Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Iroc Z
Engine: 350
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
I recently purchased my neighbor's '86 bone-stock IROC-Z. I also own a L98 '87 IROC-Z and was shocked at the factory performance difference between the two. I'd like to do a mild performance upgrade on the '86 while trying to keep the "factory" label. How well will the car take say a 3:23 rear end in exchange for the factory 2:73?
Last edited by 87YELLOWZ; 05-11-2015 at 03:02 PM.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Car: 1988 Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: LB9 (305 TPI)
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 2.73 Positraction
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
4th gen rear swap are incredibly easy and cheap, and show up in the junkyards pretty commonly nowadays. I got my 3:23 rear from a 95 Z/28 with positrac and discs for under $100. You have to run 4th gen offset rims or deal with the wheels sticking out, but it's still far less expensive than ordering and installing gearsets for series 2 differentials or the disc brake conversion kits, or even finding a 3rd gen disc and posi rear of the gearing you desire. The only complications to installing a 4th gen rear are the metric brake line fitting (and that's only an issue if your car is pre-metric conversion and even then an easy fix) and parking brake cables (use 91-92 disc brake cables). Everything else bolts right in.
#6
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 9,666
Received 546 Likes
on
376 Posts
Car: 1989 IROC-Z. Original owner
Engine: LB9. Dual Cats. Big Cam
Transmission: World Class T-5
Axle/Gears: BW 3.45
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
Are you sure it's a 2.73? Is your car an LB9 or LG4?
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Car: 1988 Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: LB9 (305 TPI)
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 2.73 Positraction
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
It's quite possible to be an LB9 IROC and still only 2:73. My 1988 LB9 IROC-Z has a factory 2:73 posi rear, confirmed in the RPO codes.
Trending Topics
#8
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
Changing the gears is not s simple bolt in job. If you decide to take it on then I recommend reading the thread in the FAQ about 10 bolts sticky. You can get a thick 3.23 to fit your 2 series differential. You would also need a good installation kit.
#9
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 9,666
Received 546 Likes
on
376 Posts
Car: 1989 IROC-Z. Original owner
Engine: LB9. Dual Cats. Big Cam
Transmission: World Class T-5
Axle/Gears: BW 3.45
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
Not in 1986. All IROC-Z LB9s came with a 3.23 that year. The best way to be sure is to check the SPID. I'm sure the original poster would be pretty pissed if he bought a 3.23 gear set, took his rear end apart, only to find that it already has a 3.23.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Car: 1988 Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: LB9 (305 TPI)
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 2.73 Positraction
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
http://www.nastyz28.com/camaro/camaro86.html
http://www.f-body.org/tech/tech.htm
http://www.iroczone.com/2009/10/1986...pecifications/
The G92 axle was available, but not the standard equipment.
http://www.f-body.org/tech/tech.htm
http://www.iroczone.com/2009/10/1986...pecifications/
The G92 axle was available, but not the standard equipment.
#11
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 9,666
Received 546 Likes
on
376 Posts
Car: 1989 IROC-Z. Original owner
Engine: LB9. Dual Cats. Big Cam
Transmission: World Class T-5
Axle/Gears: BW 3.45
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
http://www.nastyz28.com/camaro/camaro86.html
http://www.f-body.org/tech/tech.htm
http://www.iroczone.com/2009/10/1986...pecifications/
The G92 axle was available, but not the standard equipment.
http://www.f-body.org/tech/tech.htm
http://www.iroczone.com/2009/10/1986...pecifications/
The G92 axle was available, but not the standard equipment.
