dodge ruining a good thing??

[67guzzler]

3. 55 then. I don't remember exactly. Wasn't a 4. 10 with a 2500 rpm redline I'll tell you that.



You know, come to think of it, I got it all wrong.



The best combo would be a G56 and 4. 56 rear. That's the ticket. . 79 x 4. 56 = 3. 60 final drive ratio. Then people could pull 50,000 lbs, bend the frame, get in accidents and just be major nuisance on the road.



"Me tough man. Me tow big load. Me rev Cummins 5. 9 3,600 rpm's at 60 mph. Me have tough truck. "



Puuuhhh Leease.

 

[Bertram65]

I'm a pretty calm guy but there are a select few who choose to ignore the point. For some reason they just refuse (not that they can't, but they refuse) to acknowledge the issue. It's almost as if ego involved.



From 1995 thru 2001 I towed a 26' Shamrock Inboard Boat with a 12v 2nd gen and a 3. 73 rear. 215 hp and 450 ft/lbs of torque. 5 speed. With 100 gallons of fuel, 30 gallons of water and the trailer the total weight was over 8,000 lbs. 215/450 -- A real "dog" by comparison to this 325/610. That truck handled it fine. This notion that you have to have a final drive ratio of . 79 x 3. 73 (G56) or . 73 x 4. 10 (NV5600) or it's not a real truck is outrageous. And to make this argument is insulting the 325/610 engine!!!



This is the TOW-EGO RUN AMOCK thread.



You might lose 1000 lbs in the tow rating between the two ratios and with a 6 speed you can SHIFT ANYWAY!!! I mean this is the stupidest argument I've ever been involved with. For 3 out of 4 people, this is a no-brainer. For the other 1 out of 4, have the damn 4. 10. Enjoy! But I'd trade that last 1000 lbs for 2000 rpm's @ 70 mph and a useful 5th gear ANY DAY.



HELLO?



The most funny part about this is that this engine is a LOW RPM TORQUE MONSTER. The 4. 10 is ok for extreme towing but it's is NOT THE ANSWER for the majority of buyers -- even the ones that tow. The engine makes over 500 ft/lbs of torque right off idle!!! Why have such a low ratio? It's more necessary on engines w/o torque. The HEMI Power Wagon has the 4. 56? Why? That high-revving HEMI doesn't make much torque over all and certainly not much off idle.



CUMMINS: More gears is the answer but not the 4. 10 except for extreme cases.



All together now, "6 speed good. 4. 10 bad. 6 speed good. 4. 10 bad. "



Class dismissed.



The End.

Try pulling a hill with 10k lbs in tow below 2000rpm and see how well the low rpm torque monster does, it may look like it has tons of towing power below 2000rpm on paper but pulling a hill below 2000rpm with a load tells a different story.

 

[67guzzler]

You're right. I'm wrong. Everyone who posted wishing for another option with the G56 is wrong. We're all WRONG WRONG WRONG!



What was I thinking? I submit. Uncle! I cry Uncle! UNCLE!!!



We're all rolling over and spreading our legs in unison and saying all together:



"The 4. 56 with the G56 would be best. "

"The 4. 56 with the G56 would be best. "

"The 4. 56 with the G56 would be best. "

"The 4. 56 with the G56 would be best. "

"The 4. 56 with the G56 would be best. "

 

[klaybus]

3.5s & the Auto

I have the 3. 5s & am running 285 tires & am longing for 4. 10 everytime I tow but wouldn't really like them so much on my daily commute. With the 3. 5s I just can't use OD while towing. At 60 mph I'm turning approx. 2250 rpms & that seems to work. I'm not interested in going much over 60 while pulling so it works for me. 373s sound pretty FRIGGIN GOOD! The best of both worlds..... Better fuel mileage than 4. 10s & better pulling power than my current 3. 5s..... FWIW.

 

[67guzzler]

I have the 3. 5s & am running 285 tires & am longing for 4. 10 everytime I tow but wouldn't really like them so much on my daily commute. With the 3. 5s I just can't use OD while towing. At 60 mph I'm turning approx. 2250 rpms & that seems to work. I'm not interested in going much over 60 while pulling so it works for me. 373s sound pretty FRIGGIN GOOD! The best of both worlds..... Better fuel mileage than 4. 10s & better pulling power than my current 3. 5s..... FWIW.

I think the final drive ratio of the transmissions are different. The automatics with the . 69 OD final ratio work great with the 4. 10... That's a nice match. I'm with you -- the 3. 5x gears with the automatic is just too tall.

 

[SRichards]

I've had a Dodge cummings since 94(165 hp) I buy a new one every other year or so(all auto's) I now have an 05 and love it. IMO I think they just keep getting Better. We have the best of both worlds. You can pull 14000 lbs or unhook and go race the gas burners!!!

 

[NIsaacs]

Actually the Cummins will pull @ 2,000 rpm, as hard as any rpm, and likes it. The only reason Dodge (not Cummins) sets the red line at 3200 rpm is to enhance the drivability to a more gas like truck, mostly for the autos.



