2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) 1986-1992 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections.

3.90 rear end in 87 NA sport w/5speed

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 3, 2001 | 08:33 AM
  #1  
PaulC's Avatar
Thread Starter
Three spinning triangles
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
From: Been all around this world and still call Texas home (Ft Worth)
3.90 rear end in 87 NA sport w/5speed

OK you probably think Im crazy for having done that but my rear end had problems and was turning itself into junk. And the 3.90 was free

But I just finished off my first tank of gas and driving in Dallas traffic to and from work. I got 28.7 mpg, thats 363 miles on 12.x galons of gas. I was lucy to get 300 miles a tank with the old rear end.

With gas prices expected to go up again here shortly since OPEC has announced another reduction in production and drilling. The 3.90 rear end might become a sought after piece.

Then again I might be having flashbacks too , just kidding.
Reply
Old Jan 18, 2008 | 02:53 AM
  #2  
DoubleRX7Dee's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Portland
Same project in mind! :O

I actually have the same exact project in mind....I think anyways

I'm hoping to put my 1984 GSL first-gen (FB) 3.909:1 rear end gears into my 1987 rx7 base model(or SE I guess...) gas prices steadily climbing is killing me in my probably 20 MPG at best 4.10:1 rear end.....and I have the turdy first gen car sooo....
all I want to know is will the pumpkin out of the first gen car just unbolt and drop right into the second gen's rear end? giving me a nice little clutch type LSD and a better gear ratio for gas milage??
Reply
Old Jan 18, 2008 | 02:41 PM
  #3  
ericgrau's Avatar
Clean.
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,521
Likes: 3
From: Huntington Beach, CA
I was actually wondering about this for a while. Cool, I'll keep it in mind.

Best bet is probably the convertable rear end.
Reply
Old Jan 18, 2008 | 05:23 PM
  #4  
311unity13B's Avatar
That's JDM tight, yo
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,599
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
jesus christ, i only get 200 miles out of a tank
Reply
Old Jan 18, 2008 | 06:05 PM
  #5  
kungfuroy's Avatar
Chicken Adobo
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,729
Likes: 0
From: City of Angels
Originally Posted by DoubleRX7Dee
all I want to know is will the pumpkin out of the first gen car just unbolt and drop right into the second gen's rear end? giving me a nice little clutch type LSD and a better gear ratio for gas milage??
no, the 2nd gen uses a long pinion gear
Reply
Old Jan 18, 2008 | 08:24 PM
  #6  
HotRodMex's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
did you change the speedo gear in the transmission?
Reply
Old Jan 18, 2008 | 08:30 PM
  #7  
ericgrau's Avatar
Clean.
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,521
Likes: 3
From: Huntington Beach, CA
In case anyone gets mislead by this thread, most people go in the opposite direction for better acceleration. With the 3.90 you get better gas mileage but your acceleration suffers. Mainly in 1st gear I think, but it also makes it more similar to driving a 4 speed transmission in terms of acceleration in other gears.
Reply
Old Jan 18, 2008 | 08:42 PM
  #8  
slo's Avatar
slo
registered user
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
going for 4.1 to 3.9 is only going to make about 200 rpm of difference, you could make more of a difference to your mileage by driving 3 MPH slower.
Reply
Old Jan 18, 2008 | 11:27 PM
  #9  
Ex-Eg-Driver's Avatar
RX-7 DISCIPLE
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
From: NorCal,California
Originally Posted by slo
going for 4.1 to 3.9 is only going to make about 200 rpm of difference, you could make more of a difference to your mileage by driving 3 MPH slower.
X2

haha
Reply
Old Jan 19, 2008 | 12:51 AM
  #10  
03/08/87's Avatar
Full Member
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: I-55 @ I20
Let me guess, you don't have power steering or AC.


that's the only way I could imagine getting that kind of mpg


Did you cruise at 60 the whole way?
Reply
Old Jan 19, 2008 | 12:52 AM
  #11  
03/08/87's Avatar
Full Member
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: I-55 @ I20
Awesome man.


I like to measure how 'well in tune' a motor is by how much mpg you can get from it.
Reply
Old Jan 19, 2008 | 01:17 AM
  #12  
Icemark's Avatar
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 24
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally Posted by DoubleRX7Dee
I actually have the same exact project in mind....I think anyways

I'm hoping to put my 1984 GSL first-gen (FB) 3.909:1 rear end gears into my 1987 rx7 base model(or SE I guess...) gas prices steadily climbing is killing me in my probably 20 MPG at best 4.10:1 rear end.....and I have the turdy first gen car sooo....
all I want to know is will the pumpkin out of the first gen car just unbolt and drop right into the second gen's rear end? giving me a nice little clutch type LSD and a better gear ratio for gas milage??
wow you don't often see a thread from 2001 brought back by a newbie.

The first gen GSL uses too small of a differential for you to use a gear from one on a FC.

And the 3.9 rear end is available from any FC coupe with a auto tranny that would fit and is a bolt in.
Reply
Old Jan 19, 2008 | 07:57 AM
  #13  
rotarybeat1287's Avatar
Visual Kei
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (16)
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 2
From: Mtns of NC/SC
Yeah my FC was an auto and when we swapped everything over to a 5-speed, we just left the 3.90 in there. I do get pretty good gas mileage for what the car is. But I'm not like obsessive over mpg numbers or anything.

1991 coupe btw.
Reply
Old Jan 19, 2008 | 10:44 AM
  #14  
HotRodMex's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
HA, didn't notice the age on the OP. Guess I'm not going to get a response to my question

Originally Posted by slo
going for 4.1 to 3.9 is only going to make about 200 rpm of difference, you could make more of a difference to your mileage by driving 3 MPH slower.
Are you sure the difference is that small? I know cruising at 80 the difference between a 4.1 and a 4.3 is like 600 rpm or something.
Reply
Old Jan 19, 2008 | 01:15 PM
  #15  
slo's Avatar
slo
registered user
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
I used a java based gear ratio calculator, and came up with less than a 200 rpm difference in 5th at 75.

Easy math shows the change is about 5% worth, thats very small in practical terms.


Originally Posted by HotRodMex
HA, didn't notice the age on the OP. Guess I'm not going to get a response to my question



Are you sure the difference is that small? I know cruising at 80 the difference between a 4.1 and a 4.3 is like 600 rpm or something.

Last edited by slo; Jan 19, 2008 at 01:40 PM.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Th0m4s
Build Threads
25
Feb 26, 2019 02:04 AM
coltboostin
Rotary Drag Racing
0
Aug 20, 2015 11:37 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 PM.