 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Antique and Collectibles / Studebaker / November 2005Changing Gears in Rear
My Avanti has a 331 twin traction rear in it. How hard would it be to change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do myself? Parts are available but I'd recommend you have someone who knows Dana rears do the swap...get it wrong and the gears will be noisy and not last very long. Michael - Resealed FL wrote: > My Avanti has a 331 twin traction rear in it. How hard would it be to > change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do > myself? Theres all kinds of Dana 44 parts available. Unless you have experience setting up Dana's , a shop that specializes in working on rear axles,(ie 4x4 off road shops)might be your best bet. Looks like all you need is a set of 3.73's and a little help Good technical info here: > http://www.ring-pinion.com/content/technicalhelp/default.asp?pid=129 > My Avanti has a 331 twin traction rear in it. How hard would it be to > change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do > myself? Unless you want to use it for a drag racer, leave it alone. I had 3:73 in my Avanti, and it generally meant that it took a 1000 Rpms for every 25 MPH of speed I asked for. Ie 100 mph was 4k RPM's. At that engine spped, it just sucked up the fuel. I converted to a 3:31, and that was a great improvement. The conversion process is not hard at all if you get the entire rear axle assembly. Maybe a half day in the drive way. I had to make a jig, as to where to place the traction bar attachments on the new rear axle, but I just used a piece of flt sheet metal for the jigs. Jim in Tulsa > My Avanti has a 331 twin traction rear in it. How hard would it be to > change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do > myself? Yeah but Jim , not many places he can go 100mph, except maybe a racetrack, or that stretch of I-10 between Tallahassee and Pensacola.<G> > Unless you want to use it for a drag racer, leave it alone. > I had 3:73 in my Avanti, and it generally meant that it took a 1000 Rpms for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do >>myself? heck, I can remember maintaining 85ish all the way from St. Augustine Beach to Green Cove Springs on a 2-lane... and being passed. Florida is BIG, it just looks small on the map. nate > Yeah but Jim , not many places he can go 100mph, except maybe a > racetrack, or that stretch of I-10 between Tallahassee and Pensacola.<G> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >>change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do > >>myself? Yeah but theres a coupla famous little towns in the northern part , names I forget now,(Waldo, might be one) 85mph would get ya a long vacation making big rocks into little ones.<G> > heck, I can remember maintaining 85ish all the way from St. Augustine > Beach to Green Cove Springs on a 2-lane... and being passed. Florida [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>>change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do >>>>myself? That's why you stay off hwy 301. Of course, Lawtey is a lot worse then Waldo, or Micanopy (441). Bo Depends which way you are going, east to west it's not big at all, north to south and it's HUGE, even bigger than NC (although not by much)! Jeff DeWitt > heck, I can remember maintaining 85ish all the way from St. Augustine > Beach to Green Cove Springs on a 2-lane... and being passed. Florida [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>>change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do >>>>myself? Shucks, there's plenty of open road on 19, between Tallahassee and Perry. Bo If I'm not mistaken, Peter Sant "KOOLR2" actually improved his 1/4 mile times with the 3.31's over the 3.73's... My Avanti has a 331 twin traction rear in it. How hard would it be to change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do myself? > My Avanti has a 331 twin traction rear in it. How hard would it be to > change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do > myself? With gas prices the way they are, why on Earth would you want to do that? 331 is about the best road gear your going to find, outside of 307. Racing from street light to street light, or on the track isn't all that exciting with a 373 and driving down the highway really isn't a thrill when you can't seem to pass a gas station without stopping. I don't mean to pee, either! Bo (I may not take them in the 1/8th. I may not take them in in the 1/4. But, at the 1/2 mile mark, I'm passing them at 130 still a getting on the pedal) Heck, I just got done with the L.A. to Sacramento run on I-5 and the average running speed is 80 mph, with a few jaunts into the 90s. I don't think I would want 3:31s in the trunk with a 5 hour stint at those speeds. What gear ratio are you running? Bo > Heck, I just got done with the L.A. to Sacramento run on I-5 and the > average running speed is 80 mph, with a few jaunts into the 90s. I don't > think I would want 3:31s in the trunk with a 5 hour stint at those speeds. I have an Avanti 3.73 TT complete (no brakes)on the shelf here, but I am in Wisconsin. I changed from 3.73 to 3.31 in my 62 Hawk and the mileage didn't change at all. For what it's worth. Studeski Claude Chmielewski claudeski@netzero.com http://www.studeski.com Fillmore, Wisconsin 1947 M16 Truck 1962 GT Hawk 1963 Lark 1964 Commander Wagonaire > My Avanti has a 331 twin traction rear in it. How hard would it be to > change it to a 373? Are parts available and is it something I could do > myself? Hmmmm? It should have done three (3) things. Drop engine RPM at driving speed, increase fuel efficiency at moderate driving speed and increase top end, or haul a.s speed. Of course, from all the performance charts I've looked at this only equates to a 5-10% change. So, you would be looking at approx. 