My O1 w/355's, 285's and 6spd will pull any hill, any load as fast as any 4. 10 truck with the same power. I may not be in the same gear, but my road speed will be the same.



On my CTD powered Ford, I installed 4. 10's for off highway startability with big loads and soft ground. However I used two overdrive transmissions for highway useability. High gears and low rpm is like candy for the Cummins.





"NICK"

 

[klenger]

OK, I'm going to really stir up the pot here. Torque does not move a vehicle. Horse Power does. Check the on-line calculators for determininig power reqirements for towing loads at various speeds, grades, etc. It is alway HP that is called out, not torque. Even though the CTD has a flat torque curve from 1400 - 3000 RPM (love it ) the power at 3000 RPM is twice as much as at 1500 RPM. That's why the vehicle goes faster at higher RPMs.



That being said, I did some math using the Exccel gear speed calculator on my website, and played with the numbers for a G56 with 3. 55's. Bottom line is that in 6th gear, vehicle speed/RPM is about the same as an NV5600 with 3. 73's and 5th gear is about the same as an NV5600 with 4. 10's. That would be a sweet combo IMHO, but alas, AAM does not make 3. 55's.

 

[LesStallings]

Actually the Cummins will pull @ 2,000 rpm, as hard as any rpm, and likes it. "NICK"

This is NOT my first hand experience. Higher RPMs make more power and lower EGTs under full load.



Maybe my experience is unique.

 

[Cummins Cowboy]

This is NOT my first hand experience. Higher RPMs make more power and lower EGTs under full load.



Maybe my experience is unique.

Actually my stock truck sees more EGT at higher RPM's cause dodge defuels the engine, you can't get all the fuel at 2k rpm. higher RPM does pull the load better but I can always downshift to 5th with my current combo, and yes the Auto trucks are much better suited to 4:10's because they have more overdrive gear, which is surprising because autos do much better behind diesels that are revving more, I think 3;55's gears in the early second gen trucks are acutally what caused many of the auto trans failures. but we are talking 6 speeds here which are an entirely different animal, I don't care if you are trying to pull 40000#'s 4:10's are not the gear you want behind your 6speed.

 

[NIsaacs]

Ken, mostly I agree with your post's, however I am going to disagree on the torque v/s horsepower thing. If I stuck a 5. 9 Cummins motor rated at 400 hp and 800 ft lbs of torque in a class 8 truck and run it against a big cam 3 400hp Cummins with 1400 ft lbs of torque, the 5. 9 would lose big time. Or run an identical Dodge pickup w/360 gas motor with 245hp and 330 ft lbs of torque against an 01 HO w/245 hp and 505 ft lbs of torque, the gasser would lose big time.



Les, your statement is ok, but it is too general. It depends on the motor and how it is set up. To keep it simple lets just talk about the Cummins. The 5. 9 has a bunch of hp and tq ratings, depending on the year and application. Cam selection, turbo, pump timing, compression ratio, manual v/s electronic control plus a bunch of other smaller differences will all play a part in power v/s rpm v/s egt's.





"NICK"

 

[klenger]

My comment about torque vs HP was in no way ment to compare the CTD 5. 9 with any other engine, gas or diesel. My point is that the engine produces higher HP at higher RPMs, and HP makes it move. In other words, even though the CTD may make 600 ft-lbs from 1600 - 3000 RPM, it makes more power at higher RPMs, which works better for towing, which is why numerically higher axle ratios are prefered for towing heavy.

 

[NIsaacs]

Ken, I can somewhat agree with your last statement, however there is such a thing as too much rpm with the ctd. I feel that any thing over about 2400 rpm under full power is a waste of a good motor. In a boat or auto powered truck where you can't use the torque as well as a manual trans, higher rpm is ok. But under full power/torque conditions, lower rpm is better for all reasons. Lower rpm being around 1800-2300.



If you check on the specs for ctd powered boats or auto trans in Trucks, Buses or Motor Homes, you will see higher rpms and hp with lower torque or no torque ratings in boats. But in manual trucks where you can use all the torque the motor can produce, you will see lower rpm. s, lower hp and higher torque ratings.

 

[ndennis]

DPKetchum: I must be the minority as my 2000 2WD Quadcab with standard output and 6-speed pulls just fine empty or loaded. Now maybe the Edge EZ and DDII's have affected my take on it, but I still would have liked the option of the 3. 54's for the 04. 5 that I currently run. The 2000 runs at 72mph at 2000 rpm and gets 20+ mpg as a bonus... the 04. 5 runs 68mph at 2000 and is getting close to the same mileage. The 04. 5 is a dog compared to the 2000.

RMalone is correct in that not all of us tow and I bet most of us dont on a routine basis, so give us a choice.

Just kind of curious why some here feel that the only reason to buy these vehicles is to tow and tow only. I need a truck as a truck, not a tow vehicle and I drive 30,000 miles a year or more and I am not interested in getting 12 mpg with a gashog Hemi. I drive in heavy stop n go and the last slushbox I had cost me over $7000 in its 140,000 mile life. The 2000 I have now has 116,000 and is now just starting to slip. For me, the 3. 54 and NV5600 is the perfect combination of mileage, performance and reliability and I just wish I had that in my late 2004 3500.

