What gears in Cummins?
DuneJunkee
is standard in the 2500 with Cummins, am I wrong. What do you suggest? I pull
only 7500lbs about once a month.
Steve St.Laurent
are going to stick with the stock sized tires I'd recommend going with the
3.54's. If you are going to go to oversized tires (I have 285/75R16's on
mine) then you may want to opt for the 4.10's. I bought my truck 2 1/2
months ago and it has 4.10's, originally I was wishing that I had gotten the
3.54's as it was really screaming at freeway speeds. Now that I've gone
with the larger tires (about 10% difference in circumference) I'm happy with
the 4.10's. The bigger question I think is auto vs manual, if you haven't
heard the pros and cons feel free to email me.
-Steve St.Laurent
'98 Quad Cab Long Bed (CMNSPWR), 4x4, ISB, 5sp, 4.10 LSD, Prime-loc remote
fuel filter,
boost & pyro gauges, TST Powermax, Permatech spray in liner, Grizzly
stainless nerf bars,
BFG 285/75R16 AT KO's
http://my.voyager.net/stevest
DuneJunkee wrote in message
<19991023113855...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
Brian Dempsey
mountains etc. You do have a choice of rear ends even with the Cummins
--
Brian Dempsey
Lantzville, BC
Canada
1999 Dodge Ram 4X4 Quad cab, Cummins,
6 speed standard, driftwood long box, rhino coated.
jetski junkies
If you get a slip-o-matic, get the 4.10
Perry
Andrew
advice:
(Taken from the link at the bottom)
Forget low gears, with today’s engines you don't need low gears to have power
on the mountain. Lets take a paragraph and talk about the Dodge Cummins pick up
trucks. Many people are buying the 4:10 gear ratio versus the 3:54 gear ratio
because they think that the truck will pull well on the hills. And what’s worse
is that the incompetent salesman at the Dodge dealership will talk them into
the 4:10 gears. With a long stroke in line six-cylinder turbocharged diesel you
don’t need low gears for pulling. Keep in mind that many states have a 75-mph.
speed limit on the interstates. With the 4:10 gear ratio the engine is way out
of the horsepower and torque curve. In fact the governor is starting to cut the
power back. With the 3:54 gear ratio at 70 mph is 1800 rpm. and 75 mph. is
2,000 rpm. the perfect rpm. for pulling because peak torque is at 1500 rpm. on
the "B" engine. I tuned up a 95 Dodge one ton dualie 5 speed manual
transmission in Denver this past March and at stock settings the truck empty
would only pull 68 mph. on I-70 at the 470 bypass intersection with my foot
flat on the floor. This truck has 4:10 gears. After changing the torque plate,
turbine housing, installing a turbo boost gauge and pyrometer this same truck
held 80 mph. past the 470 bypass and on up the 8% grade into the Rocky
mountains without having your foot flat on the floor.
Unless your Dodge is to be used to pull extremely heavy loads and your only
going to operate off road or on two lane roads stay away from the 4:10 gear
ratio. Low gears are a poor way to substitute for low horsepower.
http://www.dieselinjection.net/articles.html
Andrew
Steve St.Laurent
{snip}
>speed limit on the interstates. With the 4:10 gear ratio the engine is way
out
>of the horsepower and torque curve. In fact the governor is starting to cut
the
>power back. With the 3:54 gear ratio at 70 mph is 1800 rpm. and 75 mph. is
>2,000 rpm. the perfect rpm. for pulling because peak torque is at 1500 rpm.
on
>the "B" engine. I tuned up a 95 Dodge one ton dualie 5 speed manual
However, there is supposedly a cummins rep that posted on the TDR site that
on the ISB if pulling any load you should be over 2000 rpm. Also, he states
that using full throttle below 1600 rpm would be considered extreme abuse by
Cummins. That being said I don't know that I believe it after discussions
with Mark Chapple of TST but I thought I'd put it in here. One thing Mark
did say is that as far as the Dodge drivetrain goes staying above 2000 rpm
might be better on it as the power pulses won't come as quickly. Several on
the TDR site have mentioned a "sweet spot" with the ISB between 2000-2200
rpm as getting the best mileage.
MAX340
If you select no options, the gears will be an open diff with 3.54 ratio.
Max
Some people think they know it all. The rest of us have the skill/experience to
overcome our lack of knowledge, research the facts, ask questions, or even the
sense to walk away, letting well enough alone.
Fitch R. Williams
>However, there is supposedly a cummins rep that posted on the TDR site that
>on the ISB if pulling any load you should be over 2000 rpm. Also, he states
>that using full throttle below 1600 rpm would be considered extreme abuse by
>Cummins. That being said I don't know that I believe it after discussions
>with Mark Chapple of TST but I thought I'd put it in here. One thing Mark
>did say is that as far as the Dodge drivetrain goes staying above 2000 rpm
>might be better on it as the power pulses won't come as quickly.
I will go out on a limb then and disagree with Mark, although I think
he probably met to say they are higher in frequency, and thus lower in
amplitude, at high rpm, because that has to be true.
