4.10's, Too Short
03-02-2010, 12:20 AM
#82
With 4.10's gears and a 25.85" tall tire, for example, you will travel from 63MPH at the redline (6000RPM) in 2nd gear to 87MPH at the redline in 3rd gear, for a total of 24MPH gained in 2nd gear. With 3.42's you accelerate from 76MPH (6000RPM in 2nd) to 104MPH (6000RPM in 3rd). Thats a difference of 28MPH. In both examples, you are making the same HP at the same RPM. So in other words, you accelerate faster with 4.10's in each gear, but you gain less speed in each gear, which should basically even out with the 3.42's. So although your RPM's rise faster with 4.10's, you gain 4MPH less, which is definitely critical to acceleration.
Ok after reading and rereading that 15 times I think I got it:
Yes, when broken down like that to each individual gear you are correct, mathematically and logically (related to the calculation) it makes sense. And on paper it would seem that 3.42 > 4.10
But:
Take into account all 4 or (6) gears. If you are accelerating through each transmission gear faster with 4.10's than with 3.42's the 4.10 car is going to be "ahead" until it reaches it's respective top speed because of this faster acceleration, but then the 3.42 car will overtake it once it peaks--obviously.
**(assume EVERY other variable is negligible except strictly gear ratio, imagine we're racing 2 gear sets)**
even though at the top of each trans. gear there is a slight MPH loss with
4.10's...this is negligible because of the faster acceleration through that gear.. know what I'm saying?
Basically YES you are right with that calculation. When broken down into respective gears the 3.42's acquire faster mph, BUT the 4.10's acquire a slightly slower mph, much faster- "Fast" meaning they do it in less time.
Multiply that by 4 gears and you have your winner.
Imagine 2 gear sets (lol) are lined up going to race- both hook perfectly, no variables:
They take off, the 4.10's accelerate faster through first, end up at a slightly lower mph, but because of the faster accel they created they are already out front, ahead of the 3.42's which attained a higher mph in first, but didn't do it as fast as the 4.10's. By this time the 4.10's have already shifted into second and are doing the same thing again, repeat 2 more times to 4th gear and you have your explanation ! This doesn't stop in 1st gear. 4.10's keep making the car accelerate faster through every gear until the car tops out.
Let me know if that makes more sense.
hope that helped
Ok after reading and rereading that 15 times I think I got it:
Yes, when broken down like that to each individual gear you are correct, mathematically and logically (related to the calculation) it makes sense. And on paper it would seem that 3.42 > 4.10
But:
Take into account all 4 or (6) gears. If you are accelerating through each transmission gear faster with 4.10's than with 3.42's the 4.10 car is going to be "ahead" until it reaches it's respective top speed because of this faster acceleration, but then the 3.42 car will overtake it once it peaks--obviously.
**(assume EVERY other variable is negligible except strictly gear ratio, imagine we're racing 2 gear sets)**
even though at the top of each trans. gear there is a slight MPH loss with
4.10's...this is negligible because of the faster acceleration through that gear.. know what I'm saying?
Basically YES you are right with that calculation. When broken down into respective gears the 3.42's acquire faster mph, BUT the 4.10's acquire a slightly slower mph, much faster- "Fast" meaning they do it in less time.
Multiply that by 4 gears and you have your winner.
Imagine 2 gear sets (lol) are lined up going to race- both hook perfectly, no variables:
They take off, the 4.10's accelerate faster through first, end up at a slightly lower mph, but because of the faster accel they created they are already out front, ahead of the 3.42's which attained a higher mph in first, but didn't do it as fast as the 4.10's. By this time the 4.10's have already shifted into second and are doing the same thing again, repeat 2 more times to 4th gear and you have your explanation ! This doesn't stop in 1st gear. 4.10's keep making the car accelerate faster through every gear until the car tops out.
Let me know if that makes more sense.
hope that helped
03-02-2010, 12:51 AM
#83
WTF are you talking about. That Colbalt has gone to your head.
Maybe its just me, but the gears are obnoxiously short. I take off from a stop, and by the time the car is moving, time to shift to 2nd. Then immediately 3rd, 4th, and I'm in 6th by 40MPH.
I'm going at least 35mph by the time I shift into 2nd with 4.10's. Drive that puppy man.
Maybe its just me, but the gears are obnoxiously short. I take off from a stop, and by the time the car is moving, time to shift to 2nd. Then immediately 3rd, 4th, and I'm in 6th by 40MPH.