N Dennis

 

[Bagger]

The weekend warriors with their fiver's can get the 48re and 4. 10's if they want to haul, and 3. 73's if they want to haul booty on the highway.

That would be me... ... ... . thank you very much! :-laf However I don't need 4. 10 to haul a 5er. 3. 73 works just fine for towing a toy hauler at 12500lbs. Still have tonnage to spare by the loading chart. What I really like is being able to cruise at 80... unloaded... on the interstate. Fuel mileage is crapola at that speed, but WOW does that truck travel nice. Best I've ever driven.

 

[DPKetchum]

Well I guess cause these trucks were built to work. All of the big three diesel manufactures. I could not imagine paying the extra 4 or 5 grand for the diesel option just to drive it as a everyday driver. I drove 80 miles ONE way to work for 18 months once. No way did I drive my diesel truck but once in a blue moon. I drove a Caprice Classic with 305 and got 23 mpg. Bought it used with 84k and sold it withen 1k of what I paid for it with 265k. Cost me far less to do that then it did to devalue my Cummin with a lot of commute miles. One of the best cars I ever owned. Now my everday driver is a 1998 1500 slt 318. Its gets the SAME mileage my 03 diesel does. Its been LONG paid for and is easier to drive etc. I think the hemi's driven like a adult do as well or better then my 98. I have NEVER used a 2500/3500 gas/diesel of any manufacture as a everday driver. Thats not what there made for. Just too much DOLLARS down the drain running them not working and racking miles on them. It kills resale and trade in value. Wife drives 55 miles one way now. 2000 Mercury Gran Marquis Liminted(v8 etc) with all the bells and whistles. Bought it with 34k for 10k. It now has 70k with nothing(not even tires,just had a new set at trade in)just maintance stuff. It gets a consistent 24 mpg and has hit 25. 2 its NEVER under 70 mph. It will only devalue so far and nothing like a diesel truck with high mileage. Pop 100k on one and look at the drop in value! way too much loss and maintance/tire cost etc. just to use one(diesel) to move MY butt around only. Not to say I won't put a 100k plus on my rig now. It will just take me 10 or 12 years and those miles will be working miles.

 

[CJ Lagos]

Horsepower is a funtion of torque, not the other way around. An example would be nitrous; it adds torque. Although, there is a misconception because most people talk about nitrous in terms of horsepower.



I think the ones arguing the truck pulls fine with 3. 55's have a good point. By the same token, I can put my truck in 6th gear at 45mph with a 10-15k trailer and never look back. I have never met a hill I couldn't accelerate up with a full load. Starting off the line in 1st or 2nd gear has tremendous more power than a truck with 3. 55's. No one has mentioned 4x4 performance with lower gears either.



To me, this argument is moot because the gears don't exist. It would be a different situation if AA made the 3. 55's and Dodge just didn't offer them. Until someone makes these gears you or DaimlerChrylser doesn't have a choice. Band together with the guys who want factory heated wiper blades and go get DC!!! There is only 5% change between 3. 55 and 3. 73.



Commuting in a Dodge 2500 or 3500 reminds me of Home Improvement, the Binford XL4000 daily driver Oo.

 

[mikemac]

I read this, and I'm sorry I read this. I think I'll let my membership expire!

 

[Bagger]

Commuting in a Dodge 2500 or 3500 reminds me of Home Improvement, the Binford XL4000 daily driver Oo.

Well, I don't know anything at all about a Binford XL4000, but I will tell you my rig is a daily driver. It costs me about $18. 60 per week in diesel fuel to drive to and from work, which is a 21 mile round trip. You can do the math and see that I'm being VERY generous by figuring with a 14. 5 mpg fuel average. I'm pretty happy with that. I don't tow much at all, and when I do, it is on the weekends. The bottom line is finally I'm able to afford the truck I've always wanted... ... ... ..... so whether I'm using it properly (read: according to the way some TDR users THINK the truck should be used) or not, I am very happy with my truck, it works great, it is EXACTLY what I've always wanted and dreamed about... ... ... ... . and I'm OK with that.

 

[klenger]

Horsepower is a funtion of torque, not the other way around.

I sure don't want to hijack this thread with the topic, but I agree with the above quote, with the addition that HP is a function of torque AND RPM, which is the subject of this thread anyway.



I think everyone here agrees that running the CTD in it's sweet spot for your application is the objective here. The controversy comes from our different objectives. Life is full of compromises.



I still like the idea of a two-speed transfer case, but instead of having low range and high range like we have now, have one range that results in a final gear ratio similar to 3. 55s for running empty and a lower range with a final gear ration similar to 4. 10's. That way we could still have all six gears in either range. The xfer case would need to allow 2WD in both ranges, but would not have to have shift-on-the-fly as you could select the range you wanted before starting.