Jump to content

Opinions vs math on gear ratio

Armo325

By Armo325
in Engines & Drivetrain

Recommended Posts

Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Jacoby said:

Assuming one does nothing with their new blingy truck accept drive it, this is sound advice.

 

But for people that tow regularly and really use there trucks the above statement is not sound advice at all. 

As you say in your posts, this is your opinion and I respect your comments.  Op mentioned that he doesn't tow much..  Although I haven't experienced towing with a 5.3 V8 and 3.08 gear ratio, I towed considerable loads with my 4.9 L6 Fords with the 3.08. (100 + or - hp)   I currently tow a 22.5 ft. travel trailer with my V6 Sierra crew cab and find it has ample power for my needs..

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Jacoby Enthusiast

Jacoby

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Donstar said:

As you say in your posts, this is your opinion and I respect your comments.  Op mentioned that he doesn't tow much..  Although I haven't experienced towing with a 5.3 V8 and 3.08 gear ratio, I towed considerable loads with my 4.9 L6 Fords with the 3.08. (100 + or - hp)   I currently tow a 22.5 ft. travel trailer with my V6 Sierra crew cab and find it has ample power for my needs..

The argument here is not about power.  You could pull your travel trailer with a ride on lawn mower if you had to.  Gearing is about efficiency.  Lift your V6 Sierra 6" and put 35" tires on it and get back to me on whether you think it has enough power or not.  The "power" is still there but you're using a bunch of it just trying to move your new blingy lifted truck.  Re-gear it and all of the sudden your new blingy truck tows as good if not better then before you lifted it and put big wheels on it.  You can say your truck has ample power for your needs but your truck isn't comparable to the OPs. 

Armo325 Enthusiast

Armo325

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I appreciate the commentary, fellas. This is all good stuff.

Going back to Grumpy’s comments earlier regarding Moment of Inertia, one question I conveyed rather poorly in the original post is this: Why don’t any of the countless online “gear ratio” calculators attempt to capture the requirement to compensate for the heavier/larger wheels and tires?

Every calculator I have seen appears to be a fairly simple one that simply tries to give you a gear ratio that will return you to the OEM relationship between driveshaft RPM and wheel RPM.

One reason for this might just be that the math is “too hard.” I reject that based on a (possibly erroneous) assumption that people willing to take the time to build something like that online are also going to give it their best effort.

Another possibility is that, in the grand scheme of things, the heavier wheel/tire’s net effect on the rear diff isn’t a major contributor when compared to the other forces acting on it.

Thoughts?

Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jacoby said:

The argument here is not about power.  You could pull your travel trailer with a ride on lawn mower if you had to.  Gearing is about efficiency.  Lift your V6 Sierra 6" and put 35" tires on it and get back to me on whether you think it has enough power or not.  The "power" is still there but you're using a bunch of it just trying to move your new blingy lifted truck.  Re-gear it and all of the sudden your new blingy truck tows as good if not better then before you lifted it and put big wheels on it.  You can say your truck has ample power for your needs but your truck isn't comparable to the OPs. 

It appears you feel challenged and for this I apologize.  I was sharing  experiences.  Op said that with his 35" tires he estimates his gear ratio to be roughly equivalent to 3.17.  I am curious as to which would be a more capable tow vehicle - a 4.3 V6 with 3.42 or a 5.3 with a 3.17?  I personally believe they both have ample power.  I am not being sarcastic or funny.  I'm basing my comments on experience towing similar loads with a lot less power. (no lawnmowers however ;-))

Jacoby Enthusiast

Jacoby

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Donstar said:

It appears you feel challenged and for this I apologize.  I was sharing  experiences.  Op said that with his 35" tires he estimates his gear ratio to be roughly equivalent to 3.17.  I am curious as to which would be a more capable tow vehicle - a 4.3 V6 with 3.42 or a 5.3 with a 3.17?  I personally believe they both have ample power.  I am not being sarcastic or funny.  I'm basing my comments on experience towing similar loads with a lot less power. (no lawnmowers however ;-))

It would appear you don’t know how public forums work. In them we discuss things, we debate things, we offer others advice so on and so forth. I don’t feel challenged but I do feel the need to help you understand because you yourself aren’t making any sense. 

You keep mentioning the OP has a 5.3l with 3.08 gears so at 3.17 he’s “doing better than stock”. Well the OP has 3.42 gears so at 3.17 he’s actually doing a lot worse than stock and to get back would need to re gear to 3.98 or 4.10 since there isn’t a 3.98 gear. 

You keep mentioning both trucks make ample power and I agree they do. Let me say it again. It’s not about power made it’s about how the power gets put to the ground. It doesn’t take an engineer (since there’s no rocket scientist in this thread) to determine a 5.3 with a 3.17 gear is a more capable tow vehicle over a 4.3 with 3.42s. It makes damn near 100 more hp & tq. That is more than enough to make up for the shortcomings of a lower gear. Point is OP still isn’t running as efficiently as he would be with stock gearing ratio. At 3.17 he’s way off the powerband and the truck is a dog. With a taller gear he’ll gain back performance because it won’t take as much power to get things moving and his gas mileage will go up and if he ever does tow something heavy it will do it with a lot less effort. When it comes to the OPs truck there are no negatives to re gearing. 

 

Ive enjoyed this discussion 

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Armo325 said:

Going back to Grumpy’s comments earlier regarding Moment of Inertia, one question I conveyed rather poorly in the original post is this: Why don’t any of the countless online “gear ratio” calculators attempt to capture the requirement to compensate for the heavier/larger wheels and tires? Thoughts?

