Page 2 of 3

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:57 pm
by thrdeye
Boost and 100 Octane tune ought to fix any low end power delivery concerns. :)

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:58 pm
by John Brown
damm you Harp....

Peak Tq is 4000-4500.. so,thats not too much of a delay.. 3500 = 32 MPH.. we aint under that often

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:11 am
by steverife
Rowing 2nd/3rd seems like it would be awful.

...but I can't seem to drive a car in 3rd at all.

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:31 am
by John Brown
Im glad I ask this question.. Playing on my way to work this morning, I found that 3rd pulls pretty damm hard from 1500 rpms up,coming on hard around 3500. That may be because of the drastic difference in my tire dia. compared to yours Steve V.

Learning to do 2nd and then third sure is a lot cheeper than a rear gear!!! :lol: NOt to mention Harps theory of less wild ass torque thats there in 2nd.. 3rd may be my traction out of the turn ace. (JY, did you stay in 3rd all the way around Smokeys?)

once I went into 3rd.... I dont think Id go back to 2nd... well, unless somebody builds a damm pin cone turn. :pirate:

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:49 am
by steverife
I'd probably bump the RPM's, if you can do it safely/easily.

...and you were wheeling that thing from what I could see Sunday. Kinda makes me want a CAM car.

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:03 am
by John Brown
Dude... its the first time Iv been happy in a car since 2012 in the Mazda. Its got a long way to go..(Pilson and JY were Fn flyin!) but, I think I can get there.. and have fun doin it! :-)

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:21 am
by Challenger

steverife wrote:Kinda makes me want a CAM car.
Do it!!

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:21 am
by TedV
steverife wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:11 am Rowing 2nd/3rd seems like it would be awful.

...but I can't seem to drive a car in 3rd at all.
I've had plenty that needed rowing between 2nd and 3rd. It sucks balls!! Every shift is a chance to screw it up and screw your time.

Only the kart is not much issue rowing gears since gear change is a toggle switch. Still a challenge to know what gear to slap it in

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:31 am
by Challenger
I don't know how you feel about the stock shifter John but I swapped mine out for a Barton. It got rid of a lot of slop and is a lot firmer and easier to feel what gear your going to. It's got a fairly stiff centering spring that lines it right up for the 3 shift.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:34 am
by John Brown
where from? Mine has some kind of "crunchy" noise in my shifter anyway..

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:46 am
by jcox07
I started in 2nd gear and stayed in 2nd cause my 2nd gear goes to 82, no need for 3rd but 3rd in my car does pull like a freight train.

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:55 am
by Challenger
John Brown wrote:where from? Mine has some kind of "crunchy" noise in my shifter anyway..
I got it straight from Bartonshifters.com. They had just finished running a 10% off special but I sent him a message thru the forum and he took it off anyhow. Check mine out this weekend and see what you think.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:00 am
by John Brown
wait.. is that LEGAL?? Bwahahahahahahahah!!! :lol:

thats what I love about this class..... F yea...its LEGAL!!!

Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:06 am
by MARKP
I'm gonna bring out a NASCAWR with some carpet!

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


Re: formula for gearing??

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:16 am
by TedV
MARKP wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:06 am I'm gonna bring out a NASCAWR with some carpet!
I wonder if there's a GT1/Trans Am car laying around E.TN needing to be run? :twisted:
eh, it would probably be too fat. :?