I didn't notice how loose it was til I broke my 3.42 rear and had to switch back.
04-02-2004, 04:34 PM
#29
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL Western Burbs of Chicago
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stone0fFire
the only reason why less weight and less reciprocating mass is important,
is because it equates to lower ETs.
if changing the DS doesnt lower ETs,
why should less weight and less recip. mass even be considered?
is because it equates to lower ETs.
if changing the DS doesnt lower ETs,
why should less weight and less recip. mass even be considered?
04-02-2004, 04:35 PM
#30
TECH Resident
Originally Posted by jay_99z
I run a TCS 4200. I am back to 2.73's. It is pretty loose and the converter doesn't lock up util I get aroud 50mph. I had a 3.42 rear in it and it felt much tighter. Converter locked up around 30mph. Also felt much better from a roll.
As far as performance it's great. Stock internals runs 11.94. Hoping for 11.8x's soon. With the QA1's it's pulling consistant 1.6 60's. You CAN make a car go fast with 2.73's but you lose a little drivability on the street. You get used to it though. I didn't notice how loose it was til I broke my 3.42 rear and had to switch back.
As far as performance it's great. Stock internals runs 11.94. Hoping for 11.8x's soon. With the QA1's it's pulling consistant 1.6 60's. You CAN make a car go fast with 2.73's but you lose a little drivability on the street. You get used to it though. I didn't notice how loose it was til I broke my 3.42 rear and had to switch back.
that would be interesting.
04-02-2004, 04:37 PM
#31
TECH Resident
Originally Posted by 42NightZ28
I changed it soley to get rid of the vibration, I had the stock one Blenced to tryo to get rid of the vibration at 70mph+ and it would work for a while then come back again. 0% Vibration with the lighter one.
i notice it esp. when i let off the gas
car rattles to pieces under deceleration.
04-02-2004, 08:19 PM
#32
Originally Posted by Stone0fFire
do you know the difference in ET between your car 3.42 vs 2.73?
that would be interesting.
that would be interesting.
I should know pretty soon. The original 2.73 to 3.42 swap was short lived. I broke it the first trip to the drag strip. It was 2 different strips and much warmer weather with 3.42 rear. Times were pretty close but I did drop a little off the 60'. I made three passes and broke it in the burnout box before the fourth. I'm looking to get the 3.42 rear together next week.
