Post by
95hardbody »
https://forums.nicoclub.com/95hardbody-u11626.html
Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:33 am
You can also describe the gears as "short" and "tall", which loosely corresponds to top speed capabilities, and makes the most sense to me. For example, I had an '84 Cutlass that had 2.14:1 rear gears (no joke). Those were very *tall* gears (and top speed capability, if the engine would actually pull it, was somewhere over 200 mph). My '95 Hardbody truck, by comparison, has very *short* gears (4.375:1). My Cutlass had a V-8 engine which had the torque to move a 3800 lb car with 2.14 gears, and they went that *tall* for fuel economy. My truck doesn't have near the torque of a V-8 engine, and the gears are much *shorter* to compensate for it.
Putting it in terms of 240s, if you replace your 3.9 hears with 4.6 gears or something similar, you have more torque multiplication (4.6x vs 3.9x), so you are getting more power to the ground. You could take it to an extreme and put in 8:1 gears, and have HUGE amounts of power to the ground. But at the same time, you'd be shifting all the time and you'd have a redline-limited top speed of like 40 mph or something. The engine has the power and torque for good performance with the 3.9:1 gears, so that's what Nissan put in there. Go *taller* than that (with a 3.3 gear or something), and you may gain more top speed, but you'd lose acceleration. Go *shorter* than that (with a 4.6 gear), and you'll loose some top speed, but you'll gain some acceleration.