3.42 or 3.73, What is your opinion???

[Coalsmoke]

Yep, you are correct. But KWs, Fls, Petes, and Volvos have 10 speed or even, in some cases, 18 speed transmissions. They also don't have the weak dual mass flywheel/clutch assemblies that Dodge Rams have had since 2006.

I completely agree about the dual mass flywheel. My 95 was fine without one, I'm not sure why they had to give us one now. Maybe someone can fill me in on just why we 'need' one with the G56. Oh well, mine will hopefully be coming out later this year when I do a clutch (if I can get into this new line of work and get back out of the penny pinching mode). I have to take it easy or else I can feel the clutch slipping and I can't really afford to burn it up right now.

On the issue with the 18 speed class 8s, here is my take at it and I am by no means an expert so fire away if you can see an issue with this. I am thinking that we have been gifted with a large powerband on these 6. 7 trucks. It's nothing to roll through 2400rpm and the power comes on early too, about 1400rpm give or take. In a class 8 though with say something like a Eaton 13 or 18 speed transmission, those extra gears allow them to stay in the 1200-1400 rpm sweet spot. If we have 40% of the power of a class 8 that can gross 100,000lbs, we shouldn't have any problem with handling 20% of weight providing we change our driving attitude to suit the load.

 

[HBarlow]

I completely agree about the dual mass flywheel. My 95 was fine without one, I'm not sure why they had to give us one now. Maybe someone can fill me in on just why we 'need' one with the G56. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

I'm not a drivetrain engineer, or any kind of engineer and nobody at Daimler, Chrysler, or Dodge Truck called me to consult over the decision to use the dual mass flywheel set up so I don't honestly know the reason but I'll offer an opinion. My opinions are worth what anyone pays to read them so feel free to correct me or disagree if you wish.

I will begin with the assumption that Daimler, not Chrysler or Dodge truck engineers, made the decision to push Daimler designed Brazilian made aluminum case G-56 transmissions on Dodge for reasons in Daimler's best interests, not Dodges. I thought the old New Venture Gear NV-5600 transmissions were fine and worked well with a conventional flywheel/clutch assembly.

Once the decision was made for Dodge trucks to use the wimpy aluminum case G-56 behind the mighty Cummins my guess is the dual mass flywheel assembly had to be used to reduce the potential shock loading that a conventional flywheel/clutch assembly could generate if the clutch was engaged too harshly like, for example, by someone sliding his left foot off the side of a wet clutch pedal. I suspect that would possibly split an aluminum transmission case in half if the rear wheels had good traction.

Secondly, the Gen III engines and trucks are quieter and better sound isolated than Gen II models. I'd guess that the NVH engineers (noise, vibration, harshness) probably wanted the dual mass flywheel to eliminate the rattle that the mighty Cummins engine used to cause in my old 2001 Dodge-Cummins if I slowed down to crawl speed in second gear then gently accelerated. The power pulses of the big six cylinder diesel coming off idle would rattle the transmission gears in the case like shaking a coffee can full of bolts. It was not a pleasant sound and every one of us who has owned a Gen II six speed truck has heard it.

 

[Coalsmoke]

I'm not a drivetrain engineer, or any kind of engineer and nobody at Daimler, Chrysler, or Dodge Truck called me to consult over the decision to use the dual mass flywheel set up so I don't honestly know the reason but I'll offer an opinion. My opinions are worth what anyone pays to read them so feel free to correct me or disagree if you wish.



I will begin with the assumption that Daimler, not Chrysler or Dodge truck engineers, made the decision to push Daimler designed Brazilian made aluminum case G-56 transmissions on Dodge for reasons in Daimler's best interests, not Dodges. I thought the old New Venture Gear NV-5600 transmissions were fine and worked well with a conventional flywheel/clutch assembly.



Once the decision was made for Dodge trucks to use the wimpy aluminum case G-56 behind the mighty Cummins my guess is the dual mass flywheel assembly had to be used to reduce the potential shock loading that a conventional flywheel/clutch assembly could generate if the clutch was engaged too harshly like, for example, by someone sliding his left foot off the side of a wet clutch pedal. I suspect that would possibly split an aluminum transmission case in half if the rear wheels had good traction.



Secondly, the Gen III engines and trucks are quieter and better sound isolated than Gen II models. I'd guess that the NVH engineers (noise, vibration, harshness) probably wanted the dual mass flywheel to eliminate the rattle that the mighty Cummins engine used to cause in my old 2001 Dodge-Cummins if I slowed down to crawl speed in second gear then gently accelerated. The power pulses of the big six cylinder diesel coming off idle would rattle the transmission gears in the case like shaking a coffee can full of bolts. It was not a pleasant sound and every one of us who has owned a Gen II six speed truck has heard it.