I'm going at least 35mph by the time I shift into 2nd with 4.10's. Drive that puppy man.
03-02-2010, 07:44 AM
#84
With 4.10's gears and a 25.85" tall tire, for example, you will travel from 63MPH at the redline (6000RPM) in 2nd gear to 87MPH at the redline in 3rd gear, for a total of 24MPH gained in 2nd gear. With 3.42's you accelerate from 76MPH (6000RPM in 2nd) to 104MPH (6000RPM in 3rd). Thats a difference of 28MPH. In both examples, you are making the same HP at the same RPM. So in other words, you accelerate faster with 4.10's in each gear, but you gain less speed in each gear, which should basically even out with the 3.42's. So although your RPM's rise faster with 4.10's, you gain 4MPH less, which is definitely critical to acceleration.
Ok after reading and rereading that 15 times I think I got it:
Yes, when broken down like that to each individual gear you are correct, mathematically and logically (related to the calculation) it makes sense. And on paper it would seem that 3.42 > 4.10
But:
Take into account all 4 or (6) gears. If you are accelerating through each transmission gear faster with 4.10's than with 3.42's the 4.10 car is going to be "ahead" until it reaches it's respective top speed because of this faster acceleration, but then the 3.42 car will overtake it once it peaks--obviously.
**(assume EVERY other variable is negligible except strictly gear ratio, imagine we're racing 2 gear sets)**
even though at the top of each trans. gear there is a slight MPH loss with
4.10's...this is negligible because of the faster acceleration through that gear.. know what I'm saying?
Basically YES you are right with that calculation. When broken down into respective gears the 3.42's acquire faster mph, BUT the 4.10's acquire a slightly slower mph, much faster- "Fast" meaning they do it in less time.
Multiply that by 4 gears and you have your winner.
Imagine 2 gear sets (lol) are lined up going to race- both hook perfectly, no variables:
They take off, the 4.10's accelerate faster through first, end up at a slightly lower mph, but because of the faster accel they created they are already out front, ahead of the 3.42's which attained a higher mph in first, but didn't do it as fast as the 4.10's. By this time the 4.10's have already shifted into second and are doing the same thing again, repeat 2 more times to 4th gear and you have your explanation ! This doesn't stop in 1st gear. 4.10's keep making the car accelerate faster through every gear until the car tops out.
Let me know if that makes more sense.
hope that helped
Ok after reading and rereading that 15 times I think I got it:
Yes, when broken down like that to each individual gear you are correct, mathematically and logically (related to the calculation) it makes sense. And on paper it would seem that 3.42 > 4.10
But:
Take into account all 4 or (6) gears. If you are accelerating through each transmission gear faster with 4.10's than with 3.42's the 4.10 car is going to be "ahead" until it reaches it's respective top speed because of this faster acceleration, but then the 3.42 car will overtake it once it peaks--obviously.
**(assume EVERY other variable is negligible except strictly gear ratio, imagine we're racing 2 gear sets)**
even though at the top of each trans. gear there is a slight MPH loss with
4.10's...this is negligible because of the faster acceleration through that gear.. know what I'm saying?
Basically YES you are right with that calculation. When broken down into respective gears the 3.42's acquire faster mph, BUT the 4.10's acquire a slightly slower mph, much faster- "Fast" meaning they do it in less time.
Multiply that by 4 gears and you have your winner.
Imagine 2 gear sets (lol) are lined up going to race- both hook perfectly, no variables:
They take off, the 4.10's accelerate faster through first, end up at a slightly lower mph, but because of the faster accel they created they are already out front, ahead of the 3.42's which attained a higher mph in first, but didn't do it as fast as the 4.10's. By this time the 4.10's have already shifted into second and are doing the same thing again, repeat 2 more times to 4th gear and you have your explanation ! This doesn't stop in 1st gear. 4.10's keep making the car accelerate faster through every gear until the car tops out.
Let me know if that makes more sense.
hope that helped
We will all just have to give up......
Last edited by BlackScreaminMachine; 03-02-2010 at 08:18 AM.
03-02-2010, 09:22 AM
#85
Banned
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's actually running a liberty 5 speed manual.
Thanks for making an intelligent post instead of name calling and bashing like the high school dropouts in this thread.
