![]() |
#8 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: CenCoast California
Posts: 897
|
![]()
I am skeptical of Killebrew's information.
Back in the day, I spoke with Corvette development engineers about the 3.54 vs 3.45 debacle, one of them being my old friend, Jim Ingle. All during development, the 3.54 axle had a noise problem. Chevrolet believed it would be a customer satisfaction problem once cars went on sale and pressed Dana to fix it. Turns out that the noise was inherent with the 3.54 ring-and-pinion's tooth count and, thus, could not be eliminated. Further development discovered a 3.45 ratio, with a different tooth count, could provide virtually the same performance but without the noise. The idea that 3.54 axles went to countries with noise restrictions is ridiculous. Not only were rear ends with the 3.54 ratio noisier, but cars equipped with them would have noisier exhaust, too, because for a given vehicle speed, engine rpm would be higher. No saleable ZR-1 was built with a 3.54 axle. Only the prototypes and some pilots got them, but that included some of the cars the media evaluated during the first round of magazine road tests, many of which were done with the '89s.
__________________
Hib Halverson Technical Writer former owner 95 VIN 0140 current owner 19 VIN 1878 |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|