The problem with pulling hard at low rpm is that the torque pulses are
lower frequency higher amplitude pulses, which the flywheel can
respond to by changing its rotational speed slightly, and therefore
cause more rotational vibration stress in the drive train than the
higher rpm operation. That's why the TSB on the NV4500 5th gear
problem says not to load the truck in fifth gear below 1,500 rpm.
Above 1,500 rpm the torque pulses begin to come at higher and higher
frequency (the frequency is 3 times the engine rpm since it is a 4
stroke cycle 6 cylinder engine) and the flywheel of the engine can do
more to damp them out - it acts much like a low pass filter, and
averages them. It can not respond to high frequency pulses and so
they don't get passed on to the drive train.
>Several on
>the TDR site have mentioned a "sweet spot" with the ISB between 2000-2200
>rpm as getting the best mileage.
My personal experience is that it seems to get the best milage at
around 1,800 rpm or a bit more. That also happens to be the rpm where
the engine dyno results show the best brake specific fuel consumption.
Fitch
In So. Cal. High Desert
1995 Reg. Cab 2WD 2500SLT/12V/5spd/4.10/Turnover Ball gooseneck hitch/Tekonsha Sentinel
1999 QC 2 WD 3500SLT/24V/5spd/3.55/customized mirrors/Turnover Ball gooseneck hitch/Tekonsha Sentinel/Class IV DrawTite rear hitch.
MikE
5 speed and have had zero problems. BTW I was in Austin today and riding
around town lake on my mountain bike. Way to many people out there but the
weather was SAWEEET.
Mike :^)
jetski junkies wrote in message <3811F5EC...@ix.netcom.com>...
Bryan Foust
rpm comes at 65 mph, with 75 mph running the engine at about 2400 rpm in 5th
gear. My truck will run up the El Ranco hill on I-70, (which is a 7 percent
grade BTW), at whatever speed I set on the cruise control running empty -
bone stock.
Bryan
--
1976 AMC Hornet (project)
1988 Suzuki Samurai
1989 Hyundai Excel
1999 Dodge Ram Cummins Diesel
Andrew <arc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991023155533...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
> I don't have the experience some of the others do, so I rely on other
expert
> advice:
> (Taken from the link at the bottom)
>
> Forget low gears, with today's engines you don't need low gears to have
power
> on the mountain. Lets take a paragraph and talk about the Dodge Cummins
pick up
> trucks. Many people are buying the 4:10 gear ratio versus the 3:54 gear
ratio
> because they think that the truck will pull well on the hills. And what's
worse
> is that the incompetent salesman at the Dodge dealership will talk them
into
> the 4:10 gears. With a long stroke in line six-cylinder turbocharged
diesel you
> don't need low gears for pulling. Keep in mind that many states have a
75-mph.
> speed limit on the interstates. With the 4:10 gear ratio the engine is way
out
> of the horsepower and torque curve. In fact the governor is starting to
cut the
> power back. With the 3:54 gear ratio at 70 mph is 1800 rpm. and 75 mph. is
> 2,000 rpm. the perfect rpm. for pulling because peak torque is at 1500
rpm. on
> the "B" engine. I tuned up a 95 Dodge one ton dualie 5 speed manual
Andrew
>From: "Bryan Foust"
>Your ratings for the 3.54 axle are incorrect.
Okay did you notice I was posting something from another source. I
specifically said I do not have the knowledge or experience many others on the
board do. I'm not sure where the author of the article got his numbers, but
the link was at the bottom if you want to take it up with him.
Andrew
Fitch R. Williams
>Your ratings for the 3.54 axle are incorrect. I have the 3.54 axle. 2,000
>rpm comes at 65 mph, with 75 mph running the engine at about 2400 rpm in 5th
>gear. My truck will run up the El Ranco hill on I-70, (which is a 7 percent
>grade BTW), at whatever speed I set on the cruise control running empty -
>bone stock.
>
Hi Bryan,
My rpm and yours at speed are real close. The "you" in this missive
is the general "you", not you personally.
NOTE: Courier font recommended so the following table will be
properly aligned.
I put together the following table for fun because I want to comment
on Bruce Mallison's paragraph (where Andrew copied it from). The data
applies to a stock 3500 ISB with the stock 215/85R16 tires, manual
transmission in 5th gear, and the indicated axle ratios. The hp and
torque curves were curve fit and applied in a math model that
calculates hp in gears vs speed. I have studied the 5 and 6 speed
manual transmissions, and the 5 speed with the US Gear under drive and
3.54 axle. Dave Fritz has some of my results and may be able to
publish them on his WEB page. If anybody has MathCAD V7 or V8 I would
be happy to send them the model.
