Are you ******* kidding me? Wow. Here I thought the thread was dead and now you've stirred the pot again. Prepare to be proved wrong... hmmmm, the post above was your first post, and you're believing the same thing that the original poster believes. Something smells awfully "fucky" here. This thread is about to get good again... if of course it doesn't get locked first. All I can say is thank you for relighting the fire of people that have first hand experience with a gear change. Something you clearly do not have.

Just a quick edit to my original post... I'm sorry, can we for a moment pretend to take two identical cars, lets say bone stock 2000 SS Camaros. Pretend they are being driven by THE VERY BEST drivers in the world so there is no difference there. Hell lets say they have automatics so the driver doesn't even matter... they mash the gas and away they go. Now, the only difference in the two cars are that one has a 3.23 gear, and the other has a 4.10 gear. Lets line these guys up side by side... FROM A ROLL!! Any roll from say 75 and under. Honk 3 times and the two greatest drivers on earth hit the gas... guess who pulls away. Anybody care to guess? C'mon people. Yep, the 4.10 car. EVEN FROM A ******* ROLL!! Oh and the 3.23 car is only going to catch him after that 4.10 gear tops out. But by then the 3.23 car would have long shut it down because his head is out of his *** and he understands he cannot make up the difference in gear ratio by BEING IN THE POWERBAND. Oh Mr. Powerband please save me from getting my *** raped by a car with a lower gear ratio. Pleeeaaseee... noooo, he's pulling away from me.... WHY POWERBAND WHY?? Good hell. Why is this so hard to understand? /rant!

 

Hmm, I'm not quite sure what I said that caused you to get your panties in a twist. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I honestly just want a good discussion about the advantages in acceleration that 4.10 gears provide.

"Prepare to be proved wrong"? How exactly did anything you just said prove, well, anything? You've just simply restated your opinion...that you think 4.10 gears are faster from a roll. Can you explain why? Can you address the point I made in my previous post about the alternating back and forth acceleration differences between the two cars in a drag race? Like I said, there are points in the race where the longer geared car is in the better, shorter gear (during the times where it is in a lower gear while the shorter geared car has needed to shift into a higher gear). Can you address that point, please?

And no, I am not the OP, although I do agree with a lot of his points generally (though he didn't use a lot of tact in explaining himself). I don't even own an F-body, but I am looking to perform a similar mod on my car and we had a very similar debate in my forum about the same thing. Just trying to get different viewpoints. But what I would appreciate is honest discussion, not another ****-flinging contest.

 

Read my previous post. You're assuming acceleration is linear which its not. When you're in the power band, you accelerate quicker yes? So the shorter gear car getting you into the power band quick WILL accelerate you quicker. I'm not talking about through the gear quicker, that's obvious. I mean you're car will gain speed quicker.

 

I am not assuming acceleration is linear, quite the opposite in fact.

I also agree with you that the shorter geared car will hit their powerband quicker...in first gear. From a roll however, all drivers will already be in their powerband during the race (unless the driver starts in too low of a gear, in which case he is an idiot). Once a driver upshifts at redline, they will go into the next gear and already be in their powerband again.

 

Also, another thing to keep in mind is that a shorter geared car will get you to the area in your curve with peak horsepower faster, this is true (just read your previous post). However, it also leaves that range of peak power faster than the shorter geared car. When I mean faster, I'm not talking about seconds, I'm talking about the amount of mph the car is accelerating, which might sound confusing.

Say for example a car makes its peak power for 500rpms in its powerband. In a shorter geared car, 500 rpms might only be say from 55-60mph, but in a longer geared car that would be from 52-63mph (since your speed is directly a function of your rpms and gearing). So the longer geared car is in its powerband longer. Does that make sense? And once the shorter geared car shifts to third at 60mph lets say, it goes out of its peak power sooner, whereas the longer geared car remains in its band of peak power until 63 mph (again totally made up numbers, but the principle still applies). So for that range from 60-63 mph, the longer geared car is accelerating faster.

