2002 SS: Gear Change
2002 SS: Gear Change
My Dad drives a low-mile 2002 SS with a six speed. The car has the usual bolt-ons including a lid, Y-pipe and cat-back, LCA's, etc.
He's retired and mostly uses the car for 'spirited' driving around town.
The car seldom sees 5th and 6th gear.
We've been discussing a rear gear change, perhaps to a 3.90. Our feeling is that this change will make the car more fun to drive considering the way the car is used.
We'd be interested in some opinions. We're thinking about a set of Motive gears with the appropriate installation kit, and hope that this change will not result in excessive gear noise.
Any thoughts on this upgrade? Are 3.90's suitable for a 'street' LS1?
He's retired and mostly uses the car for 'spirited' driving around town.
The car seldom sees 5th and 6th gear.We've been discussing a rear gear change, perhaps to a 3.90. Our feeling is that this change will make the car more fun to drive considering the way the car is used.
We'd be interested in some opinions. We're thinking about a set of Motive gears with the appropriate installation kit, and hope that this change will not result in excessive gear noise.
Any thoughts on this upgrade? Are 3.90's suitable for a 'street' LS1?
Last edited by RKHiPerformance; Nov 28, 2010 at 04:57 PM.
Re: 2002 SS: Gear Change
Why the 3.90? That's an unusual gear for the 7.5/7.625" 10-bolt - available, but not used very often. With the steep O/D ratios in the T56, go right to the 4.10's. The only reason not to would be if you plan to run the 1/4-mile and expect to see trap speeds in excess of 115MPH, and don't want to shift out of 4th.
Whether they are noisy will depend a lot on the capabilities of the shop that sets them up.
Whether they are noisy will depend a lot on the capabilities of the shop that sets them up.
Re: 2002 SS: Gear Change
Thanks for the reply...
The reason for the 3.90's instead of 4.10's is that the .10's might be just too deep for the way this car is used. There is also the possibility that with all things being equal the 3.90's could be more quiet than the 4.10's.
The reason for the 3.90's instead of 4.10's is that the .10's might be just too deep for the way this car is used. There is also the possibility that with all things being equal the 3.90's could be more quiet than the 4.10's.
Re: 2002 SS: Gear Change
4.10 is pretty much the best gear you can run on the car, if you wanted to take a little away from the gear you could run a slightly taller tire, but with the 4.10 these cars still stay around 2k at 70 on the highway, 5and 6 are skyscrapers (there tall as hell)
Re: 2002 SS: Gear Change
since you're running 3.42s' now,3.90s' will increase the torque by 14%,4.10s' will increase the torque by 20%. 4.10s' will make he car a lot more 'spirited' than 3.90s' would. 70mph would put you at 1900rpm,not much at all. 4.10s,because they provide a better mechanical advantage than 3.90s' would,would also be easier on the engine,clutch,tranny,& driveshaft.
As far as 'noise',there seems to be a belief the 4.10s' are inherently noisy,if that were true, all those GM OEM factory rearends with 4.10s' from the assembly line should be noisy too. I think a lot of S10 trucks,depending upon engine/tranny combo got 4.10s'.
As far as 'noise',there seems to be a belief the 4.10s' are inherently noisy,if that were true, all those GM OEM factory rearends with 4.10s' from the assembly line should be noisy too. I think a lot of S10 trucks,depending upon engine/tranny combo got 4.10s'.
Re: 2002 SS: Gear Change
IIRC, the Motives are supposed to be quieter than some of the other brands. I seem to recall reading that they are softer than Richmond, etc. I can definitely tell you that Richmonds are noisy. I had em in my old Z, and they were set up perfectly, but nonetheless they had a healthy whine. BTW, +1 for 4.10s.
Last edited by TD95Z; Dec 16, 2010 at 12:01 AM. Reason: spelling
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dbusch22
Forced Induction
6
Oct 31, 2016 11:09 AM
Lt1son
Drivetrain
1
Dec 31, 2014 01:35 PM
chevroletfreak
LT1 Based Engine Tech
202
Jul 4, 2005 05:00 PM



