3.73 vs 3.31/3.55 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 Mustang GT



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 08-15-2012, 08:31 PM   #1
Registered Member
Regular
 
SolidRRaxle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 517
3.73 vs 3.31/3.55

I know the mpg loss, don't care so much. Wondering if anyone knows the if the improvement on acceleration is significant enough to show up in the Qtr and 0-60 times?

4.3 is awesome and I want to get there, but wondering if car mags used the 3.55 or 73 to get there?
SolidRRaxle is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-15-2012, 08:42 PM   #2
Registered Member
Regular
 
Smoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Region: Georgia
Posts: 428
And wat 1/4 miles times are 331 running
Smoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 09:05 PM   #3
Registered Member
Regular
 
SolidRRaxle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 517
That too! I've read 'better acceleration' but does it even add up. Interested to hear y'alls thoughts
SolidRRaxle is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-15-2012, 09:16 PM   #4
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Region: Virginia
Posts: 453
Re: 3.73 vs 3.31/3.55

Not an expert ... but from what's I've read 3.73 or higher is not necessarily a holy grail under ALL circumstances (changes when you shift). Perhaps someone who knows more can elaborate.

I have stock 3.31's and will likely keep them. I also test drove a car with 3.73's and honestly didn't notice a huge difference. Not worth $500 (to me) to swap them out.
mmike87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 09:22 PM   #5
Registered Member
Regular
 
Smoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Region: Georgia
Posts: 428
I agree and I've heard that it shortens first gear to where its almost useless cuz u loose so much traction
Smoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 09:55 PM   #6
Registered Member
Regular
 
11stangGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Region: Arkansas
Posts: 1,541
If you want the best qtr mile gears go w 3.90s.. With the 3.73s you have to shift into fifth right b4 the traps.. 3.90s your already in fifth.. If you have plans of supercharging 3.31s or 3.55s.. 3.73s are great (I have factory 3.73s) for all around driving and for the road course..
__________________
2011 5.0
Bama 93 race tune, bbk o/r xpipe, gt500 axle backs, frpp k-springs, steeda rear lca's, 3d carbon 3d500 wing, boss/cs front fascia w boss brake cooling kit, plenty more...
11stangGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 10:01 PM   #7
Registered Member
Regular
 
poloka's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Region: Missouri
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke
I agree and I've heard that it shortens first gear to where its almost useless cuz u loose so much traction
Yup. I got 3.73. If wasn't for traction control I'd smoke through 1st. 90% of the time I start in 2nd. However, shorter gears sure respond quicker. I test drove the 3.31 behind the 3.73 and thought it was night and day difference.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11stangGT
If you want the best qtr mile gears go w 3.90s.. With the 3.73s you have to shift into fifth right b4 the traps.. 3.90s your already in fifth.. If you have plans of supercharging 3.31s or 3.55s.. 3.73s are great (I have factory 3.73s) for all around driving and for the road course..
With the RS3 having 3.73 figure SC the same I'd be happy. We'll find out.
__________________
2011 GT 5.0 Supercharged Phase 2 TVS2300
http://www.mustangevolution.com/forum/f376/t290294/
poloka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 10:04 PM   #8
Registered Member
Regular
 
Smoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Region: Georgia
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by poloka

Yup. I got 3.73. If wasn't for traction control I'd smoke through 1st. 90% of the time I start in 2nd. However, shorter gears sure respond quicker. I test drove the 3.31 behind the 3.73 and thought it was night and day difference.
Well wat was your thought on 331? Car did u like it vs the 73 .I mean it ain't hard for me.to peel rubber either lol
Smoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 10:06 PM   #9
Registered Member
Regular
 
11stangGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Region: Arkansas
Posts: 1,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by poloka

Yup. I got 3.73. If wasn't for traction control I'd smoke through 1st. 90% of the time I start in 2nd. However, shorter gears sure respond quicker. I test drove the 3.31 behind the 3.73 and thought it was night and day difference.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------



With the RS3 having 3.73 figure SC the same I'd be happy. We'll find out.
The 3.73s w sc just makes it hard to hook.. Unless you got some drs or slicks... And I was strictly saying qtr mile.. All around and road course the 3.73s are great regardless..
__________________
2011 5.0
Bama 93 race tune, bbk o/r xpipe, gt500 axle backs, frpp k-springs, steeda rear lca's, 3d carbon 3d500 wing, boss/cs front fascia w boss brake cooling kit, plenty more...
11stangGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 10:22 PM   #10
Registered Member
Regular
 
