Ordered a gear vendor, help with deciding gears

-
I never liked the gear vendor unit hanging off the back of the trans like that.
They hang transfer cases off the back, allbeit with shorter tail, but the GV IIRC is only 23 pounds versus several times that with an older cast-iron NP 203.

Not negating your opinion; jus saying.
I didn't like the idea of it either, but in the end I put my money down, and have never regretted it.
 
in my barracuda i
No cutting required in my 68 Barracuda. I hung it, jacked it into interference marked the spots, and pulled it down. Then massaged the high points. Did that two or three times until the main case hit the tunnel.Then dropped her down onto the later style 73 up cross member, which I had to slot out the thru-bolt mount just a lil.
I did not try the 68 crossmember, as I had long-ago converted to the 73-up style, with a poly-mount..
After driving it, I noticed a vibration. I went back and readjusted my pinion angle and all-done I was.
It was far easier than massaging my TTIs
Then I had to measure and order a shorter driveshaft...... which the first one was too long.So I moved the axle back. But then after the 7260 rear joint failed, I put a 1350 on the driveshaft and a 7290 on the pumpkin, then married them with an adapter joint, and of course the driveshaft had to be sent out again,lol. That's HotRodding.......
 
Last edited:
No cutting required in my 68 Barracuda.

I'm hoping to be as lucky with my 67. Of course, like everything else it's a few years down the road at least. It's hard to justify the cost of anything beyond maintenance when I'm trying to save money to buy a house.
 
I agree about the hot rodding and cutting, but I also understand why many feel some cars just shouldn’t be cut up. I would like to run a GV in my barracuda if I can get away with not having to slice up the tunnel. I could live with a few hammer dings though. Then again, if I pull my carpet up and start poking holes through rust, maybe I’ll consider a 5 speed. It seems pretty solid from underneath, but that’s just from my minimal time spent groveling under there during a fuel line swap.

oh, and that 2000 year old story ain’t no passing fad!

A T5 will fit the tunnel unaltered, I do believe.
 
A T5 will fit the tunnel unaltered, I do believe.

I was under the impression that the only 5 speed that will fit without major tunnel surgery is an A-855 at $6k with a several year wait for what may end up being a lemon with little to no customer service on warranty repairs/replacement.
 
I was under the impression that the only 5 speed that will fit without major tunnel surgery is an A-855 at $6k with a several year wait for what may end up being a lemon with little to no customer service on warranty repairs/replacement.

Really? I could be wrong. I have a T5 and it's pretty dang small.
 
I Have rebuilt a few of those T5s;
I'd be surprised if they didn't fit.
I wouldn't be surprised at all tho if it blew up the first time I drove it around the block, with even a 318.
39798.jpg
 
I Have rebuilt a few of those T5s;
I'd be surprised if they didn't fit.
I wouldn't be surprised at all tho if it blew up the first time I drove it around the block, with even a 318.
View attachment 1715694333

The World Class units are rated at like 330 LB FT and will take a good bit more. I've seen one in a 10 second rustang run for 4 or 5 seasons before it broke. The right ones are pretty strong.
 
The World Class units are rated at like 330 LB FT and will take a good bit more. I've seen one in a 10 second rustang run for 4 or 5 seasons before it broke. The right ones are pretty strong.

4 or 5 seasons of 10 seconds passes is probably worth a lifetime of the abuse I will put on it. It would likely see 5-600 ft-lbs, but I'll never have the meats to fully hook it.
 
They hang transfer cases off the back, allbeit with shorter tail, but the GV IIRC is only 23 pounds versus several times that with an older cast-iron NP 203.

Not negating your opinion; jus saying.
I didn't like the idea of it either, but in the end I put my money down, and have never regretted it.

I always thought they were much heavier than that. I'd still run a A518 for the Mopurity, but 23 lbs ain't bad.
 
Ordered a gear vendor today, was told to go 3:55 gears, but I was thinking higher since I was originally going to go 3:23 without gear vendor.

1974 duster
Blueprint 408 stroker (465hp,550ftlb)
Dana 60

will be doing more street driving that track. Tires will be cobra Gt 295’s, but will also have a set of 315 nitto Nt05’s.

Want it to have great acceleration to keep up with modern sports cars on the street, but not be too geared up that the pedal is so sensitive it becomes not fun to drive

Have a couple friends running gear vendors. One is a 73 challenger with a 500 inch big block. The other a 73 dart with a 408. ***** run 3.55 gears which when on od makes them around a 2.76 gear. They are both very happy with them. Guy with the challenger has put a ton of miles on his car. Did the power tour with it too.
 
