Jump to content

Regearing Truck after lift kit and 35's tire

Josh121

By Josh121
in Modifications & Accessories

Recommended Posts

LongrangeLauber Senior Enthusiast

LongrangeLauber

Posted
Posted

 

 

With all that would it not just be easier to like replace the axels / diffs? That sounds like a crazy amount of work.

It's not really that bad. No matter what, they have to be set for the proper tolerances anyways. It's called meshing the gears (proper contact of the teeth). The carrier holds the ring and then mounts into the axle housing. The pinion slides in from the front and the axles pop in from the sides and stay in with a C-clip inside the carrier.

 

In theory, yes it'd be much easier to just swap the entire housing but if you could find a fully built housing with aftermarket gears (I believe factory only goes to 3.73 or 4.10 in the housings, so if you wanted steeper gears they would have to be aftermarket) it would cost a loy, lot more considering how new these 12 bolt housings are

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Silvern Sentry Enthusiast

Silvern Sentry

Posted
Posted

3.73 is max I believe. At least when I checked builds it was. Of course HD's would be a much bigger diff allowing for a bigger gear with more teeth, do I have that correct? SO would that not also mean squeezing in something like 4.10 would yield very thin gear teeth? And being so thin they would be more fragile?

LongrangeLauber Senior Enthusiast

LongrangeLauber

Posted
Posted

3.73 is max I believe. At least when I checked builds it was. Of course HD's would be a much bigger diff allowing for a bigger gear with more teeth, do I have that correct? SO would that not also mean squeezing in something like 4.10 would yield very thin gear teeth? And being so thin they would be more fragile?

Not necessarily true, but correct to an extent. Because there are fewer teeth to each the ring and pinion they can build them fatter per say. But you are right, that's why the diesels have the huge 11.5" rear end. It is said that the more teeth that make contact at one time (lower numbered gears) are to be stronger because the torque is distributed across more surface area

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Silvern Sentry Enthusiast

Silvern Sentry

Posted
Posted

Not necessarily true, but correct to an extent. Because there are fewer teeth to each the ring and pinion they can build them fatter per say. But you are right, that's why the diesels have the huge 11.5" rear end. It is said that the more teeth that make contact at one time (lower numbered gears) are to be stronger because the torque is distributed across more surface area

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

That makes sense to me, thanks for clarifying. Always like to learn.

arcasey Enthusiast

arcasey

Posted
Posted

The trailer weighs around 7500 pounds loaded. Usually tow it on the weekends when camping.

 

Honestly, I would go with the 4.10 gears since the majority of your time will be without the trailer and you're not quite at max capacity. That should yield you better mileage when not towing. Plus, a 4.10 ratio is actually over what the equivalent to the stock setup would be so your truck should pull that trailer just fine. With all that said, how does the truck tow the trailer right now?

 

I ain't so sure about the lift increasing towing capacity. The only way to increase the amount of weight the truck can pull is in the drive line. Raising the body/suspension of the truck shouldn't affect the amount of weight you can tow although this drastically affects the stability of the vehicle which can negatively affect the amount that you can tow "safely".

LongrangeLauber Senior Enthusiast

LongrangeLauber

Posted
Posted

Going up usually means bigger tires, and that WILL decrease your tow capacity bc the final gear ratio will be less than that of a stock truck. Lifting it will not increase your tow capacity, idk where anyone heard that. It will actually decrease, even if you change gears and have the same final gear ratio as a stock truck bc you have a huge wall of air resistance plus you have to turn the heavier, wider tires as well.

 

My stock 6 speed 5.3L 3.42 gears high country tows way better than my 02 silverado 4 speed 5.3L lifted 10 inches on 37's and 4.88 gears (which was the equivalent of a stock truck with 3.73's). I realize not apples to apples, due to the transmissions, but the trucks, stock to stock, were rated to tow within 1000 pounds of each other. I've had the same load hooked to each and at only 3k pounds or so I couldn't tell it was behind my new truck where as my lifted truck it was struggling lol.

 

Also, remember that the higher you go up the more you are risking yourself to trailer sway, especially if you don't have trailer brakes. Which on a camper that size I would hope it has brakes haha

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Josh121 Enthusiast

Josh121

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Going up usually means bigger tires, and that WILL decrease your tow capacity bc the final gear ratio will be less than that of a stock truck. Lifting it will not increase your tow capacity, idk where anyone heard that. It will actually decrease, even if you change gears and have the same final gear ratio as a stock truck bc you have a huge wall of air resistance plus you have to turn the heavier, wider tires as well.

 

My stock 6 speed 5.3L 3.42 gears high country tows way better than my 02 silverado 4 speed 5.3L lifted 10 inches on 37's and 4.88 gears (which was the equivalent of a stock truck with 3.73's). I realize not apples to apples, due to the transmissions, but the trucks, stock to stock, were rated to tow within 1000 pounds of each other. I've had the same load hooked to each and at only 3k pounds or so I couldn't tell it was behind my new truck where as my lifted truck it was struggling lol.

 

Also, remember that the higher you go up the more you are risking yourself to trailer sway, especially if you don't have trailer brakes. Which on a camper that size I would hope it has brakes haha

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Yeah the trailer has trailer brakes. How much more sway do you think i would get with the lifted truck?

 

 

Honestly, I would go with the 4.10 gears since the majority of your time will be without the trailer and you're not quite at max capacity. That should yield you better mileage when not towing. Plus, a 4.10 ratio is actually over what the equivalent to the stock setup would be so your truck should pull that trailer just fine. With all that said, how does the truck tow the trailer right now?

