NEW GEARS 3:55 or 3:73
09-27-2009, 02:57 PM
#41
Adminut
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maple Tree, Branch #2 above the rope swing
Posts: 5,722
No doubt...last I checked, this was the Canadian Mustang Owners Club and helps if you're talking the same units of measurement, eh?
Not his fault dude. Generally, I find that Americans know (or care) very little for anything north of the border they can't shoot at and it's likely just because of the way they're raised and the climate they live in.
No big deal.
Not his fault dude. Generally, I find that Americans know (or care) very little for anything north of the border they can't shoot at and it's likely just because of the way they're raised and the climate they live in.
No big deal.
09-28-2009, 08:51 AM
#43
Not really,the imperial gallon was a common unit of measure in Canada for longer than the liter has been, and as stated earlier, the imperial gallon is larger than the us gallon. Most of the guys 45 and older are inclined to use the old method of imperial measure as it was how we were trained in the schools here in Canada.
09-28-2009, 10:06 AM
#44
It's just confusing guys. So, basically what your telling me is the cars have different mile per gallon rating from the factory? That's weird. I understand though. I just assumed miles per gallon was a US measurement and I didn't want someone to exaggerate fuel economy. The mustangs over hear get around 24-26, depending on the gearing and stuff. My 660 RWHP Saleen gets 18-20, depending on the speed.
09-28-2009, 05:45 PM
#45
Adminut
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maple Tree, Branch #2 above the rope swing
Posts: 5,722
If your car has a 100 litre tank and you're filling your tank in the United States, it will take 26.42 US Gallons to fill it. (100 litres / 3.785 litres per US gallon)
The same 100 litre tank will take 21.99 Imp Gallons to fill in Canada. ( 100 litres / 4.546 litres per Imp gallon)
If you got 300 miles out of one tank, your miles per gallon US = 300 miles/26.42 gallons = 11.35 mpg
Your mileage per Imperial gallon = 300 miles/ 21.99 gallons = 13.64 mpg
Your mpg improved by approximately 17% by changing your point of reference. Go figure.
The same 100 litre tank will take 21.99 Imp Gallons to fill in Canada. ( 100 litres / 4.546 litres per Imp gallon)
If you got 300 miles out of one tank, your miles per gallon US = 300 miles/26.42 gallons = 11.35 mpg
Your mileage per Imperial gallon = 300 miles/ 21.99 gallons = 13.64 mpg
Your mpg improved by approximately 17% by changing your point of reference. Go figure.
11-17-2009, 06:23 PM
#46
Just for the sake of information... (and to change off this tired subject), 3.90 gear ratios were quite popular in the 60's early 70's
In fact the 3.91 gear ratio was optional on the 69 Mustang (other years too I imagine).
It was a compromise between a 4.10 gear and a 3.55 gear (there wasn't many offering a 3.73 gear back in the day).
I had 3.00 to1's on my 73 Mustang (351 Cleveland) Coupe, and when I started bracket racing I changed to 3.90 gears, because I still had to take the highway to work, and all the Auto tranny's were 3 speeds (no overdrive) so 4.10/4.11 was too much.
I think back then I revved about 3,400 rpm at 70mph (which was the speed limit back then), and it sure chewed through gas... I think I was lucky to get 12 mpg
But that motor was DONE.... I mean you name it man, it was done... no turbo's or juice, or blowers, just good ole Holley's
Did 12.2 secs in the 1/4 with slicks (bad slicks) and 12.8 with street tires (H50/70-14") ... remember when they sized tires like that ? They weren't even radials.
Dam.... I must be old eh ?
Just thought you might be interested.
Muggzi
In fact the 3.91 gear ratio was optional on the 69 Mustang (other years too I imagine).
It was a compromise between a 4.10 gear and a 3.55 gear (there wasn't many offering a 3.73 gear back in the day).
I had 3.00 to1's on my 73 Mustang (351 Cleveland) Coupe, and when I started bracket racing I changed to 3.90 gears, because I still had to take the highway to work, and all the Auto tranny's were 3 speeds (no overdrive) so 4.10/4.11 was too much.
I think back then I revved about 3,400 rpm at 70mph (which was the speed limit back then), and it sure chewed through gas... I think I was lucky to get 12 mpg
But that motor was DONE.... I mean you name it man, it was done... no turbo's or juice, or blowers, just good ole Holley's
Did 12.2 secs in the 1/4 with slicks (bad slicks) and 12.8 with street tires (H50/70-14") ... remember when they sized tires like that ? They weren't even radials.
Dam.... I must be old eh ?
Just thought you might be interested.
Muggzi
12-20-2009, 08:12 PM
#47
CMOC Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 286
Hey,
I run 4:10's in my V6. It's how the car should have been built by Ford. I love how it takes off now. Not that I bag on it, but it will charge hard when I need it to. As I plan on a 300 RWHP NA V6, the rear end I have is rated to 350 RWHP and is Ford Racing Gears which I would also recommend.
I run 4:10's in my V6. It's how the car should have been built by Ford. I love how it takes off now. Not that I bag on it, but it will charge hard when I need it to. As I plan on a 300 RWHP NA V6, the rear end I have is rated to 350 RWHP and is Ford Racing Gears which I would also recommend.
04-05-2010, 11:28 PM
#48
This is my first "mod motor" (previous big block Chevelle, small block Vega, big block Mopar) so being old (and old school!) it's just hard to wrap my brain around ratios that low for street/hwy. :redface: Vega was geared 4.11 so that is what my little brain remembers
Thanks for the input, next spring will bring 4.10s I think.
Thanks for the input, next spring will bring 4.10s I think.
04-06-2010, 12:05 AM
#49
I am the post KING
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 15,244
04-06-2010, 12:23 AM
#50
I am going to give a set of 4:30's a go this year on my sixer, looking for some better launches at the track to see if I can beat up that 1.916 60' time from last year and turn it into a 1.8.
I am not going to get my 5.3L engine build finished this year, well the engine will get done but not the rest of the drive train (read tranny, converter and shaft) so next season for that.
I am not going to get my 5.3L engine build finished this year, well the engine will get done but not the rest of the drive train (read tranny, converter and shaft) so next season for that.