Axle 3.54 3.54 4.10 4.10
Road Engine Crankshaft Engine Crankshaft
Speed rpm hp rpm hp
60 1786 156 2068 178
65 1934 167 2240 194
70 2083 180 2413 211
75 2232 194 2585 226
That is the over view of the data, now for some practical
implications. I have determined analytically (empirically checked)
performance information for my 1999/3500QC/5spd truck, hauling its
Sooner Combi 3 horse GN horse trailer with one of my daughters rodeo
horses, or two of my Icelandics at a combined GCVW of 12,600 lbs on
the flat, and climbing various grades up to 8%. The trailer is 7.83'
wide and 8' tall. I am using an aerodynamic drag coefficient for the
truck and trailer combined of .45. Also note that I am assuming no
wind conditions for the following calculations. If you assume a head
wind or tail, it changes the particular speeds for the examples, but
not the overall conclusion if one considers them on an equivalent
basis.
The stock truck, with 3.54 axle, will pull this trailer up a sustained
8% grade (pretty steep, the notorious Grape Vine on I-5 South bound
out of Bakersfield is only 6%) at 47.3 mph in 3rd gear where the truck
hp curve intersects the load curve at 175hp (the load hp is increased
by the drive line inefficiency to compare correctly with crankshaft hp
at the engine). However, if one supposed for a moment that the truck
was equipped with a US gear 1.25 under drive two speed transmission,
then it would climb that same grade at 57.9 mph with the engine at
226hp.
The same truck, with the 4.10 axle, will climb that same hill at 59.7
mph (234hp) with out the expense of a two speed under drive
transmission.
Ok, so now I want to comment on Bruce Mallison's comment "forget low
gears". I don't want to be seen as flaming Bruce, but there are
different points of view. Bruce is a well known and very talented
Diesel Engine expert who routinely upgrades engines to way more than
the stock specifications for over the road 18 wheel truck drivers with
out sacrificing reliability so that they can make more money. He gets
Diesel engines to do things that others can only dream about.
However, having said that, I have to disagree with his statement to
"forget low gears". I read his paragraph very carefully and find that
while it contains a lot of true statements, it is frankly somewhat
misleading since it is definitely slanted towards selling engine
modifications.
If one is sitting down to order a Dodge Pickup with a Diesel engine,
it in fact pays big time to think about gears. In the example above,
having a 4.10 rear end on a truck instead of a 3.54 rear end lets it
climb the grade faster with the same load than the 3.54 truck with a
very expensive ($3,500?) upgrade.
The other way to do this, with 3.45 gears, is to boost the engine hp
by making modifications which have a good chance of invalidating the
warranty and requiring upgrades to the drive train to avoid breaking
parts of the drive train. If one had the TST PowerMAX1 installed on
this 5spd/3.54 equipped truck, it would pull the 8% grade at 66.4 mph
developing 269hp. So the engine modifications can result in the truck
going up the same grade with the same load 19 mph faster than it would
stock. This was Bruce's point near as I can tell. It also is
expensive.
However that point and "forget low gears" are not necessarily
consistent. If one steps back and looks at the whole picture then
gears are an important consideration when buying the truck, especially
if you just want to take delivery, add the trailer hitch to match your
trailer, and go out and look at the scenery with out worrying about
warranty issues, Exhaust Gas Temperatures, additional transmissions,
EPA emissions checks, etc.
In other words, is the difference between the stock truck with the
4.10 axle climbing the grade at 58 mph and the 3.54 up rated truck at
66 mph (8 mph gain on hills) worth it? Only the owner of the truck
can decide, assuming they are able to discern the facts enough to
choose, which is not easy.
Other considerations related to gears have to do with what tires you
want to have on the truck and what you want to do with the truck. If
you buy the 3.54 axle, and then install the dual Designs 19.5" rims
with 245/70R19.5 tires, and then hook up to your 12,000 lb 8' wide x
13' tall fifth wheel and head for the hills, you will be sorely
disappointed by how you climb hills, especially if there is even a
little head wind, unless you are prepared to spend a lot of money on
an under drive transmission, or warranty/drive line breaking engine
modifications, or both.
My conclusion from all this is that you should not "forget low gears".
You should consider them as part of selecting a truck to do what you
intend to use it for just like the interior, automatic/stick
Diesel/V10 and other options. What gears you chose will be based on
your intended use, your comfort level with making modifications to the
engine to boost output, adding auxiliary transmissions (and possibly
spousal objections to the driving difficulty), desires to have a
"look" like goes with the bigger tires, the size, weight and frontal
area of your trailer and how often you pull it, etc.
Ohmygosh, just looked at the time, I'm outta here.
Fitch"Got carried away - gotta go feed the horses"Williams
Brian Dempsey
"stock" truck. Now that you have got us up the hills, what does it take to
get us down safely?
--
Brian Dempsey
Lantzville, BC
Canada
1999 Dodge Ram 4X4 Quad cab, Cummins,
6 speed standard, driftwood long box.
Fitch R. Williams wrote in message ...
Fitch R. Williams
>Good letter, Fitch, I find the RPM and speeds the about the same for my
>"stock" truck. Now that you have got us up the hills, what does it take to
>get us down safely?
An exhaust brake?
Fitch"wants an E-brake"Williams
Mike Locke
Curious, about 6 months ago Cummins emailed/faxed me the following
information. All from 1997 dated tests (pre-smog fix).
