|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
The gearsets aren't likely to strip at that power level! The mumm brothers are the only case I've heard about it. When you have completely solid mounts and massive final drive components then they might become the weaker links but I'm guessing it was driveline lash/shock that would crack them due to the solid mounts and stiffer components. The motor mounts really protect the components from the heavy, extremely fast rate of loading; even the urethane is flexible enough to provide some protection from this lash.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 184
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 184 |
Less power lost; yes but the less effective gear ratio the less realized gains effective gear ratio? dont understand what that is. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by racerbox77:
effective gear ratio? dont understand what that is.
Example:
1st gear = 3.42 & final drive = 4.06
Effective gear ratio = 13.89 : 1
5th gear = 0.77 & final drive = 4.06
Effective gear ratio = 3.13 : 1
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 101
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 101 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by racerbox77:
effective gear ratio? dont understand what that is.
Example:
1st gear = 3.42 & final drive = 4.06
Effective gear ratio = 13.89 : 1
5th gear = 0.77 & final drive = 4.06
Effective gear ratio = 3.13 : 1
i worship thee! wow...so what you are saying is on cars that can hook up a higher rpm clutch slip/dump with a lightened flywheel will work better than stock. our cars, which have the worst traction characteristics of anything i have ever driven, a light flywheel will compound the problem.
1998 SVT
2.5" exhaust to 2.25" duals, homemade intake, 94A poly RRR, B&G Autobahn Series Springs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 184
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 184 |
i dont think "effective gear ratio" has anything to do with it. if the tranny gear and axle gear is how you get "egr" and the higher the better. than a 5ltr mustang with a 3:73 rear end and a 3:35 first gear would have lower "egr" than a tour. i know first hand a lighter flywheel on an 11 sec mustang helps. on my car it gave me .10 of sec and 1 mph.
why i think my tour didnt go any faster is because of the cam profiles, the secondaries (3800rpm), lack of torque, and crappy 60fts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by racerbox77:
i dont think "effective gear ratio" has anything to do with it. if the tranny gear and axle gear is how you get "egr" and the higher the better. than a 5ltr mustang with a 3:73 rear end and a 3:35 first gear would have lower "egr" than a tour. i know first hand a lighter flywheel on an 11 sec mustang helps. on my car it gave me .10 of sec and 1 mph.
why i think my tour didnt go any faster is because of the cam profiles, the secondaries (3800rpm), lack of torque, and crappy 60fts.
So you basically just contradicted yourself. 
It can't be effective gear ratio because your mustang could hook up and launch at a higher rpm but the contour can't.
That has NOTHING to do with it at all. That has to do with the platform's ability to get traction and also what has already been posted about 10 times in this thread alone before you said it.
The POWER TO THE GROUND, which is NOT power at the engine, is definitely effected by EGT. That's the entire point of gearing.
A lighter rotating assembly takes less torque to spin and can do more work over time or the same work quicker. The higher the EGT the more the "savings" effects the ability to turn the wheels.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
You have been paying attention to this thread then. If you read, the things Greg said yet again, were things that have all previously discuss. So please, read the thread before tell people they are wrong, when they just said what you said.   Originally posted by racerbox77:
i dont think "effective gear ratio" has anything to do with it. if the tranny gear and axle gear is how you get "egr" and the higher the better. than a 5ltr mustang with a 3:73 rear end and a 3:35 first gear would have lower "egr" than a tour. i know first hand a lighter flywheel on an 11 sec mustang helps. on my car it gave me .10 of sec and 1 mph.
why i think my tour didnt go any faster is because of the cam profiles, the secondaries (3800rpm), lack of torque, and crappy 60fts.
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
