3.07 vs.4.10 et difference

K

K*A*B

Active LVC Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
pemberton
so i ran the car last night , the only changes from the last time were 4.10 ,tracloc and 245/55 tires
previous best was 14.60 at 98 2.18 60'
previous best in similar conditions was 14.71 at 98 2.22 60'
last night i made 10 passes cooled down and hot ,different launches etc
best pass was 14.67 at 95 2.13 60'
all of the incremental times were the same as usual
the car was more consistant , but i think it was because of the posi and better tires , traction was not an issue last night , but it was with the other gears and open dif
i'm going to run the car again just to be certain , but if i doesn't run better the 4.10's are coming out , mostly because of the cost of a new driveshaft that i have to get because it vibrates (which isn't an issue under acceleration ), oh yeah the speed limiter wasn't cutting the car of till after the traps
 
calm down, when I got my gears in I ran a 14.8 my best run before was 15.00, but some how it droped like crazy

After a while I hated my car you know running 14.8s so i stopped working on it, one night my friend got a gtech which measures 1/4 HP 0-60 and such, I plug it in, gave it a try and the gtech flashed a 14.2 and 99 mph. this was at night pretty cool out, so it gave me hope. then the track opened and I was like why the hell not its only 35 million dollars to race there. So I did and my first pass came up a 14.5 then second a 14.7 so im like ok aint so bad, then I started working on my shifting and launching then I was pulling 14.4s every pass, if I have had a chip, I with out a doubt would be running 13.9 to 14.1s

:Beer
 
Pretty disappointing. Do you have any timeslips.

I would like to see the actual numbers to see if you picked up anything on the low end, just to give it back on the top end.

Guess I'll stick with the 2:73's in the '93 Monster and I was looking to drop some 4:10's into the '98 but now I'm not so sure. The 1000ft would be an interesting number to see.

And I have seen it posted repeatedly. 3:07 and 3:27 stock gears. Doesn't the non-LSC have 3:08's or did Lincoln get a special ring and pinion?
 
I've also always heard 3.07's. This right here might keep me from upgrading gears.
 
i have never seen more than a 2 tenths in any car i've done a gear swap in
working at a speed shop we have done alot of gear swaps
also when i run the bottle it is going to make me use od , and this car isn't going to want to pull in od
i'm going to try to run it again maybe change the plugs if they need it and go from there , i hope it runs better , i love how the trans shifts with them
 
maybe the cars you change the gears in them didnt need better gears but every gear swap we have done to different car has show awesome improvment

anyways what is done to your car
 
MonsterMark said:
Pretty disappointing. Do you have any timeslips.

I would like to see the actual numbers to see if you picked up anything on the low end, just to give it back on the top end

And I have seen it posted repeatedly. 3:07 and 3:27 stock gears. Doesn't the non-LSC have 3:08's or did Lincoln get a special ring and pinion?
Click to expand...
the gears i took out are deffinetly 3.07
i have over 60 time slips on this car (i've owned it since feburary )
with the 4.10's i have more consistent 2.1 60' times , but the car hooks alot better now , because i also installed a posi and bigger tires
the 330' ,1/8 mile et and mph ,and 1000' times were all similar with both gear sets
when it shifts into drive it drops to 4000 rpms and it takes a little to start pulling again , if i could hold second out a little longer (6600) maybe the rpm's will drop 4300 or 4400 and be in a better power range
 
MonsterMark said:
Pretty disappointing. Do you have any timeslips.

I would like to see the actual numbers to see if you picked up anything on the low end, just to give it back on the top end.

Guess I'll stick with the 2:73's in the '93 Monster and I was looking to drop some 4:10's into the '98 but now I'm not so sure. The 1000ft would be an interesting number to see.

And I have seen it posted repeatedly. 3:07 and 3:27 stock gears. Doesn't the non-LSC have 3:08's or did Lincoln get a special ring and pinion?
Click to expand...

stock non lsc is 3:08.
 
