Don't sweat it, Mondo. It will be clear to any reader of above-room-temperature IQ that Odin's Wrath is just trying to cover the fact that he posted before he engaged his brain.

 

I don't think it was an unreasonable assumption on our part that Mondo's post was in reference to this one.





If Mondo had written what he did the second time, instead of what he did the first, there would have been no room for interpretation. As it is, what you assumed was what he was trying to say. However, the diameter of the wheel, or the revolutions per mile, is what is needed for tuning shift points, not ride height or aspect ratio.

I know you're not stupid; but, neither am I. I can give you a run for your money in hard headedness, too. That's probably not a good thing.

 

Looking Gooooooooooooooood Cliff

 

Boy Cliff those tires are the nuts! Have FUN down at WV this comming weekend. Wish I could have gone this year but due to work I cant make it. But there are about 18 or 20 guys going from up here in New England and I think there are 2 Lightnings going down. I would have made 3. You were my instructor last year and we had a ball. Really wish I could have gone.
Chuck

 

P.S.....305 X .35(aspect ratio) = smaller tire= higher revolutions per minute. No slam, just fact. Peace!

 

Go get'um Cliff!

Jake...

 

 

That would be revs per mile. Peace out.

 

So...that being said how much if any would that lower your final gear ratio. I have 3.70. So if any for the rest of us, does this have a noticable change? Smaller tires are like changing your 3rd member so to speak.

 

Yes, it would be a noticeable change.

But on most tracks, a good one. If you can't hit the top speed on a track in 4th, a shorter final drive (or shorter tire) will probably give you more torque/hp down where you can use it.

 

Wow!! Revolutions per minute or mile. Makes no difference.Its going to be more. I'm done here. Asdalavista!!

 

There is a difference. The revolutions per minute would be the same for any tire, at the same engine rpm, that you substitute. Revolutions per mile would increase with smaller tire diameters.


Hasta la Vista!

 

With 3.73's the new ratio, with the shorter tires, would be the equivelent of installing 4.0:1 gears.

 

With my 3.55 rear end, I calculated the the ratio changes to 3.82 with the RA-1's which works well for a small track but for a larger track the 3.55 ratio works best and pulls hardest.(that's without RA-1's) That does not apply to drag racing of course. I compared this against a comparable truck with the 3.73 rear end. He couldn't believe how I could just walk away from him with the 3.55 and stock size tires.

But all around, I like the 3.55 with RA-1's. Its a pretty good compromise.

I believe that Stan is running 3.27 which is probably optimal for the power band on larger courses.

TB

 

Jesus, Odin. Give it a rest. Your first nitpick I can write off to a mental lapse. But this one is just looking for a fight. Most can comprehend the relationship between smaller diameter tires, RPMs, and revs per mile without your assistance. And for those who cannot, your comments are wasted.