WOT power curve down to 800RPM
brake specific fuel consumption curve and table for WOT
Recommended conditions for best fuel economy
I extracted the following from this information
1) The engine should work fine at WOT down to below 1000RPM. This is an
extrapolation on my part; Cummins should not provide a power curve that
extends beyond the safe and reliable operating range of the engine. The
tranny and clutch may differ.
2) 1600 RPM corresponds to the best brake specific fuel consumption. This
is not apparent from their sloppy graph, but it is clear from the table.
3) Cummins rep said best fuel economy generally occurs at peak torque RPM.
1600RPM again, at least for the stock Dodge-Cummins ISB. Unfortunately, he
specifically said that partial throttle brake specific fuel consumption
curves are not publically available.
Keep in mind that if you have a 3.54 with a manual transmission and oversize
tires (33-34") you should be able to hit good RPMs for unloaded driving in
OD and good RPMs for towing if you downshift a gear. In fact, you will get
very close to the same RPM in 5th (on a 6spd), 3.54, and oversize tires as
you get in 6th, 4.10 and stock tires. The only thing really lost by the
3.54 is the really low 1st gear.
--
S'later, Mike Locke
2000 RAM 2500 4x4 Cummins 6spd, scheduled to ship Nov 1 (finally!)
Steve St.Laurent <ste...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:38121a83$0$70...@news.voyager.net...
> Andrew wrote in message <19991023155533...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
> {snip}
> >speed limit on the interstates. With the 4:10 gear ratio the engine is
way
> out
> >of the horsepower and torque curve. In fact the governor is starting to
cut
> the
> >power back. With the 3:54 gear ratio at 70 mph is 1800 rpm. and 75 mph.
is
> >2,000 rpm. the perfect rpm. for pulling because peak torque is at 1500
rpm.
> on
> >the "B" engine. I tuned up a 95 Dodge one ton dualie 5 speed manual
> {snip}
>
> However, there is supposedly a cummins rep that posted on the TDR site
that
> on the ISB if pulling any load you should be over 2000 rpm. Also, he
states
> that using full throttle below 1600 rpm would be considered extreme abuse
by
> Cummins. That being said I don't know that I believe it after discussions
> with Mark Chapple of TST but I thought I'd put it in here. One thing Mark
> did say is that as far as the Dodge drivetrain goes staying above 2000 rpm
> might be better on it as the power pulses won't come as quickly. Several
on
> the TDR site have mentioned a "sweet spot" with the ISB between 2000-2200
> rpm as getting the best mileage.
>
Hattmakr
On automatics, where Cummins does not recommend and exhaust brake, remove foot
from accelerator pedal, turn off OD to allow engine to help slow vehicle, COVER
(do not press) the brake pedal, and steer smoothly and evenly. Do not jerk the
steering wheel as this can make your back end take the place of your front end.
This mistake is also called over-correcting. If brakes are needed when
decending a long grade, apply them LIGHTLY and for SHORT periods of time. A
common mistake people make is "riding" the brakes for long periods of time
which causes extreme heat and can crystalize the pads and shoes which results
in having no brakes at all. Finally, try to time traffic before the descent so
that you have a "cushion" of space at all 6, thats right, SIX sides of your
vehicle. You never know what the other person will do. Alan
Steve St.Laurent
bottom doesn't make sense. Are you talking about left and right for the
truck and left and right for the trailer? Keep in mind that I almost
flunked geometry in high school.
-Steve St.Laurent
'98 Quad Cab Long Bed (CMNSPWR), 4x4, ISB, 5sp, 4.10 LSD, Prime-loc remote
fuel filter,
boost & pyro gauges, TST Powermax, Permatech spray in liner, Grizzly
stainless nerf bars,
BFG 285/75R16 AT KO's
http://my.voyager.net/stevest
Hattmakr wrote in message <19991024225102...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
Secret Agent Man
airplanes and other Dodges over your head when lifting off and all of the
traffic below when landing ;-)
Best Regards,
Robert
>Subject: Re: What gears in Cummins?
>From: "Steve St.Laurent" ste...@voyager.net
>Date: Mon, 25 October 1999 12:17 AM EDT
>Message-id: <3813d9e6$0$4...@news.voyager.net>
Note: This post may contain misspellings, grammatical errors,
disorganized sentence structure, or may entirely lack a coherent theme.
These elements are natural to the process of writing, and will only add
to the overall beauty of the post.
Bryan
Thanks for the informative post, again!
>
>
>
Bryan BNSF Locomotive Engineer
1989 F-250 diesel with Banks Turbo
using Delvac1 synthethic heavy duty
5W40 motor oil(l love it!!)
M52 5 ton 6x6 Tractor:
Continental multi-fuel turbo charged
Hattmakr
>Six sides? Got me there - I count front, back, left, right (4). Top and
>bottom doesn't make sense. Are you talking about left and right for the
>truck and left and right for the trailer? Keep in mind that I almost
>flunked geometry in high school.
