Nope, I used to believe the Ford pinion myth also. Now a 9" over a stock rear, yes it takes more power but 3-5rwhp isnt bad compaired to the dana60. That DANA 60 is a freakin' monster. I guess I need to test my Dana 44 !!!
I'm with ya on the 8.8 rear. A few guys have even done it.
Yes my original numbers are a bit off but here is the test GM Hightech did.
Full story.
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/tech/0804gmhtp_strange_s60_moser_m9_rearends/viewall.html
Comparative Results
So far, we've discussed numerous differences between the two packages featured in this story (one of them being the state of completion each axle assembly is shipped in). But we also decided to do a bit more detective work to compare and contrast the two kits even further. Though by no means an apples-to-apples comparison-remember, each of these companies offers several different rear-axle assembly packages compatible with 4th-gen F-bodies-we'd like to give you, the readers, as much information as possible in hopes of steering you in the direction of the "right" axle assembly for your application.
First off, there is the issue of mass. Though aftermarket axle assemblies are far stronger than the F-body's stock 10-bolt, the added meat required to support this strength does incur a weight penalty. More weight to drag around means reduced acceleration; plus, an axle assembly is unsprung weight, so a more massive one will affect suspension behavior. With that in mind, we decided to weigh the stock rear and compare it to the Strange and Moser units. With all rears at the same stage of assembly-no brakes and no fluid, torque arm variations not factored in-the breakdown is as follows (keep in mind that these are dry weights, so differing fluid capacities can factor in to actual running weight):
TABLE OF REAR-AXLE ASSEMBLY WEIGHTS:
Rear Dry WeightChange from
StockGM 10-bolt....154.6 lb-
Strange S60 .........222.8 lb+68.2 lb
Moser M9..............205.6 lb+51.0 lb A aluminum center chunk will free up 20-30lbs and a spool a bit more.
Secondly, one thing you may not think of with regard to added mass is that it can also come into play in power loss. More massive axles and gears require more energy to get up to speed, adversely affecting rear wheel horsepower. Other factors, like internal friction, play in as well, of course. This friction may be attributable to bearing properties, along with axle fluid viscosity and flow behavior, and can also be influenced by geometric concerns like the diameter of the ring gear (which is intertwined with the properties of how the ring-and-pinion mesh). Though the physics involved may merit a full-blown engineering discussion in a future issue, for now we decided to do before-and-after testing of both of these project cars on TTP's Dynojet for a quick comparison. Our results are:
TABLE OF REAR-WHEEL HORSEPOWER/TORQUE CHANGES:
Car Rear Old HP/TQ RearNew HP/TQ%
LossJensen Camaro Stock...3.42...412.5/390.0
Strange S60 ....................3.73...397.9/376.0 3.5/3.6%loss
Werner Trans Am Stock......3.42...441.2/432.3
Moser M9.........................3.70...436.6/428.6 1.0/0.9%loss
We're quoting the new and old axle ratios because a numerically higher rear-axle ratio necessarily reduces measured rear wheel horsepower on a dynamometer (again, for reasons that would best be described in a no-holds-barred engineering analysis). But you can see that the gear ratios used in both of our new rears were virtually identical, so this factor can pretty much be taken as a constant in comparing the percent loss difference between the two axle assemblies (though before and after dynoing on different days probably should not, even with our use of SAE correction factors).
A final note on the M9 is in order because of its fully adjustable torque arm system. Readers should be aware of what a well-constructed piece this is, and think about the fact that it was included in the price of our M9 assembly. Once installed, we adjusted this system to provide the Moser-recommended 1 degree of downward pinion angle (compared to the driveshaft angle) before hitting the dyno, and while no track testing of any sort has been done thus far, the system has performed admirably on the street, with the exception that some extra engine and road noise is now transmitted into the passenger compartment (thanks to the solid rod end connection between the torque arm and the transmission crossmember). We're confident this unit will help us put down some sick 60-foot times when the time comes to hit the strip. The system feels like it would perform admirably on a road course as well (the latter assessment is, of course, a bit subjective).
As to his new S60, Jensen is enjoying it very much. While it needed a quick Panhard adjustment to center the rear, and does transmit some gear noise into the cockpit, he's impressed with the ease of installation and can't wait for Raceway Park to open back up to finally do some high-rpm clutch dumps!