>No, I want BIGGER rims, not smaller! But I could get some 13x10
>positive offset gold wire wheels and some really small tires - cool!
>
>But seriously, is that a YES to changing the rear end to give me a
>better freeway speed driveability/mileage?
If I remember correctly (the 1600 being 3.90/the 2000 being 3.70), and
considering that the 1600 has less torque than the 2000 (all other things
being correct) and the 1600 may not want to pull the taller (3.70)
gearing very well. Hopefully someone else can answer that specifically,
based on experience. Personally, unless I were driving the car a
considerable distance every day on the freeway, I'd lean toward what
gives the better performance. These cars are anything but quiet in any
case and the new small sedans of any make are going to far exceed
roadster mileage figures.
Regarding the shorter tires you're considering, I think there's a chart
(spreadsheet?) floating around that gives tire revolutions/mile for
different diameters. It may be on Dave Lum's <www.datsuns.com> site. I'll
see if I can find it and post the info. If I don't find one it shouldn't
be hard to do. In any case, for something like this to offer accurate
predictions you'd need to actually measure the mounted and inflated
diameter of the tire. Even then there will be slight inaccuracies do to
weight of the car deceasing the functional diameter.
Too many numbers. I'm getting a headache. <grin>
FWIW, Ron
Ronnie Day
ronday@home.com
Dallas/Ft. Worth
'71 510 2-dr (Prepared Class Autocrosser)
'73 510 2-dr (Street Toy)
|