Makes good logical sense to me.



I don't want to go much higher than 500HP, maybe 550 tops. I like this G56 a lot and don't want to worry about breaking anything. I need more clutch as it is to really hook up. I guess like anything it will break if abused too much past its design limits.

 

[dpuckett]

I have not had any towing experiences with the 3rd gen trucks. But, my ex's father had an 01 with a 6spd. She had driven both of them, and said my mildly tuned (by modern standards- it MIGHT have had 220/550 at the wheels) 93 had more bottom end grunt than his then-new truck with the H. O. and 6spd. That 93 towed an average of 23K GCVW across Kansas and Colorado, keeping speed up hills, and averaging 12-14mpg, and guess what ratio was in the rear? That's right, 3. 54s. It may not have done so well in the Smokies or the Rockies, but there are some decent hills in western KS and eastern CO. Maybe it's in the torque curve of the older engines, but I never downshifted for lack of power. I had a 91 with 4. 10s, and its towing capacity was marginally better than the 93, but it wasnt worth the 2-3mpg hit I took in fuel economy, plus it was annoying at over about 62mph, loaded or empty. I'll take the 3. 54s, and if I find the engine lacking, more power is available. I'd like to be able to get 3. 42s or 3. 31s for my Dana70.....

 

[GVallus]

Everyone has to make a decision based on their usage alone. In my case, I had a 99 six speed with 3. 54's towing a 9K Airstream and various flatbed loads around 12K or so with no problems. I now have an 08 six speed with 3. 73's. To me, 3. 73's are a good compromise for mileage and power as I don't haul for a living. After all, the rear ends on these trucks aren't fragile and while it's nice not to have to downshift for hills, what the heck are the lower five gears for? I like the fact I can drop to 5th and still maintain 60 mph up a steep grade. You have to ask how often do you have a significant load verses running empty? I run empty enough that I would not want 4. 10s. Again, only an opinion. Drive this truck like a truck and work it a little. Knock on wood, no soot, faults yet and I think partly because it gets run a little now and again. G.

 

[DPKetchum]

I must have owned some sick trucks in the past. My neighbor also. Plus some of my customers. The trucks I've known with 3. 54 gears sure didn't tow any 9k plus without straining and gutting to get that kind of load moving and if for any reason had to slow on moderate hills on the the interstate it was all you could do to maintain until the flat and level or down hill. I had many a customer throw those 3. 54 in the trash for 4. 10s. Differance in day and night. My neighbor bought a nw 02 auto with 3. 54 and when he went to buy a horse trailer and wanted a four horse. Whomever he was dealing with asked him the gear and he said '3. 54' and was told you don't want a four horse. Won't pull it loaded worth a darn. He said the three horse loaded on hills if he slowed was what I described. All it could do to maintain until flat or down hill. He got rid of that truck in less then 20k. His 03 six speed 3. 73 towed that loaded three horse pretty easy. I guess my point is there is a REASON 4. 10s are a OPTION.

 

[Drewhenry]

3.54

I will be upfront and state for the record that I have hauled VERY few heavy loads with my 04 or my friend's 01. I have 3. 73 and NV5600. My friend in Alvarado has an 01 dually 4x4 NV5600 that I hauled my first ever big load. He also has a TST and usually keeps it on level 4 when towing. We were loading little square bales onto a 32ft dovetail. The trailer is 6,000lbs. The little bales 50lbs each. We loaded 450 bales, thats 28,500lbs. My friend got sick-probably from heat exhaustion and told me I had to drive. Ok no big deal. I had no problems starting from a dead stop in the fields or on the pavement and could barely tell there was any weight behind me other than when I started downshifting for speed reduction prior to stopping. There were a few minor hills between the field and the other farm some 80 miles away and as long as I did as I was instructed and maintained 20 psi boost I had no problems and no need for downshifting on the hills. Now the next day delivering the hay to Glenrose from Alvarado was a little different. Chalk mountain got the better of us and we had to shift to direct. My friends 01 has 3. 54s and it continues to work for whatever he hooks up to. He has said there are only two instances he feels 4. 10 would have benefitted him. One was hauling a 32,000lb Caterpillar dozer, the other was "Should have stopped after the second scope in the caliche pit. It took me 4Lo all the way to the pavement to keep her rolling. " This guy says with a strong clutch and plenty of Horsepower and low end torque there is no need for 4. 10. If you really need 4. 10 for hauling a load with a Cummins powered Dodge you probably need a bigger truck.