 

I ain't so sure about the lift increasing towing capacity. The only way to increase the amount of weight the truck can pull is in the drive line. Raising the body/suspension of the truck shouldn't affect the amount of weight you can tow although this drastically affects the stability of the vehicle which can negatively affect the amount that you can tow "safely".

 

Right now the truck pulls the trailer just fine, i did a big trip with a few friends from Canada through Idaho, Utah, Vegas, Southern California. Drove over 8000 kms. Had no problems, drove in all different weather conditions and terrain.

LongrangeLauber Senior Enthusiast

LongrangeLauber

Posted
Posted

 

 

Yeah the trailer has trailer brakes. How much more sway do you think i would get with the lifted truck?

At the time my old truck was lifted 6 inches on 35's, no trailer brake controller, so no trailer brakes. Had a 3k pound car on a 2k pound trailer. Was going down a gradual grade about 75 and increasing. Hit the brakes to slow us down and the trailer started swaying so bad I was ending up in the other lane at times, honestly thought I was gonna lose it. If the trailer has brakes you should be fine bc the trailer brakes will pull the trailer back whereas the truck brakes provide stopping power from the front so you still have the weight of the trailer trying to swing on the 2 5/16" ball

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

SarahsGMC Senior Enthusiast

SarahsGMC

Posted
Posted

I have a 7" lift 35s and regeared from 3.42 to 4.10. I also have a mild built trans and tunes. Truck will roast 35s if I want to and tows just fine. 76669f430f863a2ba9ee120eef5a31be.jpg

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

arcasey Enthusiast

arcasey

Posted
Posted

Yeah the trailer has trailer brakes. How much more sway do you think i would get with the lifted truck?

 

 

Right now the truck pulls the trailer just fine, i did a big trip with a few friends from Canada through Idaho, Utah, Vegas, Southern California. Drove over 8000 kms. Had no problems, drove in all different weather conditions and terrain.

 

I would say then if you were happy with the way it towed before then 4.10 gears should be just fine for you.

Josh121 Enthusiast

Josh121

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have a 7" lift 35s and regeared from 3.42 to 4.10. I also have a mild built trans and tunes. Truck will roast 35s if I want to and tows just fine. 76669f430f863a2ba9ee120eef5a31be.jpg

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Awesome I think I'll just go with the 4.10 gears then. How much did it cost for the parts and labour?

schubee Enthusiast

schubee

Posted
Posted

I just switched to 4.10's and love them. I'm running 35s and I tow a couple times a month (toy hauler / enclosed 16').

 

My RPM is right around 2k at 75mph which I think is perfect. I'm also getting better gas mileage after the gear swap running the 35s versus the 3.42s

 

I paid just under $2k for both front and rear here in CA which is very reasonable. The shop recommended OEM (US made) gears versus any of the import sets out there (Yukon, G2, etc...).

 

I have my 3.42s for sale in the classifieds section if anyone is interested: http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/189664-fs-2015-gmc-sierra-4x4-oem-342-ring-and-pinion/

 

Cheers,

John

  • 3 years later...
BBChevy2017 Enthusiast

BBChevy2017

Posted
Posted
On 7/11/2016 at 7:33 PM, Vic15 said:

I haven't felt the need to re-gear. There's plenty of power even with the 6.2, 3.23 & 8 speed. My brother is plenty happy with his as well, 5.3, 3.42 & 6 speed. We both have a 6 inch lift on 35s. Try it before you spend the money to re-gear.

Vic15, 

 

I have been researching online regarding re-gearing and ran across your post. 
 

I just bough a 2017 Silverado 1/2 ton crew cab standard bed Z71 with the 6.2 liter motor, 8 speed transmission and 3.23 gear ratio. 
 

I am going to lift my truck and having a hard time debating between a 4” or 6” BDS. I love the look of 6”, but afraid with my high factory gears, it would require re-gearing. If I go with a 4”, I will run 275/70/18 (33.6”) and if I get a 6” I would go 285/70/18 (34.1”) or 295/70/18 (34.5”). The tire I will be going with is Toyo Open Country has MY. My factory stock tire is 275/55/20 which is (31.9”). 
 

I noticed you have the same motor, trans and gearing as me. On your 6” lift, what size of tire are you running. How is the performance and gas mileage for you currently. Do you plan in re-gearing? 
 

Most shops I talk to say to re-gear, but I don’t want to do lower gears and regret it with my truck sucking gas. So far people are saying 3.73 for the 33” tires and 4.30 for 34”/35” tires. 
 

Look forward to hearing back from you and getting your feedback as you have the setup currently. Thanks man. 

Vic15 Enthusiast

Vic15

Posted
Posted

I'm running  Nitto Ridge Grapplers, 35x12.5 20 at generally 48 psi. I see no need to re-gear. Plenty of power. Decent gas mileage for driving pretty fast most of the time, you know, 420hp ?. 15-16 mpg combined, but mostly short around town driving. I see 18 on the highway if I can stay below 80 mph.?

truckguy82 Senior Enthusiast

truckguy82

Posted
Posted

For $2k-$3k

 

You could go fbo (Not including cost of tune since you basically need to do that anyway with a regear)

 

on a 6.2 that’s like 50-60hp

 

50-60hp > gears any day, especially on an 8 speed

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...