Blue2013's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 77
Re: 3.73 vs 3.31/3.55

I'd love to see some comparison times as well, but honestly it would have to be an average of many runs to even be feasible.
__________________
Ordered 7/14/2012 VIN 7/30/2012 Window Sticker 8/17/2012 Build 8/20/2012 ETA 8/31/2012 New ETA 9/3/2012 New ETA 9/17 - Cancelled...
2013 Grabber Blue GT
Blue2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 10:38 PM   #11
Registered Member
Regular
 
poloka's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Region: Missouri
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke

Well wat was your thought on 331? Car did u like it vs the 73 .I mean it ain't hard for me.to peel rubber either lol
True. In running the 73 hard I could squeak wheels all up through 4th. Running more standard launching 2nd to 4th just felt like had more pull. In the 31, 1st seemed tall and same shift to 4th was a slower pull to 80. The throttle response in the 73 did it for me. I hit it at any speed and it was like shooting out of a rocket. It would be cool to see actual numbers. I'll be putting a SC on so I'll see if the 73 was a good choice.
__________________
2011 GT 5.0 Supercharged Phase 2 TVS2300
http://www.mustangevolution.com/forum/f376/t290294/
poloka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 10:53 PM   #12
Registered Member
Regular
 
Napoleon85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Region: Ohio
Posts: 3,045
Re: 3.73 vs 3.31/3.55

These sites might help you run the numbers a bit ... if you need the ratios for the auto or manual let me know and I'll dig up the ford spec sheet from my digital pile of junk.

Top Speed Calculator
Gear Design Equations Formulas Calculator Effective Gear Ratio
__________________
Official Exhaust Thread Troller
Napoleon85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 06:51 AM   #13
Registered Member
Regular
 
SolidRRaxle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 517
Thanks Napoleon, will need to get off my iPhone an check these out
SolidRRaxle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 10:25 AM   #14
Registered Member
Regular
 
claudermilk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: California
Posts: 598
Re: 3.73 vs 3.31/3.55

Quick Google search turned this up: http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...ngGT_Specs.pdf
claudermilk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 10:35 AM   #15
Moderator Emeritus
Legacy
Regular
 
SpectorV's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Region: Alabama
Posts: 26,049
Send a message via AIM to SpectorV
Re: 3.73 vs 3.31/3.55

if you go with to much gear you will shift before you cross the line in the quarter so you need to see what the magic number is to get right across before needing that extra gear etc
__________________
2003 Cobra Vert (Redfire) #3938 of 5082 @ 05/27/2003
472rwhp/493rwtq -Modification List - Dyno Sheet
2012 Mustang 3.7L M6 (Kona Blue)
2011 Ford Edge Sport (Red Metallic)
SpectorV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 05:49 PM   #16
Registered Member
Regular
 
Blue2013's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 77
Cool 3.73 vs 3.31



__________________
Ordered 7/14/2012 VIN 7/30/2012 Window Sticker 8/17/2012 Build 8/20/2012 ETA 8/31/2012 New ETA 9/3/2012 New ETA 9/17 - Cancelled...
2013 Grabber Blue GT
Blue2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 06:45 PM   #17
Registered Member
Regular
 
Smoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Region: Georgia
Posts: 428
Good info. I don't drag my car I'm 32 and 73s are fun but I like mid range top end now I've got 2 burning rubber tickets (laying drag) so ill keep my 331 utilll I get bored lol my ss chevelle 396 has 410s so I know where u guys commin from on bolting out the whole
Smoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 07:54 PM   #18
Registered Member
Regular
 
Blue2013's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 77
Re: 3.73 vs 3.31/3.55

It's good to know how fast you can go at the top end, but it would be nice to see speed comparisons between the 2.

3.73 = 0-60 in ? seconds
3.31 = 0-60 in ? seconds

What's the formula for that? lol
__________________
Ordered 7/14/2012 VIN 7/30/2012 Window Sticker 8/17/2012 Build 8/20/2012 ETA 8/31/2012 New ETA 9/3/2012 New ETA 9/17 - Cancelled...
2013 Grabber Blue GT
Blue2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 08:16 PM   #19
Registered Member
Regular
 
SolidRRaxle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue2013
It's good to know how fast you can go at the top end, but it would be nice to see speed comparisons between the 2.