I've never seen an '86 IROC-Z with an LB9, not have the GU5 code, (3.23 axle ratio), on the SPID.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Car: 1988 Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: LB9 (305 TPI)
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 2.73 Positraction
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
I don't get where you're seeing this. For 1986, under LB9, all list 2:73/3:42 as the standard ratios and 3:27 ONLY for the G92. There is no "IROC only" specification anywhere, only a "Z28 only" on the first. Here's some others;
http://www.f-body.org/tech/tech.htm#ThirdGen
http://www.iroc-ss.com/history.htm
Sorry, but the LB9 IROC-Z most certainly came standard with either a 2:73 or 3:42 rear, and only if ordered with the special option G92 came with 3:32 gears. As there were some 46,000 LB9 cars produced and only 4000 or so cars had the G92, even accounting for some of the LB9s being Z28s only the numbers don't corroborate your claims.
http://www.f-body.org/tech/tech.htm#ThirdGen
http://www.iroc-ss.com/history.htm
Sorry, but the LB9 IROC-Z most certainly came standard with either a 2:73 or 3:42 rear, and only if ordered with the special option G92 came with 3:32 gears. As there were some 46,000 LB9 cars produced and only 4000 or so cars had the G92, even accounting for some of the LB9s being Z28s only the numbers don't corroborate your claims.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Car: 1988 Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: LB9 (305 TPI)
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 2.73 Positraction
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
And there is disagreement over the L98 1LE for late 1986.
http://www.iroc-z.com/1986pages/1986factsandfigures.htm
http://www.iroc-z.com/1986pages/1986factsandfigures.htm
#14
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 9,666
Received 546 Likes
on
376 Posts
Car: 1989 IROC-Z. Original owner
Engine: LB9. Dual Cats. Big Cam
Transmission: World Class T-5
Axle/Gears: BW 3.45
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
I don't get where you're seeing this. For 1986, under LB9, all list 2:73/3:42 as the standard ratios and 3:27 ONLY for the G92. There is no "IROC only" specification anywhere, only a "Z28 only" on the first. Here's some others;
http://www.f-body.org/tech/tech.htm#ThirdGen
http://www.iroc-ss.com/history.htm
Sorry, but the LB9 IROC-Z most certainly came standard with either a 2:73 or 3:42 rear, and only if ordered with the special option G92 came with 3:32 gears. As there were some 46,000 LB9 cars produced and only 4000 or so cars had the G92, even accounting for some of the LB9s being Z28s only the numbers don't corroborate your claims.
http://www.f-body.org/tech/tech.htm#ThirdGen
http://www.iroc-ss.com/history.htm
Sorry, but the LB9 IROC-Z most certainly came standard with either a 2:73 or 3:42 rear, and only if ordered with the special option G92 came with 3:32 gears. As there were some 46,000 LB9 cars produced and only 4000 or so cars had the G92, even accounting for some of the LB9s being Z28s only the numbers don't corroborate your claims.
But a couple of things: The 3.27 listed there is for the '86 L98 which was never produced, and they don't even have a 3.23 listed for an '86 LB9 IROC and yet the several dozen '86 IROC, LB9 SPIDs I've looked at, ALL had a 3.23.
Anyway, a look at the OPs SPID will answer all of our questions.
#15
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 26,052
Received 1,672 Likes
on
1,269 Posts
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
I'd quit arguing about a bunch of stuff posted on the Internet. Makes you look kinda .... well, I'm not going to say that.
Whatever the OP finds when he TAKES OFF THE COVER AND LOOKS, is what he's got. It's beyond futile to argue whose Internet page is more right than the other guys when simply LOOKING AT THE PARTS will tell what he really needs to know: what's in the car NOW, regardless of what came in it 30 years ago.
OP, take off the cover and look at the parts, before buying ANYTHING. Ignore all the crap about "codes" and "my Internet page says" and all the rest of that. Be assured THE PARTS aren't paying the slightest attention to any of it, they ARE what they ARE, period.
Whatever the OP finds when he TAKES OFF THE COVER AND LOOKS, is what he's got. It's beyond futile to argue whose Internet page is more right than the other guys when simply LOOKING AT THE PARTS will tell what he really needs to know: what's in the car NOW, regardless of what came in it 30 years ago.
OP, take off the cover and look at the parts, before buying ANYTHING. Ignore all the crap about "codes" and "my Internet page says" and all the rest of that. Be assured THE PARTS aren't paying the slightest attention to any of it, they ARE what they ARE, period.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Car: 1988 Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: LB9 (305 TPI)
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 2.73 Positraction
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
Or simply jack up the rear of the car, make a chalk mark on one wheel at the 12:00 position and on the 6:00 position on the pinion, then rotate the wheel until the pinion makes 1 complete revolution while paying attention to how many times the wheel rotates, as well as if the other wheel turns in the same direction or the opposite. No need to open the rear diff at all, which means no draining, cleaning, and refilling, as well as no new gasket.