>
Top and bottom make sense in my line of work so I just included them in the
post. Top side for folks who pull tall trailers...got to watch for powerlines
and low overpasses, as well as low tree limbs. Bottom for those who pull
"lowboy" (ground hugging) trailers...got to watch for the large roadkill and RR
tracks that protrude above the surface of the road. Granted most of these
examples are a thing of the past on todays modern freeways, but it still
doesn't hurt to keep these 2 sides in the back of ones mind just in case a
strange situation developes. Alan
plcpro
--
98 Dodge RAM 2500, 24v, 5sp, 4x4, Quad Cab,
Overload Springs, Limited Slip 3.55 Rear End, 16 to 21 mpg. Empty.
DuneJunkee <dunej...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991023113855...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
plcpro
--
98 Dodge RAM 2500, 24v, 5sp, 4x4, Quad Cab,
Overload Springs, Limited Slip 3.55 Rear End, 16 to 21 mpg. Empty.
plcpro
anything anywhere.
--
98 Dodge RAM 2500, 24v, 5sp, 4x4, Quad Cab,
Overload Springs, Limited Slip 3.55 Rear End, 16 to 21 mpg. Empty.
plcpro
MikE
literature list the 3.55's for all the 1500's and 3.54's for all 2500's and
3500's
Mike :^)
MAX340 wrote in message <19991025214959...@ng-cl1.aol.com>...
>>I hate to nit-pick, but it is 3.55 not 3.54.
>
>I hate to nitpik, but Dodge lists it as 3.54. The old Dodges had 3.55's.
MAX340
Pinchr4u
valve. i get an average of 18 mpg
RedNeck from Hell
>Not that your ever wrong Max, at least in your mind, but the Dodge
>literature list the 3.55's for all the 1500's and 3.54's for all 2500's and
>3500's
>
>
And not to nitpick, but you do know that the 1/2 tons use a different rear end
from the 3/4 and 1 tons????????
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and enthusiasm
Happiness is driving an ass kicking big block Mopar
Bryan Foust
3.54. So, yes MAX is correct.
Bryan
--
1976 AMC Hornet (project)
1988 Suzuki Samurai
1989 Hyundai Excel
1999 Dodge Ram Cummins Diesel
MikE <NoS...@EatMoreSpam.com> wrote in message
news:7v330b$a8q$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> Not that your ever wrong Max, at least in your mind, but the Dodge
> literature list the 3.55's for all the 1500's and 3.54's for all 2500's
and
> 3500's
>
> Mike :^)
>
> MAX340 wrote in message <19991025214959...@ng-cl1.aol.com>...
Brian Dempsey
and is mounted in the glove box (older models it was under the hood). It
says my truck has a 3.55 ratio rear end.
--
Brian Dempsey
Lantzville, BC
Canada
1999 Dodge Ram 4X4 Quad cab, Cummins,
6 speed standard, driftwood long box.
Bryan Foust wrote in message <_6cR3.5951$14.3...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com>...
MikE
rears? (Page 24).
I called the 1-888-4ADODGE hotline and was told that all the 2000 1500's
came with the 3.55/3.92's, NOT the 3.54 so unless all the brochures dated
8/99 for the 2000 line and the information available to the Dodge operators
is incorrect then I have to insist that MAX is INCORRECT.
Mike :^)
Andrew
would be between 3.54 and 3.55? (Notice the pride and beat your chest like a
caveman factor are not in consideration, since that seems to be the only reason
it is being argued).
It is likely not going to be worth the time and effort needed to convince and
already thick headed group to believe your point of view is right
Andrew
plcpro
--
98 Dodge RAM 2500, 24v, 5sp, 4x4, Quad Cab,
Overload Springs, Limited Slip 3.55 Rear End, 16 to 21 mpg. Empty.
MAX340 <max...@aol.comQ> wrote in message
news:19991025214959...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
plcpro
talking about.
--
98 Dodge RAM 2500, 24v, 5sp, 4x4, Quad Cab,
Overload Springs, Limited Slip 3.55 Rear End, 16 to 21 mpg. Empty.
RedNeck from Hell <mopa...@aol.comxxx> wrote in message
news:19991026004618...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> >
> >Not that your ever wrong Max, at least in your mind, but the Dodge
> >literature list the 3.55's for all the 1500's and 3.54's for all 2500's
and
> >3500's
> >
> >
>
Fitch R. Williams
>Has anyone figured out what the actual drive/performance/MPG difference there
>would be between 3.54 and 3.55? (Notice the pride and beat your chest like a
>caveman factor are not in consideration, since that seems to be the only reason
>it is being argued).
3.54 is a Dana 80, 3.55 is the DC version manufactured in house, or so
I was told.
Fitch
MAX340
>literature list the 3.55's for all the 1500's and 3.54's for all 2500's and
>3500's
Well, that kinda includes the Cummins gears, huh?
Been doing ALOT of research on the 2500 series lately.
MAX340
>end
>from the 3/4 and 1 tons????????
>
Yup, and look at the subject line. Are you aware that the Cummins doesn't come
in the 1500 series?
jeez.
MAX340
>talking about.