When I ran my car at the track, I was trapping right near the top of 4th, which is the 1:1 ratio. When I ended up modding my car more and I'm trapping higher, I will have to shift into 5th, because 4th tops out at 112MPH with 4.10's. That will definitely kill my 1/4 mile time, since I'll only be in 5th for a short distance, its an O/D gear, and it takes extra time to make that shift.
As for your second paragraph, you're saying you want to be in the powerband as much as possible. I agree. However, I don't see the benefit of 4.10's after you are into the powerband in 1st gear - HP is HP, no matter fast the car goes through each gear. So after each shift with either gear ratio, you're still in the powerband.
4.30's or 4.56's will definitely allow for taller tires (slicks) for the hardcore drag racer. No doubt about that.
I believe the fastest F-body has very short gears, they want to get off the line as fast as possible and into the powerband. I'm sure its also running an automatic too (probably a TH350) with a huge stall, which eliminates time lost due to excessive shifting. The gears get it off the line, the stall allows the engine to sit in the powerband the entire lenght of the track. Since its set up for those gears, I'm sure it would lost a significant amount of time by going to 3.42's. I'm not argueing that, its a drag car.
When I ran my car at the track, I was trapping right near the top of 4th, which is the 1:1 ratio. When I ended up modding my car more and I'm trapping higher, I will have to shift into 5th, because 4th tops out at 112MPH with 4.10's. That will definitely kill my 1/4 mile time, since I'll only be in 5th for a short distance, its an O/D gear, and it takes extra time to make that shift.
As for your second paragraph, you're saying you want to be in the powerband as much as possible. I agree. However, I don't see the benefit of 4.10's after you are into the powerband in 1st gear - HP is HP, no matter fast the car goes through each gear. So after each shift with either gear ratio, you're still in the powerband.
4.30's or 4.56's will definitely allow for taller tires (slicks) for the hardcore drag racer. No doubt about that.
I believe the fastest F-body has very short gears, they want to get off the line as fast as possible and into the powerband. I'm sure its also running an automatic too (probably a TH350) with a huge stall, which eliminates time lost due to excessive shifting. The gears get it off the line, the stall allows the engine to sit in the powerband the entire lenght of the track. Since its set up for those gears, I'm sure it would lost a significant amount of time by going to 3.42's. I'm not argueing that, its a drag car.
03-02-2010, 09:28 AM
#86
Banned
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone should put too much faith in those RPM and tire size calculators. Although they can be helpful in making a good decision, they are not the be all end all to having a good setup. Besides, they could have errors.
Instead of looking at graphs and **** and bench racing, just look at the real world results. If you have 4.10's and your 1/4 mile times are lackluster then you need to look elsewhere in your setup.
When 4.10's are in the car as opposed to 3.42's there's a significant increase in MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE. You will use the same amount of power to effectively produce more "work". This so called work isn't a total of distance covered, but how quickly the distance is covered. To the engine, the amount of mass being moved will appear to be less and therefore result in quicker movement. Faster acceleration from a stop will also result in more improved wieght transfer planting the rear tires even harder assisting traction. It's a SOTP difference that you can feel not measured by some graph or table! The top speed you will reach in each gear will be lower yes, but on a fixed distance of 60', 1/8th, 1/4 mile track, or stop light to stop light racing that doesn't matter. Time is all that matters and it's the 60' that separates men from boys.
Speed and quickness are not the same thing.
It's been proven over and over that 3.42's are less than ideal at the strip if that's your thing. I have tried to make them work and they just dont! You can throw all the power in the world at them and you will still get into the powerband slow. Wanna stay on the highway all the time and putt around town without having to shift, keep them.
Now I just need to get myself some 4.10's.
Instead of looking at graphs and **** and bench racing, just look at the real world results. If you have 4.10's and your 1/4 mile times are lackluster then you need to look elsewhere in your setup.
When 4.10's are in the car as opposed to 3.42's there's a significant increase in MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE. You will use the same amount of power to effectively produce more "work". This so called work isn't a total of distance covered, but how quickly the distance is covered. To the engine, the amount of mass being moved will appear to be less and therefore result in quicker movement. Faster acceleration from a stop will also result in more improved wieght transfer planting the rear tires even harder assisting traction. It's a SOTP difference that you can feel not measured by some graph or table! The top speed you will reach in each gear will be lower yes, but on a fixed distance of 60', 1/8th, 1/4 mile track, or stop light to stop light racing that doesn't matter. Time is all that matters and it's the 60' that separates men from boys.
Speed and quickness are not the same thing.