 

Possible dumb question here, but I'm very curious about the answer. This only applies to 1/4 mile not street. Does anyone gear their car according to rpm's when going through the eyes at the track? I know on all my bikes (obviously different ball park) I have to gear them according to the power I'm making and what rpms's I want to through the eyes at. I don't want to be at the top of the track not making my peak power. So what gear and rpm are you at with a 4:10? Shouldn't how much power you're making make a big impact on which gear to go with? I know you wouldn't want to be shifting into 6th gear 50ft from the eyes. Also, I can gear a stock bike and wake it up a lot, and still run faster times, BUT to get the full potential of the gear I have to make power upgrades. Just my $.02

 

It's hopeless. Until someone can find a video of a roll race with two identical cars and the only difference being gearing, this thread is pointless. Are you still believing that first gear is the only gear that wraps faster than the others? I know with my 98 Camaro, when it was stock and had the 3.23s in it and the automatic... if I was just under 70 miles per hour on the freeway, I could downshift to second and use the very top of that gear to roll race someone. Now lets pretend I'm racing myself in the same car, same transmission, but with a 4.10 instead. Now lets say both cars punch it at a 70 roll... the 3.23 car kicks down to roughly 55-5600 RPM in 2nd gear and is likely in the peak horsepower range until shifting at roughly 6200. He probably gets the jump, as the 4.10 car kicks down to 3rd at probably 4000 RPM (perhaps someone with a 4.10 can chime in on what RPM the car is at in 3rd gear with an auto at roughly 70 MPH) which is a slightly lesser HP friendly RPM. However, it uses that gear much faster so it loses almost no ground. After only seconds the 3.23 car has shifted to third, and now he's at roughly 3500 RPM in 3rd (assuming stock converters in both cars). By now the 4.10 car has already hit 5000 RPM in the same gear... 3rd, and immediately starts to walk away as he is using his gears much faster because of the smaller ratio. He shifts to the next gear and continues to walk away because it's gear ratios are multiplying torque output much faster. The 3.23 car cannot keep up because it's 3rd and 4th gears are much longer. Tell me how this is wrong. Sorry I got upset, but I just don't see how real world experience and proof by numbers all over the place can be so hard to believe in.

 

It's not pointless. I'm trying to get a technical explanation of how 4.10 gears benefit from a roll, which no one has been able to give so far.

I explicitly stated that was NOT what I was saying. Go back and re-read my posts if you need to.

I agree with you here.

Completely disagree. While the 3.23 car is in second, it is not only in a shorter gear than the 4.10 car in third, but is in the peak of its powerband. It will be pulling on the 4.10 car during this time.

Bolded for emphasis. Only seconds? How many seconds? Besides which, a few seconds can make a big difference in the outcome of a drag race.

Yes, once the 3.23 car shifts to third the 4.10 car will start picking up the ground he lost because he is now approaching his peak power. I agree here.

Disagree. Once the 4.10 car shifts to fourth, the 3.23 will still be in third and approaching the peak of his powerband. Hence the cycle repeats itself. EDIT: just for clarification, keep in mind that while the 4.10 has shorter gearing overall, there is a good percentage of the race where the 3.23 will be in a lower gear than the 4.10 and therefore will have the shorter gearing at that point in time. You might say that because the 3.23 car is in a lower gear, it will be losing, but that is not necessarily the case because keep in mind the 3.23 car's gears run out for more mph per gear than the 4.10.


I understand we are both bench racing here, which doesn't do much to prove anyone's point. But I still believe I made a valid point in my original post, and I would like a more technical response to it. I don't care if it supports or goes against what I said, I just need to see the science behind it before I am convinced.

 

Honestly, the best gear for a car running the best quarter mile time is one who uses all available gears not including an OD gear and crosses the traps at peak power in the last non-OD gear available. That would be third in A4s and 4th in M6s. Anything more or less then that and you are leaving something on the table, however it may only be a tiny amount thats not really worth a gear swap. I have heard FI applications dont need as steep of a gear and typically run more stock type ratios but Im not referring to them, as their powerbands can be significantly different then an NA car.