Best GUESS? It would be very hard to calculate the inertia moment. It isn't a simple flywheel with a known mass distribution. What could be done is build a spin fixture and directly measure it. Not cheap, not easy...only a few care. I'll bet some private race shop on the continent has one though. Someone like Allen Johnson or Force Racing. Maybe one of the off road teams. They spin everything else for this purpose. An Engineering University like MIT or CSM? 

Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Jacoby said:

 It doesn’t take an engineer (since there’s no rocket scientist in this thread) to determine a 5.3 with a 3.17 gear is a more capable tow vehicle over a 4.3 with 3.42s. It makes damn near 100 more hp & tq. That is more than enough to make up for the shortcomings of a lower gear.

 

Ive enjoyed this discussion 

I also enjoy a good, respectful discussion.  I wonder if the 70 hp. difference between the 4.3 and 5.3 is more than enough.  My 4.3 (3.42) is rated to tow 7,000lbs.  The same truck with a 5.3 (3.08) is rated to tow 6100 lbs.  I don't have data on what a 5.3 (3.17) would be rated to tow but logic would suggest it would be  higher than the 5.3 (3.08).  However, I would need more information before concluding that it is more capable than the 4.3 (3.42).  My guess is that they would be reasonably comparable.  

JimCost2014 Senior Enthusiast

JimCost2014

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, SS502 said:

We’re gonna need a bigger boat....

Territorial pissing never gets old, but I am offended by the rocket scientist remark, seeing how I consider myself to be a "brain scientist", or depending on the day a sort of "rocket surgeon"...….  

Darksky Enthusiast

Darksky

Posted
Posted

Here it s a screen grab of the numbers I researched for my edification, when I was looking at gearing.

BF4BDB7C-F06F-44BD-A5A5-51EB7E955C26.jpeg

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Darksky said:

Here it s a screen grab of the numbers I researched for my edification, when I was looking at gearing.

 

Question. At the bottom you mention tire weights, is that just the tire or tire and rim? Thanks.

Armo325 Enthusiast

Armo325

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Question. At the bottom you mention tire weights, is that just the tire or tire and rim? Thanks.

If anyone wants another data point, I did some digging on this about a year ago and just found my old numbers.  I didn't personally weigh any of these but rather used numbers I could find online so consider the source.  The aftermarket numbers were easy to find from the manufacturers.  The OEM numbers were harder to find and I would consider them less reliable.

 

OEM 2017 Z71 wheel & tire (265/65/R18) combined weight: 65 lbs.

20x10 Fuel Krank & 325/60/R20 tire combined weight: 111 lbs.

 

That's obviously only part of the story since the radius and mass distribution plays a huge role but, as you can see, just switching wheels and tires adds 46 lbs. per wheel.

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • richard wysong
      Gas Prices

      By richard wysong · Posted

      Diesel $5.42 at the truck stop on the hi-way
    • Chuck FB
      Joke Thread

      By Chuck FB · Posted

    • txab
      Gas Prices

      By txab · Posted

      $3.59  
    • needafix
      2019+ Brake failure, it's complicated

      By needafix · Posted

      I'm not sure if this should be a new topic, let me know if it's out of place. This my first post. Thanks 85077522 - AC Delco GM Genuine Parts Brake Master Cylinders. Anyone else had to replace this brake master cylinder yet. I didn't do any brake work, it looks like new parts and I've had the truck for about 4k miles, 119k total miles.  When it started to throw codes I did the calibrations with a bidirectional scanner and got the codes to clear but they came back so I did the routine; base bleed, automated bleed and final base bleed. All that with Bosch ES16-32N fluid (please look it up). That seemed to fix it but 100ish miles later it failed again so I ran the same process but with a pressure bleeder this time and got the same results, fixed for 100ish miles. The original fluid looked bad and I thought I got most of it out, it could've been the wrong fluid. The codes; P25A2, C05B0-00, C2A1B. I can get them to clear but not for long. The C05B0 indicates a leak in the front circuit (which is bone dry) so I'm thinking of doing the bleed process on that front again today and I don't know if that's taboo to just do the front but at this point it seems like it's worth the try anyway. The new master cylinder/module unit is supposed to get here today. But now I'm pretty much convinced this install is over my head. I've called several shops and some mobile guys that I know but this thing is like radio active material, scary wise. I did get 2 local shops say they should be able to do it, one says he has the SPS2 programing capability. And with the battery disconnected is there supposed to be pedal resistance, mine is to the floor, then if I pump it I can get some resistance. I had a panic stop prior to this issue which may have contributed from what I read. And on the first attempt to bleed and hydraulic test the scanner listed things to look for and one was any gaps between the pad and rotors which I did notice on the RF corner and I removed the outer pad (where the gap was) cleaned it and the hardware and didn't see a gap after that but will re-check it. I read that if pushing the caliper pistons back then you're supposed to open the bleeder so as to not push fluid backwards into the abs module or it will damage it. If that's true then that's also a possibility from the previous owner having the brakes changed before I got it. I'm using an XTool ip500 scanner. Any suggestions, questions and comments welcome. 
    • Donstar
      Navigating senior years.

      By Donstar · Posted

      Next Friday will be my 6 week point from my right knee replacement.  The surgeon says it will be fine if I choose to drive after this checkup.  I know I could drive now but best to do as my surgeon (and my wife) tell me.  Richard compared being 62 to 72.  I remember when I was in my early 60's I was experiencing slow but regular decline in my mobility.  Thanks to good medical support,  i continued to fight the speed and spread of this decline. During my 60's I worked on non-surgical methods and just when I turned 70, my orthopedic surgeon recommended joint replacements.  In a little over a year, I had one shoulder and both knees replaced.  This hasn't been a terribly fun experience, but worth the discomfort as my future mobility health trajectory has reversed.  It is a treat to now be watching my mobility. balance and confidence steadily improve!

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...