3:55s an OPTION on 08s ???
1/2/08, 04:09 PM
#1
Cobra R Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 22, 2005
Location: Lost Angels
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3:55s an OPTION on 08s ???
I was pricing an 08 GT/CS on Ford's site when I saw one of the options was 3:55 gears. Since when is this an option? I thought the 3:55s were standard. What is the standard gearing on the 08s ?
1/2/08, 04:37 PM
#5
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: May 24, 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 7,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1/2/08, 05:31 PM
#7
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 16, 2007
Location: West Chicago
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 for the price of the factory option you can buy the higher ratio gears. Just make sure that you get a place to install the gears that is known for good gear installations. Proper installation should run $250-$350.
1/2/08, 08:36 PM
#9
Bullitt Member
Join Date: February 13, 2007
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What really sucked was in 07 the 3.55 option was something like $87, in 08 the 3.55 option was $300. I guess they had to make up for the fact that the side air bags were standard in 08.
1/2/08, 10:34 PM
#10
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 16, 2007
Location: West Chicago
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford gets to claim better standard safety features and make you pay on the sticker cause all the salespeople spec the cool cars out with the 3.55s. The one I ended up getting has the 3.55s. Kind of a waste cause they're going to be replaced with 4.10s soonish and reusing previously installed gears is a leading cause of nightmares.
1/3/08, 05:08 AM
#11
Founding MOTM
Committee Member
Committee Member
If you're going to mod the car to the point past bumper removal, then save the money for the beefier gears. If you're not really planning on modding too much for a while, then go with the upgrade. Its all a matter of timing. Of course that's my opinion.
...although in the end, we say we won't mod at first and yet we still do. I remember when I didn't want stripes. Its an addictive thing, these vehicles.
...although in the end, we say we won't mod at first and yet we still do. I remember when I didn't want stripes. Its an addictive thing, these vehicles.
1/3/08, 07:34 AM
#12
V6 Member
Join Date: May 2, 2007
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys.. not everytihng is a consipiracy to milk you out of your money... 
Switching to the 3.31 being the standard was actually a fuel standards move. The EPA made Ford revise the mileage on the mustangs and with the 3.55's as the standard gear, they couldn't make the fuel standard. So, rather than making every mustang owner pay for the uber-gas guzzler tax, they lowered the standard gearing to get the stang to pass the fuel mileage standards.
How dare Ford make a smart move like that? I would much rather pay $1500 in taxes than $300 in options...
Switching to the 3.31 being the standard was actually a fuel standards move. The EPA made Ford revise the mileage on the mustangs and with the 3.55's as the standard gear, they couldn't make the fuel standard. So, rather than making every mustang owner pay for the uber-gas guzzler tax, they lowered the standard gearing to get the stang to pass the fuel mileage standards.
How dare Ford make a smart move like that? I would much rather pay $1500 in taxes than $300 in options...
1/3/08, 08:17 AM
#13
GT Bob nailed it right on the head. Anyway, just save your money and get better gears later. My 05 came with 3.55's but I still plan on swapping them out for 4.10's this spring.
1/3/08, 08:35 AM
#14
Legacy TMS Member
I paid the $87 for the optional 3.55s on my 07 GT. It wasn't too bad, although I wish I stayed with 3.31s for better gas mileage.
The same thing happened with my 00 Crown Vic. The standard gear set is 2.73:1, resulting in an EPA rated gas mileage of 18/25. However, the optional 3.55 gearset from the Handling and Performance Package, yields significantly lower gas mileage! The 2000 Police Interceptor comes with 3.55s standard and was rated 16/21. My actual gas mileage was about 15/20 with 17-18 mpg in combined driving.
The only time I came close to 21 mpg was when I drafted behind a semi hauler at 75 mph for over 300 miles.
In contrast, our 2003 E-250 (equipped with optional Trak-Loc 3.73, a Dana-60 9.75" rear end) can get 23+ mpg on the highway w/ the air conditioning by drafting behind a semi for 300+ miles... A 5500 lb cargo van gets better gas mileage than my 4000 lb sedan!
The same thing happened with my 00 Crown Vic. The standard gear set is 2.73:1, resulting in an EPA rated gas mileage of 18/25. However, the optional 3.55 gearset from the Handling and Performance Package, yields significantly lower gas mileage! The 2000 Police Interceptor comes with 3.55s standard and was rated 16/21. My actual gas mileage was about 15/20 with 17-18 mpg in combined driving.
The only time I came close to 21 mpg was when I drafted behind a semi hauler at 75 mph for over 300 miles.
In contrast, our 2003 E-250 (equipped with optional Trak-Loc 3.73, a Dana-60 9.75" rear end) can get 23+ mpg on the highway w/ the air conditioning by drafting behind a semi for 300+ miles... A 5500 lb cargo van gets better gas mileage than my 4000 lb sedan!
1/3/08, 09:37 AM
#15
Cobra R Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 22, 2005
Location: Lost Angels
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well,
seeing as how I have a Whipple HO blower ready to go on it as soon as I get it, I'm reluctant to go with 4:10s, although 3:73s might fit the bill.
seeing as how I have a Whipple HO blower ready to go on it as soon as I get it, I'm reluctant to go with 4:10s, although 3:73s might fit the bill.
1/3/08, 09:52 AM
#17
Mach 1 Member
While I wasn't super keen on the price jump from 07 to 08 to get the 3.55 option, I still went with it because for me it's a nice medium between go-fast and gas mileage. Plus I don't have any warranty hassles to worry about with it.
If I hadn't planned on my GT as a DD, then I would have saved my money and gone with 3.73's later.
Anyone have any data about how much the expected difference in MPG one would expect between 3.31 and 3.73? Just curious. If there's a thread I missed, I'll be happy to be pointed in the right direction.
If I hadn't planned on my GT as a DD, then I would have saved my money and gone with 3.73's later.
Anyone have any data about how much the expected difference in MPG one would expect between 3.31 and 3.73? Just curious. If there's a thread I missed, I'll be happy to be pointed in the right direction.