And Mr.Sellers, I understand where your coming from. Both sides of this coin can be argued with very logical common sense and both sides can seem to have valid points. However, I can assure you gears do make a difference. Typically in our cars, A4s dont really benefit much from a gear swap. In the overall combo, swapping from a 2.73 or especially a 3.23 to a common 3.73 doesnt yield big gains. In the M6s, they seem to suffer from worse gearing overall and seem to benefit from gear swaps more then A4 cars. The only arguement in favor of the numerical smaller gear is the availability of traction. Higher numbered gears seem to really give street tires a hard time. Gears can actually make your car slower in first gear bc of increased traction problems. In any gear with traction, the better geared car will shine, even if only by a small amount.

 

lol who else thinks wesman made a new screen name? or this is wesmans message boy

 

Noooo....can't be. It's just coincidence that he JUST signed up today, and of ALL the threads in LS1tech he posts in this one, and of all the people in this thread he and wesman are the only ones that agree/give the same argument, and all of his 5 posts since joining today is in here.....just a coincidence

 

Look at it this way, with an M6 and shifting at 6200, you drop to about 4200 rpm's in 2nd gear (using a gear calculator). Yes, the 4.10 will get there quicker and it will only be at 44 mph, but 4200 is well below the power band if you look at a stock dyno chart.

For reference


Notice at 4200 you'll only be making about 255 HP. To get back to 300 hp, it needs to be about 5000. Since the 4.10 can get to that power at 53 mph, instead of 67 mph then the 4.10 will get back to peak power quicker and therefore will accelerate quicker. We all agree that more hp = more acceleration right? So since the 4.10 gets to higher HP quicker then it will accelerate quicker too. The 3.23 will have to accelerate from 56 to 67 to get back to that same amount of power. The 4.10 only takes 9 mph to get back into a good power band whereas the 3.23 takes 11. Since the 3.23 is making less horsepower than its peak then it will take quite a bit longer to make up that 11 mph. Then again from 2nd to 3rd, the car will drop to 4500 rpm which again is below the peak horsepower and the power band. From 3rd to 4th you may not gain much because it only drops to about 4800 rpm so you're basically already in the power band. Sorry if I'm redundant but obviously people fail to grasp this concept. If you want to look at it this way too, think of the average horsepower the car would have going from 0-116 or so. Obviously the 4.10 will be higher, because the 4.10 gets to 116 at 6200 in 4th but the 3.23 would only be at 4800 in 4th. This means that the 4.10 uses all the power band for 1st,2nd,3rd, and 4th gear but the 3.23 only uses the full power band for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and barely even starts to get to it in 4th. If you still can't understand this, go out and buy 2.11's or something and run 5's since you'll cover more mph in each gear and prove every other drag racer wrong.

 

The crucial thing you are forgetting here is that the 4.10 car leaves its power band sooner, for the same exact reason that it hits its power band a few mph sooner. The 3.23 car is going to stay in that power band for more mph than the 4.10 car for that particular gear. Again, the 4.10 car will accelerate quicker before they get to the band, but once both cars are in the band the 3.23 will catch up because it stays in longer while the 4.10 car has to shift out of it. Make sense?

You arbitrarily and conveniently picked a speed where the 4.10 car would be at the top of 4th gear (116 mph). If you pick a speed where the 3.23 car would be at the top of 4th (I don't know what it would be offhand) then the results change, since the 4.10 car at that time would be in 5th and not in its powerband. Point is, you want to match the gear so that you will be at the top of your gear at the end of a race. This has nothing to do with short versus tall gearing. And it also has nothing to do with roll races, since those usually don't have a set distance.

Not once have I said longer gearing is better. Not. Once.

 

I "arbitrarily and conveniently" also picked an approximate number where you'd end up at the end of a typical quarter mile. If you're not saying taller gears are better then what are you saying by the taller gear stays in the power band longer? What are you arguing then?

 

First of all, I'm not talking about 1/4 miles. I'm talking about roll racing. This is for street cars, I'm taking the OP into account (which by the way I have no idea who that guy is, like I said I don't even own an F body). I already said that the car that has gearing such that it ends up at the top of its gear at the end of the race has the advantage. This could be the shorter geared car in some cases, it could be the longer geared car in some cases.

