heard a bunch of things with gears

00SoSlow · July 28th, 2006, 02:11 AM

i have a 2000 v6 with 5 spd trans

3.73

or

4.10

??????????????????????????

MSTNGRCR13 · July 28th, 2006, 02:28 AM

Normally, I woul suggest 3.73 for a manual transmission. However, it depends on how much highway driving you would be doing and how much fuel efficiency you would want to sacrifice. The 3.73 is better for highway driving while still providing good performance for acceleration purposes, but the 4.10 would give you better acceleration than the 3.73. The 4.10 would also decrease your fuel efficiency more than the 3.73 and have your engine winding about 2-300 more RPMs than the 3.73 or stock gears. Also, the 4.10 would be slightly better in an auto than a stick. Just my opinion for what it is worth.

00SoSlow · July 28th, 2006, 02:30 AM

screw it 3.73 it is haha... end debate

AtlanticBlue99 · July 28th, 2006, 02:31 AM

If you do highway drive- 3.73.

If you want to race and beat me- 4.10 :award

But seriously, I have 4.10s and don't go over 60 highway anymore due to mpg, and I have an auto tranny.

00SoSlow · July 28th, 2006, 02:41 AM

yae i can't stang doing 60 i have to be doing about 75-80 to slow

AtlanticBlue99 · July 28th, 2006, 02:46 AM

Definitely 3.73s then.

WeCircleTheProblem · July 28th, 2006, 08:23 AM

how much fuel are you really sacraficing with 4.10s

AtlanticBlue99 · July 28th, 2006, 09:19 AM

A lot. I drive the highway to work 15 miutes a day, and I run through 12 gallons every 160 miles or so at about 70mph=3000rpms. If I keep it below 65mph, fuel economy is not too horribly sacrificed

artisan00 · July 28th, 2006, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by AtlanticBlue99

A lot. I drive the highway to work 15 miutes a day, and I run through 12 gallons every 160 miles or so at about 70mph=3000rpms. If I keep it below 65mph, fuel economy is not too horribly sacrificed

its not a huge percentage though...
i have 4.10s as well, and i love them - even on the highway, with the slightly higher revs - ive done sustained speeds of 80-90 on an open freeway with no issues... even hit 105 with em (didnt realize how fast i was going since there were no other cars around... rest assured i slowed down after that...) without any trouble.

AtlanticBlue99 · July 28th, 2006, 10:12 AM

You dont mind cruising around in the top of the powerband? Any cruising above 3k rpms is a big stress on the motor. Not to mention, full exhaust at 3k rpms will give you a headache and scare women and small children.

Fergie_Racer · July 28th, 2006, 11:57 AM

I have the stock 3.73 in my rear and I get about 350 miles per tank of fuel, or roughly 24 mpg. If I'm cruising only on the highway with no city driving, I can get about 31 mpg. Until I retire this as my daily driver, I'm keeping the 3.73 in.

artisan00 · July 28th, 2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by AtlanticBlue99

You dont mind cruising around in the top of the powerband? Any cruising above 3k rpms is a big stress on the motor. Not to mention, full exhaust at 3k rpms will give you a headache and scare women and small children.

its not so much above 3k. and its not for THAT long - i was just saying that so people dont get scared and think that the 4.10s will cripple the car at higher speeds. you know as well as i do that those 4.10s are worth every penny

99mustang232 · July 28th, 2006, 01:25 PM

going 3.73 will be more friendly if you go the f/i route in the future?

AtlanticBlue99 · July 28th, 2006, 03:09 PM

Yes, 3.73s will be the better way to go with a supercharger/turbocharger, but with a small nitrous shot, 4.10s would be very beneficial- you could hit the shot for less lengthy intervals and get the same acceleration.

Cricket · July 28th, 2006, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Fergie_Racer

I have the stock 3.73 in my rear and I get about 350 miles per tank of fuel, or roughly 24 mpg. If I'm cruising only on the highway with no city driving, I can get about 31 mpg. Until I retire this as my daily driver, I'm keeping the 3.73 in.

3.73 isn't stock. 3.23 is.

AtlanticBlue99 · July 28th, 2006, 04:49 PM

3.27 is stock. And the 7.5" rear in every mustang has an open differential.