MarkOfDeath said:
maybe the cars you change the gears in them didnt need better gears but every gear swap we have done to different car has show awesome improvment

anyways what is done to your car
Click to expand...
all i have done is 2.5'' x-pipe k&n filter and a shift kit , it also has a 150 shot but i haven't run it with the 4.10's

of my own personal cars i have swapped
79 mustang on motor it ran 11.8's @113 with 3.55 -11.67 @114 with 4.10's
on 150 shot it went 10.60 with 4.10 hitting the limiter just past the 1000' mark , swapped back to the 3.55 it went through the traps perfect et 10.60
it eventially went 10.11 @133 with a 225 hit and 3.55
lincoln mark 7 stock with powerdyne super charger 13.95 103 with stock 3.27 gear , 13.80's with 4.10's , that car really didn't hook well and there was probably a little left in it
1981 camaro 11.80 with 5.13 gear , it ran through the traps at its shift point (7000)but sucked to drive on the street so i put 4.10's in it and it still ran 11.80's
completely stock aod 1991 mustang lx 14.60 with 3.27 gear -14.40 with 4.10's -13.60 with a swap to a 5 speed
1970 chevelle 327 basically stock with 3.08 gear -14.20 , swap in 4.10's and ran 14.00
 
You say bigger tires...is that bigger as in, wider...or bigger as in, taller? Taller tires will hurt your times.

Gotta be something else to those times. I saw a .4 drop in my ET when I put 4.10s in the '87 - and that was through the original AOD.

Good luck, I'm sure you'll figure it out.
 
just wider , actually about 1/2'' shorter
i only made 3 passes with the 88 mark 7 so that may not be a fair comparo
 
something is wrong with your car, only because you went from 3.08 to 4.10 and didnt see a slight improvement. try giving it a tune up, I mean a 14.6 is rare as hell for a slow 2nd gen with just exhaust. With gears I seen 2nd gens run 14.5 with only gears mufflers and UD pullys so I guess thats where your at till you get a another real mod like a TC or headers
 
i ran it 2 weeks ago , it ran 14.70's at 98 in the same conditions , i don't think anything is wrong with it but i'm not giving in yet , if i can't get it into the 14.30's they are coming out
 
Jibit said:
I'm wondering what you're doing with 2:73's :N
Click to expand...
Enquiring minds want to know. LOL. We're going to run the '93 in the Blown Grand Touring Sports/BGT class with a D class engine. Ever since I saw that basically stock '93 Mark put up a 188, I have always wanted to make a run out and use the fact that the Mark has one of the slickest drag-coefficient shapes out there.
 
K*A*B said:
i ran it 2 weeks ago , it ran 14.70's at 98 in the same conditions , i don't think anything is wrong with it but i'm not giving in yet , if i can't get it into the 14.30's they are coming out
Click to expand...
I think comparing side by side slips would really show what is going on. I think for 4:10's are killer on the street with this motor but the car really seems to lag on the top end with stock hp pushing it.
 
last night
60' 2.13
330' 6.189
1/8 et 9.463
1/8 mph 75.33
990' 12,212
1/4 et 14.677
1/4mph 95.09


june 7
60' 2.19
330' 6.270
1/8 et 9.562
1/8 mph75.10
990' 12.295
1/4 et 14.71
1/4 mph 97.75

i honestly think the et difference is because it hooks now , the speed limiter is shutting the car off after the et light comes on but befor the last mph timer , so i am assuming it will pick up some mph (only 1 mph at the most)
 
ok,this might be the dumbest question,and i dont mean to offend,but i gotta ask?

is the traction control and overdrive turmed off?

my other question for everyone else,
does the computer need any time to adjust to the new rpm/mph ratio of the car. i mean,can the computer pull timing out at first because of the huge change rpms in relation to mph and gear selected?

like i said,i am not expert ,and i am sure the answer to the first question is yes,but i had to ask,because thats a hella lotta gear difference,and every article i ever read on mod 32v motor (mustang cobras usually) said that 4.10 were exactly what these motors like.



Mike
 
i never have the t/c on and the od is off
the gear seems perfect for the car as far as going through the traps
 
Now drop-in a high stall torque converter, J-mod, and tune it. You won't be disappointed with the converter...
 
i have had great luck with converters , the trans shifts awsome
a converter is out of my $$$ range right now , it only cost me about $25 in seals and oil to put the gears in
the dyno tunes i've been reading about haven't been very impressive , i think i can get that much messing with the timing adjuster and fuel pres reg
 
how much for the 410s if you don't want them???????????????????????
 
Interesting thread. I actually never ran my '93 at the track until it had 4.10s installed.

But, I would NOT want a Mark VIII now with stock gears after my experience with 4.10s.

BTW... what is similar conditions? I log all my runs for calculating density altitude and can hardly ever find similar conditions.

Changing any item(esp. tires) when comparing the before/after of another mod is usually a statistical flaw IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 181 (members: 0, guests: 181)
Back
Top