I'm not saying the taller gears are better (from a roll). I'm not saying shorter gears are better either. I am arguing that the differences between the gearing is negligible, once both cars are actually moving and for a race with an arbitrary length. I'm talking the general case here.

I am saying the taller gear stays in the powerband longer, which is true. But like you also stated, the shorter gear car gets to its powerband quicker, so it has the advantage there. But the two advantages cancel each other out essentially and neither geared car has the real advantage. From a roll.

 

You win, I'm done arguing this since there is obviously no way to convince you or Wesman of this even though countless people on here are arguing the opposite. I might as well be arguing religion at this point. Until someone goes out and tests this, I don't think this argument will conclude so I'm done.

 

You're right, countless people are arguing the opposite, but as of yet no one has been able to provide a technical explanation as to why 4.10 gears would be faster from a roll.

Like I said, I'm in the market for these gears. I WANT them to improve the performance of my car so I can buy them. I just need to be convinced first.

Testing this would be nice, but I know that this can be explained by someone with more technical knowledge than either of us.

 

Wow, this is amazing. Who gives a **** how long the car is in it's powerband if it's not accelerating? If it's me, I want to hit my powerband as quick as possible, be into the next gear as quick as possible, and get through all of my gears AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE! Why do I have a 4400 stall converter in my car? Oh I know why, to hit my powerband as quick as possible. Do I want my car to stay in it's precious powerband longer IN ONE SINGLE GEAR? **** no, I want it to move through that powerband as quickly as possible and bang into the next gear because I know that the FASTER I GO THROUGH THE GEARS, THE FASTER MY CAR IS GAINING SPEED. If my car is blazing through the RPM's faster than a car EXACTLY LIKE MINE, that means my car is accelerating faster. Can you grasp that? The faster that I move through my powerband, the faster my car is increasing in speed. How do I move through my powerband faster without adding horsepower? Gearing! I don't care how much TIME you spend in your powerband... I'm going to hit mine, move through it, and get back into it again much faster than a car with a much higher gear ratio. Just because you're spending a lot of time in your powerband doesn't mean you're MOVING THROUGH IT quickly. If I'm racing someone with the exact same car as me from a roll and I have 4.10 gears and he has 3.23's, I know damn well I'm going to hit my powerband faster, move through it and hit it again much quicker than the guy with 3.23's. Sure, he's going to stay in the powerband LONGER in each gear, but while he's stuck in his precious powerband, he's exactly that... stuck. If you can get through that same power band in a SHORTER amount of time, that means you're accelerating faster. Sure that car is making great power for that LONG period of time because he's in his powerband, but that doesn't mean his power is being multiplied as quickly as mine with a 4.10. I'm making the exact same power within the exact same powerband, but while he's taking a LONG time to get through his powerband (remember, it's the exact same as mine) I'm busy moving through mine, shifting, hitting it again and moving right on through it again. He can stay in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th all day long for all I care, meanwhile I'm car lengths ahead because I'm already through all of my gears. And because I have the very same powerband with the same amount of horsepower, I'm accelerating more quickly because my power is being multiplied much faster than the 3.23. Which means I am turning the same amount of RPM at a much quicker rate. So bye bye to Mr. 3.23. Like I said, he can stay in that powerband for as long as he wants. Just because he's making peak power for a longer period than I am, doesn't mean he's getting through that power as quick as I am. And we all know the faster you get through those gears, the faster the car is accelerating. That is about the best I can do to explain it. It's exhausting arguing a point that could be proven by two stock cars racing from a roll with a major difference in gear ratio. The look on your face after seeing that would be classic. I'm anxiously waiting for your response as to why my beliefs are wrong... again.

 

Except that your gears provide you with less of an mph gain than the same gear on a 3.23 car, so it doesn't necessarily matter if you go through the gears faster if you are at a lower speed than the 3.23 car when you both reach the top of the gear. Can you grasp that?


Again, no. Once you shift into the next gear, you are now in a higher gear than the 3.23 car. The 3.23 car will still be in his powerband AND in a lower gear, and because his car is geared lower it will still allow him to reach the same mph that it takes the 4.10 car part of the next HIGHER gear to get to.

