Re: 700r4 Real axle ratio

Posted by Owen_Dyneto On 2015/4/1 15:12:57
People need to speak the same language when they chit-chat about rear axle ratios. When one speaks of a "higher rear axle ratio" if leaves open the question of whether they mean higher numerically, or of a higher gear ratio (meaning closer to 1:1 or direct drive), which are opposites. Numerically higher means, gear ratio-wise, a lower gear ratio meaning more engine revolutions per mile. A 4.69 ratio is numerically higher than a 4.07, but in the other context higher can mean a lower ratio because it is closer to direct drive, i.e. lower engine revs per mile. Just to complicate that, there is the expression of "taller" gears, which means lower numerically, i.e. possibly a higher top speed, assuming the power is there to take advantage of it.

Clear as mud?

Higher numerically: 4.69 is higher than 4.07
Higher non-numerically: 4.07 is higher than 4.69
Taller, 4.07 is taller than 4.69

As Jack and I were pointing out, the risk in going to "low" (meaning numerically lower) or "higher or taller" is engine lugging at lower engine revs which can do the dirty deed to main bearings. I'd rather have my engine rather effortlessly spinning without much effort at 2500 rpm than having it working its guts out and lugging at 1500 rpm or less.

This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=159817