Fergie_Racer · July 28th, 2006, 05:02 PM

you sir are correct. I know I have seen those number a long time ago. Must have gotten confused.

Cricket · July 28th, 2006, 05:42 PM

Whoa where did I get 3.23? Also what gear ratio should a person goin with fi and an auto get? Should they still stick with 3.73?

AtlanticBlue99 · July 28th, 2006, 05:45 PM

type-o probably. some came with 2.73s, but most mustangs came with 3.27s, and mach 1s came with 3.55s

smokinv6 · July 28th, 2006, 06:15 PM

i have 4.10s in my 2001 5spd and i get about 21-22 mpg and drive about 30 min on highway each way to work and i would put 4.10s in again...wouldnt do anything else

July 28th, 2006, 02:11 AM	#1
00SoSlow Hardcore Enthusiast Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin Posts: 1,340 iTrader: 0 reviews	heard a bunch of things with gears i have a 2000 v6 with 5 spd trans 3.73 or 4.10 ?????????????????????????? __________________ 2000 V6 Performance Red @ Cardomain Was fun but a waste... 1987 LX Hatch \| Soon to be a 600hp monster

July 28th, 2006, 02:28 AM	#2
MSTNGRCR13 Regular 1986 Mustang LX Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Carrsville, VA Posts: 129 iTrader: 1 reviews	Normally, I woul suggest 3.73 for a manual transmission. However, it depends on how much highway driving you would be doing and how much fuel efficiency you would want to sacrifice. The 3.73 is better for highway driving while still providing good performance for acceleration purposes, but the 4.10 would give you better acceleration than the 3.73. The 4.10 would also decrease your fuel efficiency more than the 3.73 and have your engine winding about 2-300 more RPMs than the 3.73 or stock gears. Also, the 4.10 would be slightly better in an auto than a stick. Just my opinion for what it is worth. __________________ AMP Performance

July 28th, 2006, 02:30 AM	#3
00SoSlow Hardcore Enthusiast Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin Posts: 1,340 iTrader: 0 reviews	screw it 3.73 it is haha... end debate __________________ 2000 V6 Performance Red @ Cardomain Was fun but a waste... 1987 LX Hatch \| Soon to be a 600hp monster

July 28th, 2006, 02:31 AM	#4
AtlanticBlue99 I Post Entirely Way Too Much 1999 Ford Mustang V6 14.79 @ 92.15 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: University of Georgia Posts: 8,859 Blog Entries: 1 iTrader: 0 reviews	If you do highway drive- 3.73. If you want to race and beat me- 4.10 :award But seriously, I have 4.10s and don't go over 60 highway anymore due to mpg, and I have an auto tranny. __________________ ModdedAutos 1999 Mustang V6 I used to list my mods here but stopped when I exceeded 255 characters.

July 28th, 2006, 02:41 AM	#5
00SoSlow Hardcore Enthusiast Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin Posts: 1,340 iTrader: 0 reviews	yae i can't stang doing 60 i have to be doing about 75-80 to slow __________________ 2000 V6 Performance Red @ Cardomain Was fun but a waste... 1987 LX Hatch \| Soon to be a 600hp monster

July 28th, 2006, 02:46 AM	#6
AtlanticBlue99 I Post Entirely Way Too Much 1999 Ford Mustang V6 14.79 @ 92.15 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: University of Georgia Posts: 8,859 Blog Entries: 1 iTrader: 0 reviews	Definitely 3.73s then. __________________ ModdedAutos 1999 Mustang V6 I used to list my mods here but stopped when I exceeded 255 characters.

July 28th, 2006, 08:23 AM	#7
WeCircleTheProblem Regular 1968 302 Coupe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Bel Air, MD Posts: 421 iTrader: 0 reviews	how much fuel are you really sacraficing with 4.10s

July 28th, 2006, 09:19 AM	#8
AtlanticBlue99 I Post Entirely Way Too Much 1999 Ford Mustang V6 14.79 @ 92.15 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: University of Georgia Posts: 8,859 Blog Entries: 1 iTrader: 0 reviews	A lot. I drive the highway to work 15 miutes a day, and I run through 12 gallons every 160 miles or so at about 70mph=3000rpms. If I keep it below 65mph, fuel economy is not too horribly sacrificed __________________ ModdedAutos 1999 Mustang V6 I used to list my mods here but stopped when I exceeded 255 characters.