It's been proven over and over that 3.42's are less than ideal at the strip if that's your thing. I have tried to make them work and they just dont! You can throw all the power in the world at them and you will still get into the powerband slow. Wanna stay on the highway all the time and putt around town without having to shift, keep them.
Now I just need to get myself some 4.10's.
Last edited by joblo1978; 03-02-2010 at 09:46 AM.
03-02-2010, 09:51 AM
#87
Banned
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your don't need to be educated to know what any little kid riding a 10 speed bicycle already knows.
Wes,
After reading this entire thread I think I understand what you're saying, and I also understand what others are saying.
You're saying- Gears are only going to help get into the powerband in first gear (quicker start), then through the shifts it will stay in the powerband and not produce any more "power" because gears don't affect how much HP the engine produces.. Correct? So by what you're saying bigger (numerically) Gears are only helping in first gear/launch/ powerband. And after that it doesn't matter.
Well here's somthing you should consider because "in part" you're right. -- I've been thinking about this all day- LOL
Gears do help get into the powerband, help with launch (assuming sticky tires), and help through 1st gear.
BUT, and I mean BUTTTT --take this into account:
after the launch and first gear when you're accelerating through the next gears (2nd, 3rd, 4th, whatever) bigger gears are going to help you accelerate faster through that gear just like they did through 1st. Which is why gears make a car faster (The gears enable the engine to rev faster), but the trade off is less top end and greater cruising RPM.
Gears help acceleration through all gears (meaning shifts), and make a car faster not by making more HP, but allowing the engine to do more work faster.
And chill I'm college educated LOL-- this is just how I see it and I think I understand what you're saying. But I don't think you're appying it (gears/torque multiplication) to all the shifts outside of 1st.
Just my
.02
And btw
After reading this entire thread I think I understand what you're saying, and I also understand what others are saying.
You're saying- Gears are only going to help get into the powerband in first gear (quicker start), then through the shifts it will stay in the powerband and not produce any more "power" because gears don't affect how much HP the engine produces.. Correct? So by what you're saying bigger (numerically) Gears are only helping in first gear/launch/ powerband. And after that it doesn't matter.
Well here's somthing you should consider because "in part" you're right. -- I've been thinking about this all day- LOL
Gears do help get into the powerband, help with launch (assuming sticky tires), and help through 1st gear.
BUT, and I mean BUTTTT --take this into account:
after the launch and first gear when you're accelerating through the next gears (2nd, 3rd, 4th, whatever) bigger gears are going to help you accelerate faster through that gear just like they did through 1st. Which is why gears make a car faster (The gears enable the engine to rev faster), but the trade off is less top end and greater cruising RPM.
Gears help acceleration through all gears (meaning shifts), and make a car faster not by making more HP, but allowing the engine to do more work faster.
And chill I'm college educated LOL-- this is just how I see it and I think I understand what you're saying. But I don't think you're appying it (gears/torque multiplication) to all the shifts outside of 1st.
Just my
.02
And btw
03-02-2010, 10:58 AM
#89
This is the most useless thread about gearing I have ever read..what a waist of time. Seems like the OP just wanted to argue with everyone and prove to someone he thinks he's smarter than the rest. IF YOU DONT LIKE YOUR GEARING CHANGE IT DONT GET ON HERE AND EXPECT PEOPLE TO PAT YOU ON THE BACK. Enjoy your 55 mph in first gear with your 3.42's.
03-02-2010, 12:47 PM
#90
I don't think anyone should put too much faith in those RPM and tire size calculators. Although they can be helpful in making a good decision, they are not the be all end all to having a good setup. Besides, they could have errors.
Instead of looking at graphs and **** and bench racing, just look at the real world results. If you have 4.10's and your 1/4 mile times are lackluster then you need to look elsewhere in your setup.
When 4.10's are in the car as opposed to 3.42's there's a significant increase in MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE. You will use the same amount of power to effectively produce more "work". This so called work isn't a total of distance covered, but how quickly the distance is covered. To the engine, the amount of mass being moved will appear to be less and therefore result in quicker movement. Faster acceleration from a stop will also result in more improved wieght transfer planting the rear tires even harder assisting traction. It's a SOTP difference that you can feel not measured by some graph or table! The top speed you will reach in each gear will be lower yes, but on a fixed distance of 60', 1/8th, 1/4 mile track, or stop light to stop light racing that doesn't matter. Time is all that matters and it's the 60' that separates men from boys.
Speed and quickness are not the same thing.
