Looks like my rear end needs a new ring and pinion gear set (or at least a decent used set). As I'm replacing both, and rebuilding the rear end, drive shaft and have a rebuilt motor .... I'm toying with the idea of going 'up' one notch on the gear ratio ladder for a bump up in speed. Not that I really want more speed, but wondering if it changes the 'shift spot' between low and high. Seems like it would extend low band, but high band would start higher, as well?
In parades, I'm always mess'n with being between low and high. Staying in low a bit longer might help, but don't want to dogg it WORSE in 2nd, either.
A lot of it depends on the type of car you have. If it's heavy, a larger ratio would be beneficial.
To be honest, if you're doing a lot of parading, I would recommend going to a 4:1 (10 tooth pinion, stock ring gear). It will also give you a little more torque for climbing hills, and your stock transmission brake will work better. Top speed will be slightly slower (slightly). The motor just turns a little faster.
I plan on moving to a 4:1 in my '24 Touring. I give lots of rides, sometimes with really heavy people, and can benefit from the larger ratio. We also have some steep hills here in OKC, and a lot of wind!
A closer ratio, such as 3:1, is going to mean that your motor has to work harder for the same speed. Your top end actually isn't going to increase much, and may even decrease, especially if you motor doesn't have the torque to pull it. You'll fly going flat and level, but good luck on those hills!
The stock 3.63:1 is an all around good ratio for most cars.
Around here (Detroit) is pretty darn flat. If/when I haul it back to Petoskey (Northern Michigan) ... it's full of hills (lots more fun driving!).
And it's a pickup. And my wife and I aren't as light as we used to be. I think I might go for the 4:1. I'd rather have a bit more torque for the hills of Petoskey. Normal driving around here ... higher speeds might just get me in trouble, anyway. ;-)
I like the standard 3.63 ratio also for all around use and I team it with a Ruckstell. The Ruckstell works great for parades also.
I must admit, I really like my Ruckstell.
I took Keith's approach. Added the Ruckstell and stayed with the standard ratio. There's isn't a hill I can't easily climb with the Touring car and I never use low much except starting out. Ruckstell low is great for parades. They are not cheap, but I am considering pairing a KC Warford with the stock rear end ratio for even more flexibility.
I have a Ruckstell and standard gears in my Roadster, I love it. Just ran a tour that pulled Lolo Pass, Lost Trail Pass and Skalkaho Pass. Pulled them all real nice. My Tudor has a KC Warford and 4.1 gears. It pulled the 9% grade up to Big Mountain here in Whitefish at 27 mph with three people in it. I love the Ruckstell but the KC Warford 4.1 combo is super here in the mountains. Also the OD in the Warford let me run along at 45 mph at 1680 rpm. all day.
I have know several folks who installed faster gear ratios, even with Ruckstell, but were happier when they eventually went back to the stock 3.63 ratio.
To get moving from a stand still is very hard to do unless you are on dead level or slightly downhill when you mess around with a higher speed ratio. If you have a Ruckstell you really need to use it. That is you need to go into low Ruckstell every time you start out from a stop.
Unless you have a warford its best to stay with stock.3.63:1.
Been there, done that.
No need to re-engineer what Henry designed for rear axle ratio. Friends have tried 3 to 1 and found engine is lugged in hills at best and at worst had to climb with low pedal. I know of several who tour have returned to 11/40 as originally built and are much happier.
Let me reiterate my point.
3:1 gear ratios are pretty much worthless, except for souped-up speedsters, but the 4:1 is not. It has a genuine place in the T world. Even Ford thought so, and offered it as a factory option.
I know that Ruckstells coupled with different ratios offer all kinds of advantages and disadvantages, but not everyone can afford to get one, myself included! I can't say that Dennis is interested in going that route either. His question was not about Ruckstells, but simply about changing the gear ratios.
The 4:1 is excellent for those who want to climb hills better, but without the cost of a Ruckstell.
I think 4:1 will be a good choice for Dennis and his RPU, especially if he intends to haul anything. Plus, engine braking will be more effective, as will the stock transmission brake. It will definitely take the edge off the hills, only at the cost of a couple of MPH of cruising speed.
I think that many here are forgetting that 3.64:1 and 4:1 were BOTH offered from the factory.
Here is a table of gear ratios.
Hi, Cameron... exactly... no Rux to make up the difference... so 10 or 11 it is. I suspect it might lower the entry poi t for high gear too... so it would be a tad less 'doggy, at the low end of high? If that makes sense.