Just curious, where did you get your info? Personally i don't care what ya want
to call your ratio, just interested if you counted teath, or looked for a
stamping on the ring gear.
MAX340
>and is mounted in the glove box (older models it was under the hood). It
>says my truck has a 3.55 ratio rear end.
Well, we have two sources and two ratios, but for cryin out loud, its .01 we
are picking over, which was the sarcastic thought behind my reply to begin
with.
MAX340
Well, since the subject is Cummins powered trucks, and we all know those are
the 2500 and 3500 trucks, and we all agree that those series come with 3.54,
not 3.55, I must be right, right?
Really, the least you could do is catch me on something a bit more important,
if not as easily proven.
Like I said before, this whole thing is damn amusing some days.
MAX340
Where does it say ON YOUR TRUCK its a 3.55?
I gotta go compose myself here, my sides hurt.
Fun fun fun
Steve St.Laurent
different DC sources showing the same axle as having 3.54 or 3.55 gears. I
think it depended on who's calculator they were using when they wrote that
particular sentence. It doesn't really matter - they are close enough.
Let's just call em 3.5's!!
-Steve St.Laurent
'98 Quad Cab Long Bed (CMNSPWR), 4x4, ISB, 5sp, 4.10 LSD, Prime-loc remote
fuel filter,
boost & pyro gauges, TST Powermax, Permatech spray in liner, Grizzly
stainless nerf bars,
BFG 285/75R16 AT KO's
http://my.voyager.net/stevest
MAX340 wrote in message <19991026224916...@ng-fs1.aol.com>...
>>I have to insist that MAX is INCORRECT.
>
>Well, since the subject is Cummins powered trucks, and we all know those
are
>the 2500 and 3500 trucks, and we all agree that those series come with
3.54,
>not 3.55, I must be right, right?
>
>Really, the least you could do is catch me on something a bit more
important,
>if not as easily proven.
>
>Like I said before, this whole thing is damn amusing some days.
>
>
Bryan Foust
book that I acquired from the dealership a couple of weeks ago. .01
difference in ratio would not make enough difference in RPM to matter.
Bryan
--
1976 AMC Hornet (project)
1988 Suzuki Samurai
1989 Hyundai Excel
1999 Dodge Ram Cummins Diesel
Brian Dempsey <bdem...@nanaimo.ark.com> wrote in message
news:7v4id7$1j...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> I just looked at the "equipment specification" sheet that came with my
truck
> and is mounted in the glove box (older models it was under the hood). It
> says my truck has a 3.55 ratio rear end.
>
> --
> Brian Dempsey
> Lantzville, BC
> Canada
> 1999 Dodge Ram 4X4 Quad cab, Cummins,
> 6 speed standard, driftwood long box.
>
>
> Bryan Foust wrote in message
<_6cR3.5951$14.3...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com>...
> >Well, I have the y2k dodge brocure, and the axle ratio listed model wide
is
> >3.54. So, yes MAX is correct.
> >
> >Bryan
> >
> >
> >--
> >1976 AMC Hornet (project)
> >1988 Suzuki Samurai
> >1989 Hyundai Excel
> >1999 Dodge Ram Cummins Diesel
> >
> >MikE <NoS...@EatMoreSpam.com> wrote in message
> >news:7v330b$a8q$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> Not that your ever wrong Max, at least in your mind, but the Dodge
> >> literature list the 3.55's for all the 1500's and 3.54's for all 2500's
> >and
> >> 3500's
> >>
> >> Mike :^)
> >>
> >> MAX340 wrote in message
<19991025214959...@ng-cl1.aol.com>...
> >> >>I hate to nit-pick, but it is 3.55 not 3.54.
> >> >
> >> >I hate to nitpik, but Dodge lists it as 3.54. The old Dodges had
3.55's.
> >> >
> >> >
Fitch R. Williams
>Well, since the subject is Cummins powered trucks, and we all know those are
>the 2500 and 3500 trucks, and we all agree that those series come with 3.54,
>not 3.55, I must be right, right?
No. You are not correct. And you know it.
Jay H.
3.54 in mine... Maybe you got one of those weird ones eh? :-)
Jay H.
plcpro <plc...@usol.com> wrote in message
news:s1colk...@corp.supernews.com...
> It says ON MY TRUCK that it is a 3.55.
>
> --
> 98 Dodge RAM 2500, 24v, 5sp, 4x4, Quad Cab,
> Overload Springs, Limited Slip 3.55 Rear End, 16 to 21 mpg. Empty.
>
>
> MAX340 <max...@aol.comQ> wrote in message
> news:19991025214959...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
MAX340
>
>Fitch
Wrong. I am correct, and I dont give a damn. I have been staring at numbers on
these trucks for about 4 months now, and all pre sale literature calls em 3.54.
Big damn deal.
Mike Simmons
whole thread!
:)
Mike
Steve St.Laurent <ste...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:3816795f$0$4...@news.voyager.net...
> This is exactly why I've always state them as 3.5? gears!! I can quote
> different DC sources showing the same axle as having 3.54 or 3.55 gears.