It's been proven over and over that 3.42's are less than ideal at the strip if that's your thing. I have tried to make them work and they just dont! You can throw all the power in the world at them and you will still get into the powerband slow. Wanna stay on the highway all the time and putt around town without having to shift, keep them.
Now I just need to get myself some 4.10's.
Instead of looking at graphs and **** and bench racing, just look at the real world results. If you have 4.10's and your 1/4 mile times are lackluster then you need to look elsewhere in your setup.
When 4.10's are in the car as opposed to 3.42's there's a significant increase in MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE. You will use the same amount of power to effectively produce more "work". This so called work isn't a total of distance covered, but how quickly the distance is covered. To the engine, the amount of mass being moved will appear to be less and therefore result in quicker movement. Faster acceleration from a stop will also result in more improved wieght transfer planting the rear tires even harder assisting traction. It's a SOTP difference that you can feel not measured by some graph or table! The top speed you will reach in each gear will be lower yes, but on a fixed distance of 60', 1/8th, 1/4 mile track, or stop light to stop light racing that doesn't matter. Time is all that matters and it's the 60' that separates men from boys.
Speed and quickness are not the same thing.
It's been proven over and over that 3.42's are less than ideal at the strip if that's your thing. I have tried to make them work and they just dont! You can throw all the power in the world at them and you will still get into the powerband slow. Wanna stay on the highway all the time and putt around town without having to shift, keep them.
Now I just need to get myself some 4.10's.
Exactly! It comes down to mechanical advantage, and time (mainly).
and I realize you don't need to be educated (fwiw).
03-02-2010, 04:47 PM
#91
If you can't afford one of the ESSENTIAL parts of making a car go fast, you sir have the wrong hobby. If you're not willing to, or can't, buy a tire to put even STOCK power to the ground....get out of the business. I know others have said this to be dicks, but I'm being dead serious; sell your car to someone who will mod it and enjoy your cobalt. When you're done with your engineering degree and making the money, come back to the hobby. If you're hell bent on keeping the car, put it back to stock and stop complaining about modifications that are proven IN THE REAL WORLD to make a car go faster, quicker, whatever.
03-02-2010, 05:14 PM
#92
If you can't afford one of the ESSENTIAL parts of making a car go fast, you sir have the wrong hobby. If you're not willing to, or can't, buy a tire to put even STOCK power to the ground....get out of the business. I know others have said this to be dicks, but I'm being dead serious; sell your car to someone who will mod it and enjoy your cobalt. When you're done with your engineering degree and making the money, come back to the hobby. If you're hell bent on keeping the car, put it back to stock and stop complaining about modifications that are proven IN THE REAL WORLD to make a car go faster, quicker, whatever.
Maybe, you can't read, its STREET CAR. I'm not looking to run the fastest 1/4 mile time possible. I'm looking to make it a well rounded car in terms of acceleration, handling, and braking.
Why would I sell my car just because I don't intend to use it for drag racing at the track?? You are an idiot.
Last edited by Wesmanw02; 03-02-2010 at 09:02 PM.
03-02-2010, 05:57 PM
#94
Since when are drag tires an essential part of making the car go fast??
Maybe, you can't read, its STREET CAR. I'm not looking to run the fastest 1/4 mile time possible. I'm looking to make it a well rounded car in terms of acceleration, handling, and braking.
Why would I sell my car just because I don't intend to use it for drag racing at the track?? You are an idiot.
Maybe, you can't read, its STREET CAR. I'm not looking to run the fastest 1/4 mile time possible. I'm looking to make it a well rounded car in terms of acceleration, handling, and braking.
Why would I sell my car just because I don't intend to use it for drag racing at the track?? You are an idiot.
And since you're throwing your little hissy fit at everyone, thanks for the new sig quote.
03-02-2010, 06:12 PM
#95
Wesmanw02.... another thing to consider of how the gears will in fact make the car quicker and faster in a fixed distansce is each up shift made with shorter gears will result in a better RPM/powerband engagement in the next upward gear than with a taller gear. The RPM drop wont be as much as it would with a tall gear, which in effect keeps the engine in its power band kinda the way a big stall does.
03-02-2010, 08:37 PM
#96
You'll have a great machine that won't be able to go fast in a straight line or turn corners well. That's my point. The tire is the most crucial aspect of a car's performance and you aren't willing to buy the proper one for your car.
That's why I said get out of the hobby.
