2.73 vs 3.15 rear end/ automatic
Thread Starter
Le Mans Master
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 5,492
Likes: 2
From: Florida
2.73 vs 3.15 rear end/ automatic
How much REAL performance dfifference is there in these two rear ends on automatics and what are the pros and cons of each? Looking at a auto 2.73 for possible buy. Also looking at a 3.15.
Team Owner
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 54,204
Likes: 180
From: S.W. Ohio. . . . . . NRA Life Member
To be totally honest, I wouldn't touch a 2.73 A4 unless you were 100% certain to upgrade it in the near future.
the 2.73 is nicknamed the "Gore Gears". A performance car should never have such a ratio
GM has to do this to please the CAFE group (which is a fancy name for the environ-mentalcases ).
But if there is a definite rear axle ratio upgrade in your future, I would consider either one.
the 2.73 is nicknamed the "Gore Gears". A performance car should never have such a ratio
GM has to do this to please the CAFE group (which is a fancy name for the environ-mentalcases ).But if there is a definite rear axle ratio upgrade in your future, I would consider either one.
Safety Car
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,640
Likes: 0
From: Sunshine State
Originally Posted by viperZ06
How much REAL performance dfifference is there in these two rear ends on automatics and what are the pros and cons of each? Looking at a auto 2.73 for possible buy. Also looking at a 3.15.
Safety Car
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,640
Likes: 0
From: Sunshine State
Originally Posted by shurite44
I think I would stick with the 3:15 even if you plan to upgrade. Not sure if this still holds true but when I was checking the vendors would not take the 2:73 as a trade in.
Team Owner
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 38,314
Likes: 35
Originally Posted by Korreck
Buy either one. If you get the 2:73 figure on replacing it with a 3:42. The 3:15 may not be worth the price of changing it.
Except on the point where it might not be worth it to change the 3.15. Tthe 3.15 is not widely regarded as being that great of a "performance" ratio either. The advantage of it vs the 2.73 is that the 3.15 will give you improved performance at least until you can change to a real performance ratio like 3.42 or 3.73.
Safety Car
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,640
Likes: 0
From: Sunshine State
Originally Posted by EB20003
Except on the point where it might not be worth it to change the 3.15. Tthe 3.15 is not widely regarded as being that great of a "performance" ratio either. The advantage of it vs the 2.73 is that the 3.15 will give you improved performance at least until you can change to a real performance ratio like 3.42 or 3.73.
It's comimg. Mary says I need to go back to work first. She says I spend to much money. I told her to get a job. I'm looking.
It's getting to damn hot down here anyway.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvette Engines RANKED by Peak Torque (70+ Years of Muscle!)
Joe Kucinski
Corvette ZR1X Will Be Pacing the Indy 500, And Could Probably Race, Too!
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvettes Coming to Mecum Indy 2026!
Brett Foote
Drifting
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,791
Likes: 0
From: NE PA
Originally Posted by viperZ06
How much REAL performance dfifference is there in these two rear ends on automatics and what are the pros and cons of each? Looking at a auto 2.73 for possible buy. Also looking at a 3.15.
Another thing to consider is that the 2.73 rear has a different carrier so the switch to deeper gears becomes more complicated and expensive if your car is equipped with them. If you have the 3.15s, it's a simple ring and pinion swap using your carrier.
Lastly, if you do a swap, skip the 3.42s, and go right to 3.73s. You'll be glad you did.
Safety Car
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,640
Likes: 0
From: Sunshine State
Originally Posted by XTrooper
There's a world of difference between the two, but the plain fact is neither one of them is worth a damn and both are "desert gears" which you'll want to replace as soon as possible. I bought my car with the 3.15s and even while making 400+ rwhp, the car felt weak below 4000 rpm. Gears are your friend.
Another thing to consider is that the 2.73 rear has a different carrier so the switch to deeper gears becomes more complicated and expensive if your car is equipped with them. If you have the 3.15s, it's a simple ring and pinion swap using your carrier.
Lastly, if you do a swap, skip the 3.42s, and go right to 3.73s. You'll be glad you did.
Another thing to consider is that the 2.73 rear has a different carrier so the switch to deeper gears becomes more complicated and expensive if your car is equipped with them. If you have the 3.15s, it's a simple ring and pinion swap using your carrier.
Lastly, if you do a swap, skip the 3.42s, and go right to 3.73s. You'll be glad you did.
You can get the complete unit installed or just the gears. Find the very best in your area to do the work.
Originally Posted by Vette_Fan
Anyone wanna chime in the difference it makes on gas milage, when going from 2.73 to 3.15 OR 3.42....?
Safety Car
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,509
Likes: 240
From: Coconut Creek FL
In my 97 A4 with 3:15's I can turn 2500 RPM at 85MPH...I can get 25 MPG in her as well...I drove a 2:73 car before I got this one...all I can say was it felt like a station wagon taking off...not a vette...I agree 3:15's are not really a performace gear set...but its better then 2:73's!
Good luck! GM Parts direct has a new Z06 3:42 rear (entire unit) for +\- $900 bucks...at least they did the last time I was there...I believe Fred Bean (Forum Vendor) also has them...
