Dakota and 3.55 vs 3.92 Axle ?
Craig and Debbie
time transfer case. What are the pros and cons of ordering either the 3.55
or 3.92 axle ratios? How do they impact fuel economy, towing, acceleration
etc.?
Thanks. Craig
Rich & Karen Scotto
speed
3.92 - better for towing and acceleration.
If you are going to do a lot of towing forget the 3.55 and go with the 3.92.
If you were getting the 5.9L V-8 then the 3.55 would be more than adequate but
since you are going with the 4.7 go with the 3.92. One or two mpg is not going
to brake you financially but you will be regretting the 3.55 every time you tow
something.
Make sure you get sure-grip axles front and back!
Brooke Clyde
(because no 4.7 Durangos have arrived here yet). My impression is that the
4.7 is a nice, tight engine. The only downside is that the torque doesn't
really kick in until 2-2.5K rpm.
I also drove the 4.7 in the big Jeep. Very nice. The Jeep, though, has a
3.73 rear axle, and I think that's why it felt so much better than the
Dakota (which had the 3.55. I ended up ordering the Durango with the 3.92,
largely because it's 500-800 lbs. heavier than either of those vehicles.
For towing and acceleration, the 3.92 is great. People say that, at least
on the 5.2 and 5.9 engines, mpg suffers only a little bit if at all.
This issue is discussed in several threads at the Forum at
www.durangoclub.com Searching through them will give you some opinions.
Good luck
---
Brooke Clyde
bro...@sonic.net
Craig and Debbie <holloway...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:7rm92k$m25$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Matt Jensen
Higher axle ratio (3.92) will decrease fuel economy by 1-2mpg when unloaded.
It MAY increase it while towing IF the difference is great enough to allow the
transmission to run in a higher gear, but it is unlikely. In general, the 3.92
will cause the engine to run at 10% higher RPMs, resulting in probably 5-10%
fuel economy decrease. This is a GROSS oversimplification, but "advantage
3.55."
3.92 gears will increase your towing ability, but it will probably only be
noticed if you are towing at or near the vehicle's maximum GVWR. If you're
towing a ton or so, the difference should be minimal. Small advantage 3.92.
Acceleration will probably be the most noticeable difference, though it won't
be night and day. It will also be greater whether you are towing or not. I'd
imagine that the difference would only amount to a fraction of a second in 0-60
or 1/4 mile. Small advantage 3.92.
How often do you tow? If you will be towing a small load 10% of the time or
less, I'd recommend the 3.55. If you will be towing more than 10% of the time,
or towing a load larger than a ton, I'd recommend a Ram with a 360. :-)
--Matt Jensen
(my email address is "moc.noivbo@nesnejm" backwards.)
Rich & Karen Scotto
Ross Donison
>
> 3:55 - better gas mileage (about 1 mpg city and 2 mpg highway) , higher top
> speed
> 3.92 - better for towing and acceleration.
>
> If you are going to do a lot of towing forget the 3.55 and go with the 3.92.
> If you were getting the 5.9L V-8 then the 3.55 would be more than adequate but
> since you are going with the 4.7 go with the 3.92. One or two mpg is not going
> to brake you financially but you will be regretting the 3.55 every time you tow
> something.
Very good advice. I have the 3.55 with the old 5.2, and it feels a
little dogged, compared to my Grand Cherokee.
>
> Make sure you get sure-grip axles front and back!
The sure-grip differential is only available in the rear.
Ross
Kieran Coghlan
Rich & Karen Scotto wrote:
<snip>
>
> Make sure you get sure-grip axles front and back!
How do you get "Sure-Grip" axles on the front? As far as I know it's
only available on the rear axle. I suppose you could get a limited slip
on the front, with after market parts, but then it wouldn't be a
"Sure-Grip" axle (Dodge's cutie name for limited-slip.)
-Kieran.
.boB
> You are overlooking one small factor. Craig and Debbie are getting the 4.7 v-8.
>
And this is important because........?