300 RPM drop at speed, maybe 1-2 gal per mile pickup and increase in top end 10-20 mph. 307:1 should do more of the same maybe 10-15%. This would be at the expense of bottom end performance, light to light speed demonization. Anybody disagree, agree? Different experience, size tires, exhaust, other variables? Bo > Anybody disagree, agree? Different experience, size tires, exhaust, other > variables? Just because you go to a higher geared rear end doesn't mean your car is going to run faster on top end, or vise-versa. In 1963 I had a 63 1/2 Fastback Ford with a 410 HP, 427 Cu In engine. With the original 3.50 to 1 rear gears it would turn 5600 RPM in 4th gear on top end. I changed the rear gears to a 3.90 to 1 and the car was a lot quicker and the top speed remained the same but was now turning 6000 RPM at top speed. Gotta figure in a lot of varibles, I guess the wind resistance would be the biggest one.  Signaturethanks, Jerry Forrester remove 'no spam' to respond > Hmmmm? It should have done three (3) things. Drop engine RPM at driving > speed, increase fuel efficiency at moderate driving speed and increase top [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bo Describing moderate speeds as being what? I have complete records of fuel consumption on my cars. I do my comparing with straight highway travel. West Bend, WI to Rapid City or to Charlotte or to South Bend or to Knoxville etc. Even the rebuild where the old rings were all broken, didn't change the mileage. I will say that I installed a Ted Harbit R2/3 grind cam. That was before the rear axle swap. Normal highway speed for me is 60-70 mph. Yes, a small change in RPM and high end limit. That's guaranteed. There's no guarantee you'll get better mileage. 3.73 to 3.31 and add a .7 overdive, then maybe. Studeski Claude Chmielewski claudeski@netzero.com http://www.studeski.com Fillmore, Wisconsin 1947 M16 Truck 1962 GT Hawk 1963 Lark 1964 Commander Wagonaire > Hmmmm? It should have done three (3) things. Drop engine RPM at driving > speed, increase fuel efficiency at moderate driving speed and increase top [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bo > Describing moderate speeds as being what? I have complete records of > fuel consumption on my cars. I do my comparing with straight highway [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > > > Bo Peter Sant is running a 3.07 gear, he ran 3.73 gears before. I ran 3.73's for years in both my R1 Lark and my R2 Avanti. We even ran the 3.73 gears on our route 66 trip and back and forth to the pure stock drags and got around 18 MPG. Both my cars are stick shift four speeds and Peters is an automatic. I like the 3.73 gears as this car is for pleasure not my daily driver. Richard My idea for having the 373 gears was so I could do better in the quarter mile by making the car faster off the line. I am itching to see what the car will do. > My idea for having the 373 gears was so I could do better in the > quarter mile by making the car faster off the line. I am itching to > see what the car will do. I changed my '64 R-2 (automatic) Avanti from a 3.73 to a 3.07 before we made our 6,000-mile Route 66 trip in '03. After driving the car from California to the east coast with the 3.73, I wasn't about to drive that far again with it. With the 3.73 automatic I was turning a minimum of 3500 rpm keeping up with traffic (often 4000). With the 3.07 it was much quieter and more pleasant to drive and still had good power (still burned rubber in second gear starts). 65mph was about 2750 rpm with the 3.07. Paul Johnson Y'know, I'm starting to come around to the theory that low numerical gears are really not the end all and be all. I've spent years driving four-poppers (with a side trip into a straight six BMW for a while) so the sound of a Stude V-8 turning 3000+ at cruise seemed frantic at first to my ears. However, after driving around enough, I have no choice but to accept that they like it, and I should quit worrying. That said, a 3.31:1 rear still has me turning 3K or more to keep up with normal freeway traffic, so that's what I'm running. I suppose an OD or 5-speed would be the best of both worlds, it would let the engine run slower at low power demand, and you could always kick it down to pass. nate > Describing moderate speeds as being what? I have complete records of > fuel consumption on my cars. I do my comparing with straight highway [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > > > Bo |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.