23 pounds is from memory.
I'm coming 68 in June......
My GV has been hanging off the 4-speed since about 2002 or 3.
The GV works very well for a streeter with a Commando 4-speed, and splitting. the ratios are
3.09-2.41-1.92-1.50-1.40-1.09-1.00-.78od; GV in red. Obviously some of the ratios are so close as to be either/or ratios. (150/1.40, and 1.09/1.00)
In normal operation I shift
3.09-1.92-1.40-1.09-.78 and the splits are
.78-.73-.78-.72into od. But when I wanna show off;
3.09-2.41-1.92-1.50 and the splits are
.78-.80-.78
With 3.55s top of second-over is over 100mph with 3.55s, and the starter gear is still 10.97 . She has gone 93mph in the Eighth, at 6150 by the math.......... but 7000 on the tach, still spinning the tires, the track official said.
The Wallace Calculator makes this to be 433 hp @3457 pounds raceweight. IMO, my Z-decked 367 is not that strong with just OOTB Eddies and a 230/237/110 cam@10.7 Scr.. I can only surmise that the GVod used as a splitter, had something to do with it. I can't say and I don't care; it was 23 pounds of stinking-big fun
 
The ratio is .78 to 1 (see Final Drive Ratios). This equates to 28.6% faster vehicle speed at the same rpm or take your existing rear gear multiplied by .78 (ie 4.10 X .78 = 3.20). In this example a vehicle with a 4.10 behaves just like it had 3.20s when the overdrive is engaged.
Other examples would be that 3.55 becomes 2.77, 3.23 becomes 2.52.
With the .78 to 1 ratio you’re good with any torque converter you choose for high performance street/strip use.

while not as good of a ratio as most of the factory OD transmissions it does do quite a bit.

as far as fit goes the guy i know with the challenger didn't have to modify the floor at all.. the guy with the 73 dart only had to put a little dent in the floor for clearance. not cutting on either car which is huge for many..

i can say most of the fast drag week cars were running gear vendor units. they must hold a good amount of power thats for sure.



.
 
Top gear o/d ratio would be great at highway speeds. Any time you can get the cruise rpm at or below 2000 at cruise speed you will get good mileage and lower rpm is easier on engines and makes them last longer. Just the way I think about it. Now if you build a 450-500 horse small block you won't be getting good fuel mileage regardless of rpm. The whole combination needs to work together.
 
Have a couple friends running gear vendors. One is a 73 challenger with a 500 inch big block. The other a 73 dart with a 408. ***** run 3.55 gears which when on od makes them around a 2.76 gear. They are both very happy with them. Guy with the challenger has put a ton of miles on his car. Did the power tour with it too.

your friend with the dart is happy with 3:55 gears, not thinking of going 3:73?
 
Yes he was very happy. But he also drove it a ton and we always do longer distance cruises on the highway. When we got ocean city md he has to have a 3.5-4 hour drive mostly highway. So a 2.76ish in OD was perfect for him. It's all about what your intended purpose is.
 
Now if you build a 450-500 horse small block you won't be getting good fuel mileage regardless of rpm. The whole combination needs to work together.
like and agree;
Hiway Fuel economy goes away beginning at about
276/114/105/286/61/66*/110LSA;
Intake/compression/power/exhaust/overlap/Ica;
and low-rpm is no longer that desireable.
That's my Hughes (HE3037AL) cam btw, and my combo cruises at 65=2240 with 3.55s, with all the timing she can tolerate. This is about as low as I dare go before economy gets worse. She also gets worse with 3.91s. I didn't have 3.73s to try, one of the few chunks I have never had on hand.
The next smaller Hughes cam I tried (HE2430AL),was dynomite easy on gas;
270/116/111/276/53/64/110LSA
These both have had the Scr adjusted to run about 180/185 psi cranking cylinder pressure. And no other changes were made.
IMO
The loss in fuel economy has to be directly related to the power-stroke and overlap differences. Check it out;
276/114/105/286/61/66*
270/116/111/276/53/64*
Compression difference is only 116 less 114=2*,
Ica difference of 66 less 64=2*,
but power was 111 less 105= 6*, and
overlap was 53 less 61= 8*
IMO then, power and overlap are the trouble makers. And if I had to guess, I would guess the overlap is the killer at lower rpms with good working headers; as they pull fuel-charge right across the pistons on the overlap cycle. Followed by the shorter powerstroke not able to extract all the energy in the cycle. At Part Throttle and cruising, I doubt the shorter power-stroke played that big a role, but; I cannot guess which cost me more.

That HE2330 easily cruised at 85=2100 returning excellent fuel-economy, which corrects to 65=1606 where it was less excellent.Which I attrinuted partly to the overlap at 1606, and partly to not being able to supply the timing it craved.

After that experiment, I vowed that my next cam would be a solid with the shorter advertised of the 2330 and the longer .050 of the 3037,lol. And so, I am waiting for the 3037 to give up........ since 2005 or 2006,lol; but it just keeps on going.

So like you say;
The whole combination needs to work together.

One of my many uncles, back in the 60s (1964 I think) had a tail-dragging Oldsmobile with a big engine in it, and I distinctly heard/overheard him say that it got better mileage, the faster he drove it, topping out at 85 mph. IIRC that car was a late 50s loooong heavyyy beast.
I was eleven, and not able to formulate an opinion on it. It wasn't until decades later that I began to understand it. My 1970 Swinger340 was like that but in reverse; it got worse mileage at 50/55 than at 60/65. But by 85 it was no longer "sipping gas" any more....... I think 340s were like that, at least every one I have had was. Which only totals three,lol.
 
Last edited:
-
Back
Top