Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*4\.55\'s\s+vs\s+2\.88\'s\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*4\.55\'s\s+vs\s+2\.88\'s\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. 4.55's vs 2.88's (score: 1): Author: Steve Laifman <laifman@flash.net>; Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:23:51 -0700; Chris, and Tigers, On your 4.55's. I am not sure whether you have a Mk I, IA, or a Mk II. The usual reason people put those high numeric rear ends in is to get that low speed thrust. It results, howe; /html/tigers/1999-09/msg00286.html (12,450 bytes)
2. Re: 4.55's vs 2.88's (score: 1): Author: DrMayf@aol.com; Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:03:27 EDT; I've done both rear gear sets. If you drive the car on the street, forget the 4.55s. If you do nothing but autocross or drag, go for the 4.55. There is nothing worse than thrashing your ears at freew; /html/tigers/1999-09/msg00301.html (7,106 bytes)
3. Re: 4.55's vs 2.88's (score: 1): Author: Paul Burr <tigerpb@ids.net>; Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:37:27 -0400; My '65 Tiger came with a factory posi and a @ 3.17 ratio. This was just about right for all around driving and still being able to get up and go at a decent clip from a stop light.; /html/tigers/1999-09/msg00305.html (7,401 bytes)
4. Re: 4.55's vs 2.88's (score: 1): Author: TigerCoupe@aol.com; Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:52:20 EDT; Hey Dr. Maif, What you probably have is a 3.07 ratio. A number of early Tigers were delivered with this ratio, and while it is an improvement over 2.88s, it hardly provides neck-snapping performance.; /html/tigers/1999-09/msg00306.html (8,321 bytes)
5. Re: 4.55's vs 2.88's (score: 1): Author: Tiger289@aol.com; Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:00:20 EDT; I believe you mean 3.07, but you are right, it is a good all around gear. Andy Ps As I remember the only gears available were 2.88, 3.07, 3.23, 3.54, 3.73. Did I miss any?; /html/tigers/1999-09/msg00311.html (6,967 bytes)
6. Re: 4.55's vs 2.88's (score: 1): Author: Tiger289@aol.com; Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:55:22 EDT; And I missed 3.92 or is that 3.90?; /html/tigers/1999-09/msg00312.html (6,857 bytes)
7. Re: 4.55's vs 2.88's (score: 1): Author: Larry Paulick <larry.p@erols.com>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:42:04 -0400; Dick, I counted the revolutions of the wheel to determine my gear ratio, without taking off the cover. Saved the mess. There was a tag on the diff cover bolt that was stamped C54. My counting of the; /html/tigers/1999-09/msg00316.html (7,227 bytes)
8. Re: 4.55's vs 2.88's (score: 1): Author: "Doug Mallory" <rdmallory@earthling.net>; Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:14:17 -0400; There are more, As I remember IH Scout used a different ratio then Jeep. Doug gear. 3.73.; /html/tigers/1999-09/msg00339.html (7,530 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]