Ok:
I'm considering this for my car too. It is an '83 converted w/360 with a
727 trans. I thought about the GV & 518. I here that not much additional
clearance is needed in the J-body, so I presume a c-body also would not
require much clearancing for the o/d. Most of the conversion issues are not
a problem w/ the mopar perf trans, but it is more expensive than trying to
convert one out of a truck or something.
Thing is my car has the 2.94 rear. It does not have much pick up and
seems to have an excessively loose converter for my tastes. To help milage
& acceleration the o/d has a lower 1st + the o/d. If I put the gear vendors
I would have to go back into the rear, to lower the ratio.
So I am leaning towards an o/d trans for my daily driven, decidedly
unoriginal car. One other possiblity is the G* 7004r. I read about somebody
converting an a-body mopar to this w/a conversion kit. It has more
aftermarket support, supposedly is physically smaller, so it fits better,
has a lower first and similiar o/d ratio, and an electronic lock-up that you
can work with a toggle switch. I trying to find out a little more about
this one.
Robb, if you still think the gv is better for me, let me know.
ROb(1b)
>From: mopar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: IML: 1st/OD/final drive ratio
>Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:17:05 -0600
>
>
> There is a lower first gear, gearset avalable for 727 use. However
> it is not cheap. But then again, neither is an aftermarket OD unit.
> In the '60s the lower first gear was used for the heavy cars for good
> off line response in drag racing.. As such a sturdy trans is required
> as noted by D2, the spacing is radical and slamming a high powered
> motor into a higher gear at high RPM was a strain on them.. However,
> for our use in Imperials I think the use of the lower gearset would
> be a great addition.. I realise not many would wish to make that type
> of outlay in funds tho..
> D2, being as you have a '68 Imperial,which means an 8 3/4 rear axle
> ass'y, there is no 3.73 gear aval.. 3.23 3.55 3.91 4.10 etc..
> I would be curious as to what you call a "big" cam.. If you have cam
> specs aval I would be interested in seeing them.. If you have part
> number and manufactor I can look it up myself.. :)
> Thanks,,
> Robb
>
>At 01:53 PM 1/28/02 -0600, you wrote:
> >At 11:26 AM 1/28/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >>Another alternative would be a deeper 1st gear that'll give me easier
>off
>the line starts for city and still the direct drive for the fwy.
>
> >Although this is up to personal preference, I would not like this that
> >much. There would be too much spacing between 1st and second for a
> >continuous acceleration. Also, the tall 1st gear can often be used as
> >passing gear at low speed, and you would loose this advantage with the
>"low
> >1st gear", although this conversion would be much cheaper than the GV.
>One
> >day, I will probably add this OD to my 68 sedan, along with 3.73 or 3.55
> >rear gears. This would be a perfect match to this car's "big" cam...
> >D^2
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network