I
> think it depended on who's calculator they were using when they wrote that
> particular sentence. It doesn't really matter - they are close enough.
> Let's just call em 3.5's!!
>
> -Steve St.Laurent
> '98 Quad Cab Long Bed (CMNSPWR), 4x4, ISB, 5sp, 4.10 LSD, Prime-loc remote
> fuel filter,
> boost & pyro gauges, TST Powermax, Permatech spray in liner, Grizzly
> stainless nerf bars,
> BFG 285/75R16 AT KO's
> http://my.voyager.net/stevest
>
> MAX340 wrote in message <19991026224916...@ng-fs1.aol.com>...
> >>I have to insist that MAX is INCORRECT.
> >
> >Well, since the subject is Cummins powered trucks, and we all know those
> are
> >the 2500 and 3500 trucks, and we all agree that those series come with
> 3.54,
> >not 3.55, I must be right, right?
> >
> >Really, the least you could do is catch me on something a bit more
> important,
> >if not as easily proven.
> >
> >Like I said before, this whole thing is damn amusing some days.
> >
> >
Gary Glaenzer
Mike Simmons <mik...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:1XMR3.198$K4.1...@news.corridex.com...
> Compromise! and call them 3.5's! Steve, are you nuts? That would kill
this
> whole thread!
> :)
> Mike
Yeah, what are you trying to do, cause discord here in
alt.dodge.trucks.and.lets.nitpick.over.whether.its.3.55.or.3.54.and
does.it.really.matter
Jeff
Jay H. wrote in message <3817...@mail.ncats.net>...
>I've got a 2500 Cummins and the tag on the front under the hood tells me
>3.54 in mine... Maybe you got one of those weird ones eh? :-)
>
>Jay H.
The tag under MY hood says 3.5, but the invoice says 3.54.
Jeff
Andrew
>From: max...@aol.comQ
>The rest of us
> even the sense to walk away, letting well enough alone.
So just walk away Max... walk away...
Andrew
Steve St.Laurent
>
{snip}
>Yeah, what are you trying to do, cause discord here in
>
>alt.dodge.trucks.and.lets.nitpick.over.whether.its.3.55.or.3.54.and
>does.it.really.matter
>
ROTFLMAO!! Isn't it amazing how we can nitpick ourselves to death? Just
trying to interject a little REASON!!
RedNeck from Hell
>Yeah, what are you trying to do, cause discord here in
>
>alt.dodge.trucks.and.lets.nitpick.over.whether.its.3.55.or.3.54.and
>does.it.really.matter
>
>
Not to start or cause trouble, BUT did you ever wonder why in a Ford 9 inch or
Chevy 12 bolt the gears are 4.11 and Dana 60's and Mopar 8 3/4 are 4.10.
Chevy and Mopar are 4.56, Ford is 4.57. Fords have 4.86. Chevy and Dana's
have 4.88's. Mopar has 4.89. Mopar has 3.55, Dana has 3.54, Ford has 3.50 and
3.70. Chevy has 3.73. Ford has 3.89, Mopar has 3.91
GM has 3.90 and so on and so forth. Why not 3.20, 3.30, 3.40.3.50 etc?
And why do we have wheel bolt patterns such as 4 3/4 X 5, 4 1/2 X 5, 4x 5, 5 x
5 and 5 1/2 X 5? Wouldn't it have been so much simpler if the "big three"
years ago would have agreed on one pattern?
Hattmakr
He doesn't have the quickness to take his own advice. Besides, I kinda like
getting him going. He can go and go and go like that little bunny but never say
a whole lot. But watch out, he's a name caller...HAHAHAHA!
MikE
Mike :^)
Andrew wrote in message <19991027212840...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
Mike Simmons
Reason...... hummphh!
Mike
Steve St.Laurent <ste...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:3817d421$0$4...@news.voyager.net...
> Gary Glaenzer wrote in message ...
> >
> {snip}
> >Yeah, what are you trying to do, cause discord here in
> >
> >alt.dodge.trucks.and.lets.nitpick.over.whether.its.3.55.or.3.54.and
> >does.it.really.matter
> >
>
>
Mike Simmons
Mike
RedNeck from Hell <mopa...@aol.comxxx> wrote in message
news:19991028004913...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
> >
> >Yeah, what are you trying to do, cause discord here in
> >
> >alt.dodge.trucks.and.lets.nitpick.over.whether.its.3.55.or.3.54.and
> >does.it.really.matter
> >
> >
>
Mike Locke
The differential ratio has to be a rational fraction. It is the number of
teeth on the ring gear divided by the number of teeth on the pinion gear.
Some ratios:
46/13 = 3.538461... (the last 6 digits repeat) this is presumably what you
get with a 3.54 ratio
The only gears that are even close to workable that give 3.55 are
39/11 = 3.5454 (the last 2 digits repeat, it rounds to 3.55)
71/20 = 3.55 (exactly)
Also
37/9 = 4.11 (the last digit repeats)
41/10 = 4.1
Regarding wheel bolt patterns: sometimes high volume manufacturers
intentionally make their larger items different than other manufacturers so
that you are more likely to have to buy replacement parts from them or less
likely to be able to keep your vehicle running for a long time.