Good luck! GM Parts direct has a new Z06 3:42 rear (entire unit) for +\- $900 bucks...at least they did the last time I was there...I believe Fred Bean (Forum Vendor) also has them...
Le Mans Master
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,386
Likes: 0
From: Just a little outside San Antonio, Texas
When I had my 2004 A4 coupe with the stock 2.73 gears and torque converter, I was getting about 23 mpg city and 30.5 mpg highway. When I switched over to the 3.42 gears and 2800 TC, I was getting 18 city and 26.5 highway.
I think I was taking a bigger hit on the city mpg because I spend more time in stop and go traffic and tended to accelerate faster.
I think I was taking a bigger hit on the city mpg because I spend more time in stop and go traffic and tended to accelerate faster.
Advanced
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by XTrooper
There's a world of difference between the two, but the plain fact is neither one of them is worth a damn and both are "desert gears" which you'll want to replace as soon as possible. I bought my car with the 3.15s and even while making 400+ rwhp, the car felt weak below 4000 rpm. Gears are your friend.
Another thing to consider is that the 2.73 rear has a different carrier so the switch to deeper gears becomes more complicated and expensive if your car is equipped with them. If you have the 3.15s, it's a simple ring and pinion swap using your carrier.
Lastly, if you do a swap, skip the 3.42s, and go right to 3.73s. You'll be glad you did.
Another thing to consider is that the 2.73 rear has a different carrier so the switch to deeper gears becomes more complicated and expensive if your car is equipped with them. If you have the 3.15s, it's a simple ring and pinion swap using your carrier.
Lastly, if you do a swap, skip the 3.42s, and go right to 3.73s. You'll be glad you did.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Team Owner
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 38,314
Likes: 35
Originally Posted by ArmyVette
When I had my 2004 A4 coupe with the stock 2.73 gears and torque converter, I was getting about 23 mpg city and 30.5 mpg highway. When I switched over to the 3.42 gears and 2800 TC, I was getting 18 city and 26.5 highway.
I think I was taking a bigger hit on the city mpg because I spend more time in stop and go traffic and tended to accelerate faster.
I think I was taking a bigger hit on the city mpg because I spend more time in stop and go traffic and tended to accelerate faster.
Thats about where I am gas mileage wise.
I would think long and hard before going to 3.73s for this reason. There is also an increase in cruising RPMs on the highway, as well as potential traction issues if considering 3.73s and remaining with runflat tires.
3.42s are about the extent of it if you intend to stick with runflat tires.
Also, a few people here have gone from 3.15 to 3.42 and claim a noticable difference. In fact Mike Mercury's gear swap page shows a change from 3.15 to 3.42.
Safety Car
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,640
Likes: 0
From: Sunshine State
Originally Posted by EB20003
Thats about where I am gas mileage wise.
I would think long and hard before going to 3.73s for this reason. There is also an increase in cruising RPMs on the highway, as well as potential traction issues if considering 3.73s and remaining with runflat tires.
3.42s are about the extent of it if you intend to stick with runflat tires.
Also, a few people here have gone from 3.15 to 3.42 and claim a noticable difference. In fact Mike Mercury's gear swap page shows a change from 3.15 to 3.42.
Last edited by Korreck; May 24, 2005 at 09:15 AM.
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,653
Likes: 428
From: Melbourne Florida
Cruise-In IV Veteran
Originally Posted by Korreck
Good mornen EB. What you say makes sense and I would have thought the same but a friend of mine, Fuzzy Dice runs a 3:73 and is really happy with it. I will contact him and ask him to put in his .02 He's the reason I now wish I had gone to a 3:73.
I run right at 2850 rpm cruising at 80 mph...gas mileage is about 25 mpg highway and 18 mpg city...I have gotten 28 mpg on the highway with the cruise set at 72 mph....
I have 110,000+ miles on the car now and have had no problems...btw, I am running a 2400 stall converter and a full race Transgo shift kit also.....good luck
Safety Car
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,640
Likes: 0
From: Sunshine State
Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dice
Yes, I run 3:73's in my 93 and have for almost 4 years...I drove it daily until last October...I also have averaged over 120 passes a year at the drag strip for the last 3 years...I have taken three decent length trips as well ranging from 1500 to 2100 miles...
I run right at 2850 rpm cruising at 80 mph...gas mileage is about 25 mpg highway and 18 mpg city...I have gotten 28 mpg on the highway with the cruise set at 72 mph....
I have 110,000+ miles on the car now and have had no problems...btw, I am running a 2400 stall converter and a full race Transgo shift kit also.....good luck
I run right at 2850 rpm cruising at 80 mph...gas mileage is about 25 mpg highway and 18 mpg city...I have gotten 28 mpg on the highway with the cruise set at 72 mph....
I have 110,000+ miles on the car now and have had no problems...btw, I am running a 2400 stall converter and a full race Transgo shift kit also.....good luck
Drifting
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,791
Likes: 0
From: NE PA
Originally Posted by ArmyVette
I think I was taking a bigger hit on the city mpg because I spend more time in stop and go traffic and tended to accelerate faster.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,027
Likes: 6
From: Shiloh Ohio
Originally Posted by DynoTech Engineering
We do... 