--
.boB
97 H-D 1200 XLHS 95 Ram 1500 CC/LWB
97 H-D FXDWG 83 GMC Jimmy 4x4 (beater)
97 Yamaha TW-200 65 Shelby Cobra 427 (project)
98 Kawasaki KE100
Joel and Lana Smith
regretted anything yet. I pulled my mustang on a 16 X 8 tandem axle trailer
135 miles through the Ozark Mountains and it did an excellent job. The
combined weight for the Dakota (about 4500 lbs.), the trailer (about 1000
lbs.) and the Mustang (about 3100 lbs.) was about 8600 lbs. I'm not saying
that it was safe to do that because that weight was 2600 lbs. over the
capacity for the Dakota, but the truck did a GREAT job in the mountains.
JOE
Ross Donison <ro...@home.com> wrote in message
news:37DFD74B...@home.com...
> Rich & Karen Scotto wrote:
> >
> > 3:55 - better gas mileage (about 1 mpg city and 2 mpg highway) , higher
top
> > speed
> > 3.92 - better for towing and acceleration.
> >
> > If you are going to do a lot of towing forget the 3.55 and go with the
3.92.
> > If you were getting the 5.9L V-8 then the 3.55 would be more than
adequate but
> > since you are going with the 4.7 go with the 3.92. One or two mpg is
not going
> > to brake you financially but you will be regretting the 3.55 every time
you tow
> > something.
>
> Very good advice. I have the 3.55 with the old 5.2, and it feels a
> little dogged, compared to my Grand Cherokee.
>
> >
> > Make sure you get sure-grip axles front and back!
>
Rich & Karen Scotto
Kieran Coghlan wrote:
> Rich & Karen Scotto wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Make sure you get sure-grip axles front and back!
>
mrdancer
Unless the GC was a 4x4 and your Dak was a SWB 2x4, the GC was probably
lighter (unit-body construction compared to body-on-frame of Dak); that may
contribute to the 'quicker' feel of the GC.
--
'92 Dak CC 2wd 318 3.55
'84 GoldWing Interstate
Ross Donison wrote in message...
NoS...@this.is.invalid
Debbie" <holloway...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> I am considering ordering a 2000 Dakota with the 4.7L engine and the full
> time transfer case. What are the pros and cons of ordering either the
> 3.55
> or 3.92 axle ratios?
Are you planning to tow a very heavy load, or do any _extreme_ off-roading?
If so, get the 3.92:1 gears; if not, stick with the 3.55 -- you'll be MUCH
happier in the long run.
> How do they impact fuel economy,
[snip]
General consensus (based on the pushrod V8s -- no data yet on the OHC) is
that the 3.92 rear costs a good 1.5-2 MPG, maybe a bit more depending on how
you drive.
> towing,
[snip]
See above. If the trailer is putting you at/near the GCWR, the 3.92 gears
are appropriate. For modest/moderate rig weights, they are unnecessary.
> acceleration
[snip]
The 3.92s (combined with appropriate tires, suspension mods, etc.) will
"launch" the truck better if you're doing flat-out drag racing starts.
However, once you're rolling (say, 20-30 MPH), it's practical effectiveness
is essentially nil, as you will simply use whichever (transmission) gear is
appropriate at that moment.
-- Jay T. Blocksom
----------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
approtek[at]rcn.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Use address in signature.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rich & Karen Scotto
does. If you don't have the torque go with the lower ratio gear (numerically higher
number. 3.92:1) to get some more usable torque out of it. I drove a 5.2 with the
3.55, didn't like it. Since the 4.7 is supposed to have similar torque and power to
the 5.2 I would highly suggest the 3.92 gear! You will probably not even notice a
difference in the mpg anyway! If you are that worried about mpg your looking at the
wrong type of vehicle anyway. S U V. U= utility not mpg
".boB" wrote:
> Rich & Karen Scotto wrote:
>
Spinman
could get was a 3.55. You could only get the 3.92 gear in pre-98. I dont
know if they changed it for 2000 or not. I would have ordered the 3.92 if it
was available
99 Dodge 1500 Quad cab P/U 8' bed
5.2 liter 5 speed
(stock for now but I have the need for the Flowmaster sound)
Rich & Karen Scotto <rsc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37E2B1D5...@mindspring.com...
uselessi...@gmail.com
> I am considering ordering a 2000 Dakota with the 4.7L engine and the full
> time transfer case. What are the pros and cons of ordering either the 3.55
> etc.?
>
> Thanks. Craig
