Results 21 to 29 of 29
Thread: 4.10 gears? Good idea?
-
08-11-2007, 08:58 AM #21Impounded
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Milwaukee
- Age
- 39
- Posts
- 2,154
Red- 2000 Trans Am
Gas mileage on a m6 at 65 im right around, maybe a little lower than 1600rpms with 3.42s
-
08-11-2007, 09:03 AM #22^ I for one totally agree with that opinion. With an A4, especially w/the stock transmission gearing, going a great deal higher than 3.42's really defeats the purpose of getting a 3500+ stall speed converter. Not only does the engine's valvetrain need the perfect balance (symmetry), so does the car's drivetrain itself. Throwing in 4.10's, without carefully contemplating one's all around performance goal, is not a good idea in my opinion. Yes, it'll get you out of the hole much much quicker, but you'll soon find yourself to be very limited in many other areas....
Originally Posted by StuntmanMike
-
08-11-2007, 09:09 AM #23Impounded
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Milwaukee
- Age
- 39
- Posts
- 2,154
Red- 2000 Trans Am
I think you gain alot more then you lose with 4.10s and a m6
Last edited by 2000T/A Guru; 08-11-2007 at 09:34 AM.
-
08-11-2007, 09:10 AM #24Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Newport, RI
- Posts
- 1,552
Navy Blue Metallic- '00 Formy A4
-
08-11-2007, 09:23 AM #25
-
08-11-2007, 10:11 AM #26You can easily get away with 4.10's in a M6 because of those two extra gears, not to mention having better control over RPM. The only time I would install 4.10's behind an A4 is if I swapped the gearing in the tranny, otherwise, what's the point. Think of it this way, most auto's beg to be stalled, and if you install 4.10's along with the stall, power under the curve becomes irrelevant (it'll obviously be bypassed). You would need a cam more "peak power" oriented, but this is where the limitation comes into play, because those 4.10's won't maximize on it....
Originally Posted by 2000T/A Guru
It's tricky w/automatics. In my opinion, with a 3500+ stall speed, 3.23's through 3.55's is a perfect balance. If 4.10's are preferred, then the stall speed should come out, with the stock converter being put back in (and you can forget roll racing this way). Lower gears (higher, numerically) are very overrated in my opinion, especially with engines that make more than enough torque. I've seen 4000+ pound cars running low tens with 3.08's, and although 4.10's would provide a better sixty foot for those cars, I don't really see it making any other significant differences, save for a lower trap speed....
-
08-11-2007, 04:24 PM #27
-
08-11-2007, 05:10 PM #28
-
08-12-2007, 02:53 AM #29
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
good idea? bad idea?
By third_shift|studios in forum Multimedia SectionReplies: 7Last Post: 05-31-2007, 10:25 AM -
Good Idea? bad idea? zboner's trade off
By third_shift|studios in forum Almost Anything GoesReplies: 54Last Post: 11-27-2006, 11:19 PM -
4.10 gears good or bad idea
By formy01 in forum DrivetrainReplies: 36Last Post: 11-26-2006, 03:51 PM -
Good Idea/Bad Idea..? be gentle
By EREBUSS in forum General HelpReplies: 7Last Post: 09-14-2006, 02:45 AM -
good idea? bad idea? Fiance's Bday gift...
By third_shift|studios in forum Almost Anything GoesReplies: 25Last Post: 08-23-2006, 05:39 PM


Reply With Quote

Bookmarks