3.73 = 0-60 in ? seconds
3.31 = 0-60 in ? seconds

What's the formula for that? lol
This is what I was looking for, along with qtr.

There is about a 9% difference on first gear speed and the overall top end, so maybe this supports the idea that 4.3 ONLY applies to one or the other. However, in just the first two gears I am thinking at 9% doesn't translate well, and we are maybe seeing .1 or .2 of a difference. The qtr may be more substantial (with the right rubber.

With that said... I think my radio is too loud, should take it in for warranty work. I slide a little, but don't hear any squealing when I hit it taking off and I have the pirellis. MT or C&D did a comparison on tires recently and they didn't rank very high for summers
SolidRRaxle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 11:48 PM   #20
Registered Member
Regular
 
back n a stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 903
Re: 3.73 vs 3.31/3.55

The 3.73 will get you into your power band quicker,but if you are going FI or turbo you may want to stick wid what ya got.The 3.73 has a history of being good street and strip gear for street cars.The 3.90 is perfect for 1/4 though like said above.I personally love how fast the 3.73 gets me up in RPM's and the feel of them
__________________
2012 Prem. w/ GB insert stripe/stitch , M6,Brembo, 3.73,Stock Air-Box,93-R Tune,Borla Catback w/ X-Pipe,FRPP-"K" Springs,BMR PH Bar,BMR Upper support brace,BMR Reloc. Brackets,CHE Lca's, Koni Struts/Shocks, Jlt cc,Saleen grill, Hydrocarbon Center console/stereo surround,Formula One Tint, MGW w/ speedawg ball match seat inserts,SOS Dual Aeroforce Guages,MT82 Amsoil MTF.METCO Uca/Ucm, Shaftmasters DS
back n a stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 11:54 PM   #21
Registered Member
Regular
 
Napoleon85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Region: Ohio
Posts: 3,045
There are et calculators out there but it's not an exact science. Too many variables such as air temp, humidity, surface (track), tires, weight (affected by driver, fluids, options), launch, shift points, throttle application, etc. you can't just turn all that in to a simple formula that has any hope of being accurate or relevant to the real world. I mean, just the amount of fuel in the tank and weight of the driver can have an effect on ETs of a few tenths.

---------- Post added at 12:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 AM ----------

To further clarify, the rule of thumb is that every extra 100 pounds costs you a tenth and vice Versa. Gas weighs a bit over six pounds per gallon, and I would venture to say some of us here weight 100-200 pounds more than others.
__________________
Official Exhaust Thread Troller
Napoleon85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 12:06 AM   #22
Registered Member
Regular
 
back n a stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 903
Re: 3.73 vs 3.31/3.55

Quote:
Originally Posted by Napoleon85 View Post
There are et calculators out there but it's not an exact science. Too many variables such as air temp, humidity, surface (track), tires, weight (affected by driver, fluids, options), launch, shift points, throttle application, etc. you can't just turn all that in to a simple formula that has any hope of being accurate or relevant to the real world. I mean, just the amount of fuel in the tank and weight of the driver can have an effect on ETs of a few tenths.

---------- Post added at 12:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 AM ----------

To further clarify, the rule of thumb is that every extra 100 pounds costs you a tenth and vice Versa. Gas weighs a bit over six pounds per gallon, and I would venture to say some of us here weight 100-200 pounds more than others.
+1
__________________
2012 Prem. w/ GB insert stripe/stitch , M6,Brembo, 3.73,Stock Air-Box,93-R Tune,Borla Catback w/ X-Pipe,FRPP-"K" Springs,BMR PH Bar,BMR Upper support brace,BMR Reloc. Brackets,CHE Lca's, Koni Struts/Shocks, Jlt cc,Saleen grill, Hydrocarbon Center console/stereo surround,Formula One Tint, MGW w/ speedawg ball match seat inserts,SOS Dual Aeroforce Guages,MT82 Amsoil MTF.METCO Uca/Ucm, Shaftmasters DS
back n a stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 08:48 AM   #23
Registered Member
Regular
 
Smoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Region: Georgia
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by back n a stang
+1
Well put
Smoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 Mustang GT

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


» Like Us On Facebook



02:20 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.