What fun is having a powerful car if you just spin every time you hit the gas? You can only go so low of a gear, like you said. Everything I said was being serious, not trying to be a dick or jump on the bashing bandwagon, I saw a major flaw in your theory of this hobby and pointed it out. Then you began to bash me......kettle meet pot...you aren't any better, and probably worse, than these other guys bashing you.
If you would have read the thread instead of just bashing away, you might have said something intelligent instead of "sell your car".
And since you're throwing your little hissy fit at everyone, thanks for the new sig quote.
03-02-2010, 08:44 PM
#97
Wesmanw02.... another thing to consider of how the gears will in fact make the car quicker and faster in a fixed distansce is each up shift made with shorter gears will result in a better RPM/powerband engagement in the next upward gear than with a taller gear. The RPM drop wont be as much as it would with a tall gear, which in effect keeps the engine in its power band kinda the way a big stall does.
03-02-2010, 08:58 PM
#98
.
Ok after reading and rereading that 15 times I think I got it:
Yes, when broken down like that to each individual gear you are correct, mathematically and logically (related to the calculation) it makes sense. And on paper it would seem that 3.42 > 4.10
Not so much that they would be better, just that there would be no difference "on paper". Agreed.
But:
Take into account all 4 or (6) gears. If you are accelerating through each transmission gear faster with 4.10's than with 3.42's the 4.10 car is going to be "ahead" until it reaches it's respective top speed because of this faster acceleration, but then the 3.42 car will overtake it once it peaks--obviously.
**(assume EVERY other variable is negligible except strictly gear ratio, imagine we're racing 2 gear sets)**
even though at the top of each trans. gear there is a slight MPH loss with
4.10's...this is negligible because of the faster acceleration through that gear.. know what I'm saying?
Ok after reading and rereading that 15 times I think I got it:
Yes, when broken down like that to each individual gear you are correct, mathematically and logically (related to the calculation) it makes sense. And on paper it would seem that 3.42 > 4.10
Not so much that they would be better, just that there would be no difference "on paper". Agreed.
But:
Take into account all 4 or (6) gears. If you are accelerating through each transmission gear faster with 4.10's than with 3.42's the 4.10 car is going to be "ahead" until it reaches it's respective top speed because of this faster acceleration, but then the 3.42 car will overtake it once it peaks--obviously.
**(assume EVERY other variable is negligible except strictly gear ratio, imagine we're racing 2 gear sets)**
even though at the top of each trans. gear there is a slight MPH loss with
4.10's...this is negligible because of the faster acceleration through that gear.. know what I'm saying?
Acceleration is defined as velocity over time. So with the 4.10's you will be going through the gear in less time, but gaining less velocity. So it should even out.
As for distance covered, distance is velocity x time. So if you have shorter time but less velocity, once again it should even out. See what I mean??
Basically YES you are right with that calculation. When broken down into respective gears the 3.42's acquire faster mph, BUT the 4.10's acquire a slightly slower mph, much faster- "Fast" meaning they do it in less time.
Multiply that by 4 gears and you have your winner.
They take off, the 4.10's accelerate faster through first, end up at a slightly lower mph, but because of the faster accel they created they are already out front, ahead of the 3.42's which attained a higher mph in first, but didn't do it as fast as the 4.10's. By this time the 4.10's have already shifted into second and are doing the same thing again, repeat 2 more times to 4th gear and you have your explanation ! This doesn't stop in 1st gear. 4.10's keep making the car accelerate faster through every gear until the car tops out.
Multiply that by 4 gears and you have your winner.
They take off, the 4.10's accelerate faster through first, end up at a slightly lower mph, but because of the faster accel they created they are already out front, ahead of the 3.42's which attained a higher mph in first, but didn't do it as fast as the 4.10's. By this time the 4.10's have already shifted into second and are doing the same thing again, repeat 2 more times to 4th gear and you have your explanation ! This doesn't stop in 1st gear. 4.10's keep making the car accelerate faster through every gear until the car tops out.
As you said - 4.10's allow the engine to accelerate faster, so you go through each gear quicker. However, in the time you are in each gear, you cover less distance and gain less velocity. Tell me if that makes sense to you...its been a while since I've had physics.
Let me know if that makes more sense.
hope that helped
hope that helped
My point is that any way you look at it, 4.10's should only help on the launch. Therefore gains in ET would be due to leaving the line harder, and any trap speed increase could be attributed to the engine getting into the powerband quicker from the start.