As for "a buncha stuff posted on the internet"...::looks around::...Isn't that EXACTLY all a forum is? Does that mean any information gathered here should be immediately taken as mere hearsay and disregarded? Or should the internet be used as an information source, gathered and cross checked from multiple sources, and one's own conclusions drawn?
As for "a buncha stuff posted on the internet"...::looks around::...Isn't that EXACTLY all a forum is? Does that mean any information gathered here should be immediately taken as mere hearsay and disregarded? Or should the internet be used as an information source, gathered and cross checked from multiple sources, and one's own conclusions drawn?
#17
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Iroc Z
Engine: 350
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
The code on the front of the axle tube is 2HP. Which according to all these IROC sites out there is a 2:73. It is a LB9.
#18
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 26,052
Received 1,672 Likes
on
1,269 Posts
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
1983,
Here's what I see in this thread:
1. OP asks what will happen if he changes his gears from 2.72 to 3.23
2. 2 other guys come in and start beating each other over the head about what gears "their" web page says he has now
3. 1 of the 2 guys thinks that even though the OP hasn't done the simple routine maintenance ALL cars should have done to them once in awhile, arguing about web pages is still better than LOOKING AT THE PARTS to see what they are
Does this make sense?
Sure, forums are all about discussion and such as that; sure, web pages are places to accumulate information and share with all who need it; sure, I get that. OTOH, all the OP needs to know is, what gears he has; which since he has NO WAY TO KNOW that the car is "bone stock" unless he's had access to it since the day it rolled off the lot, the best way to find out what gears are in HIS CAR, RIGHT NOW TODAY, is to simply LOOK AT THE PARTS.
All of that "spin this and count that" and all that other type of stuff people post about "shortcuts" to this knowledge, is error-prone and likely to lead him astray. Sure, you or I, who KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN INSIDE DIFFERENTIALS BEFORE, can make it work; but this is one of those things where if you have to tell somebody about doing that because they don't already know it, the odds of them getting it right are slim. More specifically, the 2 rear wheels won't be turned EXACTLY the same amount.
The OP has now posted his "codes" and thinks they are sufficiently reliable to tell him what's in his rear. (car's rear that is) Personally I sure as hell wouldn't buy parts based on evidence that flimsy, but I guess we all gotta learn somehow. Which while FAR FROM 100% likely to be right, is at least ALOT better than a bunch of "my web page is better than yours".
Here's what I see in this thread:
1. OP asks what will happen if he changes his gears from 2.72 to 3.23
2. 2 other guys come in and start beating each other over the head about what gears "their" web page says he has now
3. 1 of the 2 guys thinks that even though the OP hasn't done the simple routine maintenance ALL cars should have done to them once in awhile, arguing about web pages is still better than LOOKING AT THE PARTS to see what they are
Does this make sense?
Sure, forums are all about discussion and such as that; sure, web pages are places to accumulate information and share with all who need it; sure, I get that. OTOH, all the OP needs to know is, what gears he has; which since he has NO WAY TO KNOW that the car is "bone stock" unless he's had access to it since the day it rolled off the lot, the best way to find out what gears are in HIS CAR, RIGHT NOW TODAY, is to simply LOOK AT THE PARTS.
All of that "spin this and count that" and all that other type of stuff people post about "shortcuts" to this knowledge, is error-prone and likely to lead him astray. Sure, you or I, who KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN INSIDE DIFFERENTIALS BEFORE, can make it work; but this is one of those things where if you have to tell somebody about doing that because they don't already know it, the odds of them getting it right are slim. More specifically, the 2 rear wheels won't be turned EXACTLY the same amount.
The OP has now posted his "codes" and thinks they are sufficiently reliable to tell him what's in his rear. (car's rear that is) Personally I sure as hell wouldn't buy parts based on evidence that flimsy, but I guess we all gotta learn somehow. Which while FAR FROM 100% likely to be right, is at least ALOT better than a bunch of "my web page is better than yours".