Stuck in the powerband? That makes no sense. You want to be in the powerband as long as possible, as during those moments your engine is making peak power. You keep saying that the 4.10 gear gets through the power band in a shorter amount of time. This is true, but you keep forgetting that it does so while gaining LESS velocity per gear than the 3.23 geared car. Remember, it's speed at the end of the gear is going to be less than the 3.23 car at the end of its gear, despite the fact that it finished the gear first. Just because it finished the gear first does not mean it is accelerating faster. If the speeds of both cars were the same at the top of the gears then your statement would be correct, but they aren't, and therefore, your statement is wrong.

With statements like this, it is clear you do not understand what we are trying to argue about. Turning RPM quicker has nothing to do with speed. Put it this way, say you had a rediculous FD of like 12. You would be going through the gears (and RPM) like crazy, but would be only gaining a couple mph per gear. **** man, you went through all 6 gears in like 5 seconds! Oh but wait, youre still only going 60mph! See what im getting at here? You would be in your powerband for only a split second each time, and still would not be accelerating any faster than a higher geared car in that case. Obviously this is an extreme case but it illustrates the point that just "turning RPM" faster does not necessarily equate to faster acceleration.

See above. It doesn't matter how fast you go through the gears if you are not gaining as much velocity per gear as the other guy.


That's unfortunate. I guess I will continue to wait for an explanation by someone who can address my previous points.

Show a vid if you have it. I would love to see it and be convinced that they are effective. Like I said, I WANT to believe they are worth the money. Also, if you do have a vid, it would have to be of several runs. Reason being is that for any given speed, one car is going to be closer to the start of their powerband than the other, and that car will win the race, all other things being equal. Since the cars are geared different, that speed is going to be different for each car....you'd need to do a couple runs starting at different speeds.

 

Alright, I give up... you win. I do have one last question though. The 4.10 and 3.23 car are indentical other than gearing, okay? So they both make the exact same amount of power and have the exact same powerband. Lets pretend the graph is something like this:

4500 RPM - 375 HP
5000 RPM - 400 HP
5500 RPM - 425 HP
6000 RPM - 450 HP

Lets say the 3.23 car gets through that range of RPM in 3 seconds. Now we all know the 4.10 car is going to get through that range much faster because of the shorter gear. Let's say it can do it in 2 seconds. So if the 4.10 car makes 450 horsepower while the 3.23 car is a second behind and still in the 425 range, how is the 3.23 car accelerating faster? The cars shift and the process repeats itself, correct? Just because the 4.10 car shifted sooner and at a lower MPH going into the next gear than the 3.23 car is going to shift, doesn't mean it's not still gaining speed. So what if the 4.10 car shifts at say 90 miles per hour into 4th, and the 3.23 car shifts at 100. By the time the 3.23 reaches 450 HP or 6000 RPM or 100 miles per hour, the 4.10 car is already beyond 100 in 4th gear and making 400 HP again while the 3.23 car is just barely shifting into 4th and is down in the 375 HP range. Thus still resulting in the 4.10 car pulling away. It continues to pull away until he runs out of gear and the 3.23 car finally catches him long after the race has been decided. Both cars are producing the same amount of power except the 4.10 car is getting into that power range quicker than the 3.23 car is... therefor it is accelerating faster. So anyways, my last question is, where does the 3.23 car make up that lost second of being in a lower power range while the 4.10 car is shifting into the next gear and building the same 375, 400, 425, 450 horsepower again???

Your big factor seems to be mile per hour, and yes, we all agree a longer gear is going to have more mph in it than a shorter one. However, the idea is who can get to that mph faster. I always believed if Car #1 can reach the RPM at which a motor produces 450 HP faster than a car that produces the same amount of power, Car #1 is going to win the race. Both of our cars make 450 HP at 6000 RPM. I got to 6000 RPM or 450 HP faster than you did because of my 4.10 gear, which means I made more power SOONER than you did, and am accelerating faster than you are, which in conclusion means I'm pulling away.