Unless you want to go to the '53 Power Wagon, they had 4. 88 and 5. 83 was not uncommon. Also stated was the availability of 4. 10 is a holdover from the days of towing with a gasser. There are some folks that are just never going to learn that gears that deep aren't necessary with a diesel like the Cummins, and they can't be convinced otherwise. Oh, by the way his truck runs around about 10k all the time due to tools, custom bumpers, and 75 gal aux tank full. Last I talked with him he was nearing 300,000miles of rough hard service and has never chipped or cracked a ring or pinion. He did trash a transmission and a transfer case due to low oil though.



Drew

 

[DPKetchum]

Well I have typed this before. I talked to our Chrysler Rep one day about gearing. This was in 1999. He stated that besides a QUALITY issue with Dana was a issue with gearing. That 3. 54 was NOT the gear for the Cummins in Dodge trucks and that 'they'd wanted to get away from it for a long time. But Dana didn't have a 3. 73 which"they'felt better suited the Dodge trucks. I just know the trucks I delt with that had 3. 54 were NOT good at towing over 8k on long trips. Took a lot of work to maintain speed Eaither to slow at 50 mph floored or falling off hills to darn fast. I pull a 8k unloaded 12k loaded 3 horse LQ 8 foot short wall and my truck pulls it nicely. Yet I HAVE been on inclines from a dead stop and on big hills that it had to struggle some. I have a buddy with a 05 dually auto 3. 73 gears that with a trailer like mine has had to stop and go into 4 low to keep it moving on back roads. Any way I don't buy that 4. 10s are a gear left over from GASSER days. There is a REASON its a OPTION. I think 3. 54 is a GASSER Grocery getter,haul the pinstraw gear and always have.

 

[Coalsmoke]

Well I have typed this before. I talked to our Chrysler Rep one day about gearing. This was in 1999. He stated that besides a QUALITY issue with Dana was a issue with gearing. That 3. 54 was NOT the gear for the Cummins in Dodge trucks and that 'they'd wanted to get away from it for a long time. But Dana didn't have a 3. 73 which"they'felt better suited the Dodge trucks. I just know the trucks I delt with that had 3. 54 were NOT good at towing over 8k on long trips. Took a lot of work to maintain speed Eaither to slow at 50 mph floored or falling off hills to darn fast. I pull a 8k unloaded 12k loaded 3 horse LQ 8 foot short wall and my truck pulls it nicely. Yet I HAVE been on inclines from a dead stop and on big hills that it had to struggle some. I have a buddy with a 05 dually auto 3. 73 gears that with a trailer like mine has had to stop and go into 4 low to keep it moving on back roads. Any way I don't buy that 4. 10s are a gear left over from GASSER days. There is a REASON its a OPTION. I think 3. 54 is a GASSER Grocery getter,haul the pinstraw gear and always have.

Don't forget though that a part of what your basis for this point of view is founded on is older engine performance. There is a reason the 3. 42 is offered with the 6. 7 G56. There is a lot of power on an incredible power band offered from that engine.



As I also mentioned, it depends what a person is expecting in terms of towing performance. If a person wants to be able to do 70mph up high mountain passes towing 12K and keeping up with the BMWs on the road, perhaps the problem is not the truck but the lack of a highway-hauling mind set.

 

[DPKetchum]

Heck without proper gearing 65mph can be a task towing 8k plus. That was the issue with the 3. 54s. Truck would pull and maintain floored and 72 plus mph plus. But not at 70 or under. Eaither way to fast or lugging. I and others I know won't tow any more then about 68 mph. My truck is in a good sweet spot at that speed. My neighbors 05 auto with 3. 73s he complains that hes either 70 plus or any slower it feels like it lugs then downshifts and almost screams. In the older trucks it was worse with the 3. 54 gear. My neighbor says mine tows just under 70 just right. Says it pulls nicer then his because of the 4. 10s. Now unloaded or less weight his drives nicer then mine. Depends on what you want. My truck is not a daily driver. Was there NOT a warning or advisement from Chrysler about towing with the 3. 42 offered in the 6. 7s ?? Only one trans available or? There was something I thought about such.

 

[Coalsmoke]

If there was a warning or caution of towing with the 3. 42s I never heard of it when I bought mine. It wouldn't surprise me though, lots of people try things they shouldn't and then think that gives them a right to sue because they weren't made to sign an 'idiot clause'.

 

[J&LRam]

OP asks about heavy towing experience ??



I'm retired now but did several years with a CDL towing with 28k-30k combined plates with several different 3500 DRW trucks. I can tell you 3. 42 gears ain't where its at. Forget them for serious heavy towing duties. Now if your into tire rubber smoke/towing on occassion/weekend towing duties/or just a trip to Lowes for a 2x4 then the 3. 42 may work for you.



My previous truck was a stock '01 2500 with the Cummins auto and 3. 54 gears. What a wimp towing anything over 6k-8k. Forget Using OD except in the flat areas with no wind. My dealer had another customer with a 4. 10 2500 truck and arranged for us to make a complete housing swap. Both trucks were out of warranty. WOW. What a difference when towing 8k-13k loads. The higher RPM change woke the Cummins up.