--
S'later, Mike Locke
Frederic Breitwieser
> And when wass the last time you replaced the wheels on your vehicle???????
Rarely, one hopes. However, I will be replacing the absolutely
disgusting 8-lug wagon wheels on my D200 next spring, and getting rid of
the old tires as well... was going to go the OEM route... so while this
conversation is going...
Will more modern 8-lugs (non dually) fit older trucks? 16.5" diameter x
7 is what the wagon wheels are... who knows what was original.
--
Frederic Breitwieser
Xephic Technology
769 Sylvan Ave #9
Bridgeport CT 06606
Tele: (203) 372-2707
Fax: (603) 372-1147
Web: http://xephic.dynip.com/
Gary Glaenzer
Seems we kicked this one around last spring....I posted the same question,
was told that a 245-75R16 will almost exactly replace a 9.50-16.5.
And, yes, the wheels will fit, although you need to check for protruding
balance weights on the rear drums.
G
Frederic Breitwieser <fred...@xephic.dynip.com> wrote in message
news:381BA31D...@xephic.dynip.com...
RedNeck from Hell
>The differential ratio has to be a rational fraction. It is the number of
>teeth on the ring gear divided by the number of teeth on the pinion gear.
>
>Some ratios:
>
>46/13 = 3.538461... (the last 6 digits repeat) this is presumably what you
>get with a 3.54 ratio
>
>The only gears that are even close to workable that give 3.55 are
>39/11 = 3.5454 (the last 2 digits repeat, it rounds to 3.55)
>71/20 = 3.55 (exactly)
>
>Also
>37/9 = 4.11 (the last digit repeats)
>41/10 = 4.1
>
>Regarding wheel bolt patterns: sometimes high volume manufacturers
>intentionally make their larger items different than other manufacturers so
>that you are more likely to have to buy replacement parts from them or less
>likely to be able to keep your vehicle running for a long time.
>
>
No shit??????
And when wass the last time you replaced the wheels on your vehicle???????
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and enthusiasm
Happiness is driving an ass kicking big block Mopar
RedNeck from Hell
>Will more modern 8-lugs (non dually) fit older trucks? 16.5" diameter x
>7 is what the wagon wheels are... who knows what was original.
>
>
If you are thinking of getting rid of the "hard to find" and/or expensive
16.5's with 16 inch wheels the answer is YES!!!!!!
Frederic Breitwieser
> was told that a 245-75R16 will almost exactly replace a 9.50-16.5.
Okay, thank you.
> And, yes, the wheels will fit, although you need to check for protruding
> balance weights on the rear drums.
Again, thank you. I ask because I found a dually rear off a chevy, also
8-lug, which the inside tires will clear the D200 non-dually frame rails
with room for tire flex and sidewall bulging under load, but if the bolt
pattern was the same, I could keep the wagon wheels I have now as
emergency spare tires, rather than regular daily-use tires.
Thanks!
Frederic Breitwieser
> 16.5's with 16 inch wheels the answer is YES!!!!!!
Sort of. I have a chevy dually rear I want to put on my 75 D200, and
the rear is at a friend's shop 2 hours away... so I don't recall the
bolt circle. I did measure it to ensure the inside tires will clear
the non-dually frame, however, and it was such a deal I couldn't pass it
up. And, like my D200, it has a dana 60, so I can use the old gearing
if I choose, I think.
Mike Locke
It's not the wheels that are the issue, its the disk/drum assembly on the
axles. These do need to be replaced from time to time, especially if you
abuse your brakes.
--
S'later, Mike Locke
RedNeck from Hell <mopa...@aol.comxxx> wrote in message
news:19991030214528...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
> >
> >The differential ratio has to be a rational fraction. It is the number
of
> >teeth on the ring gear divided by the number of teeth on the pinion gear.
> >
> >Some ratios:
> >
> >46/13 = 3.538461... (the last 6 digits repeat) this is presumably what
you
> >get with a 3.54 ratio
> >
> >The only gears that are even close to workable that give 3.55 are
> >39/11 = 3.5454 (the last 2 digits repeat, it rounds to 3.55)
> >71/20 = 3.55 (exactly)
> >
> >Also
> >37/9 = 4.11 (the last digit repeats)
> >41/10 = 4.1
> >
> >Regarding wheel bolt patterns: sometimes high volume manufacturers
> >intentionally make their larger items different than other manufacturers
so
> >that you are more likely to have to buy replacement parts from them or
less
> >likely to be able to keep your vehicle running for a long time.
> >
> >
>
> No shit??????
> And when wass the last time you replaced the wheels on your vehicle???????
>
>
RedNeck from Hell
>It's not the wheels that are the issue, its the disk/drum assembly on the
>axles. These do need to be replaced from time to time, especially if you
>abuse your brakes.
>
>
Because you replace these components from time to time, you couldn't have had
an universal bolt circle on the wheels???