#19
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 9,666
Received 546 Likes
on
376 Posts
Car: 1989 IROC-Z. Original owner
Engine: LB9. Dual Cats. Big Cam
Transmission: World Class T-5
Axle/Gears: BW 3.45
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
1983,
Here's what I see in this thread:
1. OP asks what will happen if he changes his gears from 2.72 to 3.23
2. 2 other guys come in and start beating each other over the head about what gears "their" web page says he has now
3. 1 of the 2 guys thinks that even though the OP hasn't done the simple routine maintenance ALL cars should have done to them once in awhile, arguing about web pages is still better than LOOKING AT THE PARTS to see what they are
Does this make sense?
Sure, forums are all about discussion and such as that; sure, web pages are places to accumulate information and share with all who need it; sure, I get that. OTOH, all the OP needs to know is, what gears he has; which since he has NO WAY TO KNOW that the car is "bone stock" unless he's had access to it since the day it rolled off the lot, the best way to find out what gears are in HIS CAR, RIGHT NOW TODAY, is to simply LOOK AT THE PARTS.
All of that "spin this and count that" and all that other type of stuff people post about "shortcuts" to this knowledge, is error-prone and likely to lead him astray. Sure, you or I, who KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN INSIDE DIFFERENTIALS BEFORE, can make it work; but this is one of those things where if you have to tell somebody about doing that because they don't already know it, the odds of them getting it right are slim. More specifically, the 2 rear wheels won't be turned EXACTLY the same amount.
The OP has now posted his "codes" and thinks they are sufficiently reliable to tell him what's in his rear. (car's rear that is) Personally I sure as hell wouldn't buy parts based on evidence that flimsy, but I guess we all gotta learn somehow. Which while FAR FROM 100% likely to be right, is at least ALOT better than a bunch of "my web page is better than yours".
Here's what I see in this thread:
1. OP asks what will happen if he changes his gears from 2.72 to 3.23
2. 2 other guys come in and start beating each other over the head about what gears "their" web page says he has now
3. 1 of the 2 guys thinks that even though the OP hasn't done the simple routine maintenance ALL cars should have done to them once in awhile, arguing about web pages is still better than LOOKING AT THE PARTS to see what they are
Does this make sense?
Sure, forums are all about discussion and such as that; sure, web pages are places to accumulate information and share with all who need it; sure, I get that. OTOH, all the OP needs to know is, what gears he has; which since he has NO WAY TO KNOW that the car is "bone stock" unless he's had access to it since the day it rolled off the lot, the best way to find out what gears are in HIS CAR, RIGHT NOW TODAY, is to simply LOOK AT THE PARTS.
All of that "spin this and count that" and all that other type of stuff people post about "shortcuts" to this knowledge, is error-prone and likely to lead him astray. Sure, you or I, who KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN INSIDE DIFFERENTIALS BEFORE, can make it work; but this is one of those things where if you have to tell somebody about doing that because they don't already know it, the odds of them getting it right are slim. More specifically, the 2 rear wheels won't be turned EXACTLY the same amount.
The OP has now posted his "codes" and thinks they are sufficiently reliable to tell him what's in his rear. (car's rear that is) Personally I sure as hell wouldn't buy parts based on evidence that flimsy, but I guess we all gotta learn somehow. Which while FAR FROM 100% likely to be right, is at least ALOT better than a bunch of "my web page is better than yours".
#20
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 9,666
Received 546 Likes
on
376 Posts
Car: 1989 IROC-Z. Original owner
Engine: LB9. Dual Cats. Big Cam
Transmission: World Class T-5
Axle/Gears: BW 3.45
Re: Looking to change out 2:73 rear end
But with that said, if 87YELLOWZ looks at the SPID in his '86's console, it WILL say, GU5.
Last edited by chazman; 05-12-2015 at 10:02 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
hectre13
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
2
12-11-2023 08:14 AM
hectre13
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
7
08-26-2015 08:17 AM
AkDrifted
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
6
08-17-2015 07:45 PM