July 28th, 2006, 10:12 AM	#10
AtlanticBlue99 I Post Entirely Way Too Much 1999 Ford Mustang V6 14.79 @ 92.15 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: University of Georgia Posts: 8,859 Blog Entries: 1 iTrader: 0 reviews	You dont mind cruising around in the top of the powerband? Any cruising above 3k rpms is a big stress on the motor. Not to mention, full exhaust at 3k rpms will give you a headache and scare women and small children. __________________ ModdedAutos 1999 Mustang V6 I used to list my mods here but stopped when I exceeded 255 characters.

July 28th, 2006, 11:57 AM	#11
Fergie_Racer Newbie Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Columbus, Indiana Posts: 30 iTrader: 0 reviews	I have the stock 3.73 in my rear and I get about 350 miles per tank of fuel, or roughly 24 mpg. If I'm cruising only on the highway with no city driving, I can get about 31 mpg. Until I retire this as my daily driver, I'm keeping the 3.73 in. __________________ "I would kill every one in this room for a drop of sweet beer" -- Homer

July 28th, 2006, 01:25 PM	#13
99mustang232 MM Fanatic 1999 Ford Mustang V6 Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: newport news, va Posts: 3,745 iTrader: 0 reviews	going 3.73 will be more friendly if you go the f/i route in the future? __________________ ...even fire and single cammin 1986 Ford F-150 5.0L 2WD 1994 Toyota Pickup 2.4L 4WD 1999 Ford Mustang 3.8L V6 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0L 2WD 2008 GMC Sierra Denali 6.2L AWD

July 28th, 2006, 03:09 PM	#14
AtlanticBlue99 I Post Entirely Way Too Much 1999 Ford Mustang V6 14.79 @ 92.15 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: University of Georgia Posts: 8,859 Blog Entries: 1 iTrader: 0 reviews	Yes, 3.73s will be the better way to go with a supercharger/turbocharger, but with a small nitrous shot, 4.10s would be very beneficial- you could hit the shot for less lengthy intervals and get the same acceleration. __________________ ModdedAutos 1999 Mustang V6 I used to list my mods here but stopped when I exceeded 255 characters.

July 28th, 2006, 04:49 PM	#16
AtlanticBlue99 I Post Entirely Way Too Much 1999 Ford Mustang V6 14.79 @ 92.15 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: University of Georgia Posts: 8,859 Blog Entries: 1 iTrader: 0 reviews	3.27 is stock. And the 7.5" rear in every mustang has an open differential. __________________ ModdedAutos 1999 Mustang V6 I used to list my mods here but stopped when I exceeded 255 characters.

July 28th, 2006, 05:02 PM	#17
Fergie_Racer Newbie Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Columbus, Indiana Posts: 30 iTrader: 0 reviews	you sir are correct. I know I have seen those number a long time ago. Must have gotten confused. __________________ "I would kill every one in this room for a drop of sweet beer" -- Homer

July 28th, 2006, 05:45 PM	#19
AtlanticBlue99 I Post Entirely Way Too Much 1999 Ford Mustang V6 14.79 @ 92.15 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: University of Georgia Posts: 8,859 Blog Entries: 1 iTrader: 0 reviews	type-o probably. some came with 2.73s, but most mustangs came with 3.27s, and mach 1s came with 3.55s __________________ ModdedAutos 1999 Mustang V6 I used to list my mods here but stopped when I exceeded 255 characters.

July 28th, 2006, 06:15 PM	#20
smokinv6 Newbie Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 19 iTrader: 0 reviews	i have 4.10s in my 2001 5spd and i get about 21-22 mpg and drive about 30 min on highway each way to work and i would put 4.10s in again...wouldnt do anything else

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
Forums at Modded Mustangs Advertisement Advertisement

Threads Similar to: heard a bunch of things with gears
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bunch of EFI Questions!!!	Speedstang302	5.0 Mustangs	27	August 16th, 2007 09:49 AM
Bunch of questions	Juggalo_X	V6 Mustangs	42	April 28th, 2007 11:37 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:56 AM.
Contact Us - Modded Mustangs - Privacy Statement - Top
Modded Mustangs is ©2005-2008, All Rights Reserved, And is Not Affiliated with Ford Motor Company. Forum is powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Ent. Ltd. & SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.