My neighbour has a '07. 5 3500 DRW CC 6. 7 4. 10 gears with 31k plates. She short hauls with her rig and really likes the 4. 10's for those big loads. She's made the comment "why would they offer a 3. 42 gears in a truck made for serious hauling". She understands gearing better than her husband that has a class 8 tractor and does the heavy long hauls.



My curreny truck in sig has 3. 73 gears/NV5600. I bought the truck new but now that it doesn't have a 600+ miles a week commute, I sure wish it had a 4. 10 gear for towing duties.

 

[DPKetchum]

Thank you J&L Ram. I thought I was the ONLY one that had issues pulling with 3. 54 gears. Before I would even consider one of these trucks with 3. 42 or even a 3. 55 I'd buy a GASSER that's suited for hauling pine-straw and such. I bought my truck to PULL not to be a commuter vehicle.

 

[burnin oil]

I am going to say go with the 3. 42s. Sure the 4. 10s are better for daily towing and is easier on the drivetrain but look at this guys usage. If he only wants to haul occasionally He would be suited to the higher ratio and stay out of OD. With the G56 he would be turning 2300 RPM at 65 MPH in Direct. Is that bad? No, and he could take advantage of the highway gearing when he isnt loaded. That setup would be ideal.



For the record I have towed 14k+ with 3. 55 and a warmed up 12v with a 5spd. Listening to the 12v sing at 2500 RPM constant for hours on end sucked but it sure was alot better pulling than the 04. 5 struggling through every gear with 3. 73s. Long story short is the g56 is an awesome trans for its purpose and use its gearing to your advantage. Use 5 gears to tow and OD for cruise.

 

[DPKetchum]

Still got to get it rolling on hills and low speed. If gonna get it with 3. 42s get a gasser truck. What a waste of a working truck and the added money of a diesel that was designed to pull.

 

[archer2500]

I have an 08 2500 quad cab 4x4... 6spd with 3. 42's and I recently pulled a 36' gooseneck flatbed (tandem/dually axles). I pulled a 17. 5k tractor up to a field and from there several loads of hay, and finally took the tractor back to my parents farm. All of this in west central wisconsin, with moderate hills, and although I got the load moving, I had to constantly down-shift for hills and the truck was generally underpowered for such a heavy load. I would agree whole-heartedly with everyone else here... . stay away from 3. 42's if you want to pull anything heavy on a frequent basis.

3. 42's are GREAT for light towing, and no-load driving, but 3. 7's would make a fair compromise if you are skittish of the 4. 10's.



Atleast, thats my $. 10 worth.

 

[DPKetchum]

Wasn't under powered. It was under geared! Bet that load worked every bit of that trucks drivetrain HARD.

 

[gsbrockman]

Neighbor of mine bought that truck new and wanted to pull a four horse aluminum gooseneck. The trailer dealer told him that the 2002 with 3. 55s would NOT pull a four horse with horses worth a darn. Heck it didn't pull a 3 horse with horses worth a darn. He kept it 30k and traded it on a 03 6 speed 3. 73 truck and it pulled the 3 horses loaded just fine. But that 02 sure didn't.

I suppose the 235/245 horse 2002 truck versus the 305 horse 2003 HPCR truck is a null & void point then... .....



Greg

 

[DPKetchum]

Horsepower and torque is a obvisous differance but so is gearing. That same 2002 truck I bet pulled just dandy when geared for the job. Same neighbor now has a 05 3500 dually with 3. 73 gears. Now its MORE horse and torque then my 03. He says my 03 pulls the same weight as his 05 much nicer. Says the 4. 10s put it in the sweet spot much better then his 3. 73 48re equipped truck. Its not JUST h. p. and torque.

 

[sweeda]

sounds like we are speaking on our own trucks and driving style. If you are one that likes to not have cars behind you while pulling a hill or are one that just will do whats good for there truck. The best gear is if your the first one than go with 3. 73 and match the gear with the speed you want to climb and you will go up the hill faster than the one who is the latter, but both of you will make it no problem if you match the rpm to the gear and the speed you want to travel. The 3. 73 will slow a bit better on the down hill side and while going though the turns will use less brake. If you go with the auto trans. go with the 4. 10. The 3. 42 is not an option on the auto or at least shouldn't be. The lower rear gear helps the most in stop and go driveing and it will only take a couple of times to make you say I should of, could of, and would of, if I would have just been more honest with MYSELF (yourself) at the time of purchase. I've changed both of my AUTO'S to the 4. 10's. 1 to 2 miles between stop signs is NOT freeway driving.