Re: ET Difference with 2.75 low gear
 

I have tried both 2.75 and 2.91 first gears and the 2.91 makes the car a animal in 60
feet .03-.04 better in sixty ft but hurts et from 60 to 330 it seems like the motor gets
pulled down to much to recover efficiently. i think a higher torque lower rpm engine may
be better suited to this application.

Re: ET Difference with 2.75 low gear
 

Which application?

Re: ET Difference with 2.75 low gear
 

I have tried it with both 1970 350/290 hp and 1972 350/278 with similar results in
both applications. im thinking if you could get the torque to a higher level between
the converter flash and 1-2 shift rpm it could work.

Re: ET Difference with 2.75 low gear
 

How about your reaction times, did they get quicker with the low gear set, seeings how you 60 footed better?

Re: ET Difference with 2.75 low gear
 

Just think what you could do with a data recorder and a timed ignition retard...

Re: ET Difference with 2.75 low gear
 

I have a 65 chevelle 283/230 SS/MA @3390 lbs, changed from 208 glide to light weight 2.75 Turbo, found nothing, changed converters 600 higher, stall still nothing.

Glenn

Re: ET Difference with 2.75 low gear
 

Do you think I would show a gain with a low compression big block Chevy? It is a foot brake car. It's weighs 3300# and has a 2.48 gear in it now. Just looking to better my 60' and 1/8th mile time.

Re: ET Difference with 2.75 low gear
 

Tim the reaction did get a little quicker as the car really wanted to wheelstand pulling the
wheels up out of the beams not rolling out. Jeff your on to something..Shhhhh...
J Kuchel- the deeper first will definatly help in 60ft, in the 1/8 im not sure most likely
would but a deeper rear gear will help all that if your only going 1/8 mile

Re: ET Difference with 2.75 low gear
 

About .015 difference in reaction time.

Re: ET Difference with 2.75 low gear
 

Thanx for the response guys