Any auto guys with 3.42's?
#1
Any auto guys with 3.42's?
I'll be picking up another 10 bolt soon to upgrade from my 2.73's and I'm on the fence between 3.23's and 3.42's. Just wondering how much worse the gas mileage is with the 3.42's in an A4, compared to 2.73's, and if it was a noticeable difference in performance. Thanks for the help.
#4
On The Tree
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dayton TX AKA hicktown
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what's 2 miles to the gallon when you will be smiling ear to ear. Also if you do alot of in town driving you will actually get better fuel economy with the 3.42's no more engine struggle from red light to red light. Add a stall converter and the smile will get bigger and is a blast to drive but make sure you get a lockup model or your smile will turn upside down on the highway. Dude don't even consider the 3.23's get the 3.42's or better yet get 3.73's
Trending Topics
#13
On The Tree
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: lansing, il
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you wont notice the performance difference, and i wouldn't change the rear-end out unless theres something wrong with the one in there. get a converter, it will make a difference you can feel.
edit: yeah, i had 2.73's and broke my rear-end so i bought a used one from a manual that has 3.42's, the gas mileage has changed slightly like 1mpg or so but isnt that bad.. the big annoyance is on long trips my odometer lies to me!!!!!
edit: yeah, i had 2.73's and broke my rear-end so i bought a used one from a manual that has 3.42's, the gas mileage has changed slightly like 1mpg or so but isnt that bad.. the big annoyance is on long trips my odometer lies to me!!!!!
#15
11 Second Club
iTrader: (43)
Can't help you out on any mileage comparisons since mine had 323's stock, but I love my 342's. I actually tried 410's and my small cammed, 3600 stalled, 3755# car ran almost EXACTLY the same 60 foots, exact same ETs, and exact same MPHs as it did with (and actually an ever so slight edge to) the 342's, so back in they went.
BTW, only reason I went from 323's to 342's a nearly two years ago was because stock 323 rear was noisy when I bought the car and it was more cost effective to find another complete rear and swap it in.
On a side note, a buddy with a very similar setup as mine, but with 273's, just went 11.80's at 116, while mine has only been a best of 11.61 @ 116...so, 273's and a good converter really aren't all that hateful IMHO....
BTW, only reason I went from 323's to 342's a nearly two years ago was because stock 323 rear was noisy when I bought the car and it was more cost effective to find another complete rear and swap it in.
On a side note, a buddy with a very similar setup as mine, but with 273's, just went 11.80's at 116, while mine has only been a best of 11.61 @ 116...so, 273's and a good converter really aren't all that hateful IMHO....
#16
I had the 2.73's in my 98 Z28, and then did a full rearend swap to the 3.42's. Honestly I liked the feel of the 2.73's better. I could tell a difference between the two performance wise. I had to feather the throttle a lot more on the street with the 3.42's, hooking was definitely a problem. My gas mileage dropped about 2mpg, I was still getting high 20's. I just liked the sweet spots and the cruising rpm's better with the 2.73's. Now I have the 3.23's in my 99Z, and I think it is a nice mix of the two. I don't have a stall yet but I'm sure the car will be pretty sick with a 3800rpm stall in it. I have a 3.42 rearend ready for a swap, but I'm gonna take it to the track with the 3.23's first and see how I like it. If anything I might just say screw it and throw 3.73's in the other rearend and have a tire melting machine...