Jump to content

3.08 to 3.73 Gear ratio on 2013 Silverado with 35s??

Matt2013LT
 Share

Recommended Posts

Matt2013LT Enthusiast

Matt2013LT

Posted
Posted

I currently have a 2013 Silverado CCSB 5.3 2wd with a 6.5 inch zone lift kit on 2020 Silverado 20 inch RST Wheels mounted on 35 inch trail grapplers! I currently have the crappy factory 3.08 gear ratio. As you can imagine, a truck with 35's with a 3.08 is an absolute dog! Holds gears until 2500 RPM, 6th gear is totally unusable over 60MPH, and 9.5 AVG Fuel Economy. AFM/DOD has been removed from the engine also.

 

When I first bought the truck in July 2021, it was a mostly bone stock 1 owner truck. It had the 17 inch alloys on 265/70r17 Goodyear wranglers on stock suspension. RPM's were relatively low with the 3.08, but of course, mostly stock! Averaging 13.2 MPG

 

I've recently have had to do some long distance driving & the low MPG + price of fuel is costing too much! For anyone that has knowledge on this, do you think it's possible to put a 3.73 gear ratio in with a 6L80E & 35s, and have lower RPM's, or is it best to go for a lower gear ratio like a 4.10+ ?? I'm just trying to get as much fuel efficiency as possible!

 

Any input would be great! Thank you

  • Like 1
diyer2 Senior Enthusiast

diyer2

Posted
Posted

Back to stock tires and get rid if the lift for fuel efficiency. Bigger gears will give more torque but higher rpms. I don't think it will help with fuel efficiency. 

CamGTP Senior Enthusiast

CamGTP

Posted
Posted

Did you ever tune the truck for the new tire size? I would have hoped you did, but that alone wouldn't have really helped much with the mechanical disadvantaged you already had.

 

Going to 3.73's will help a lot, the truck will work less hard to get to the same speed. Ideally with true 35's you'd want 3.90's or 4.10's. But with a 6 speed auto you can get away with less gear, I'd go with 3.73's or 3.90's personally in a 6 speed.

 

Use an RPM calculator to figure out your highway speed cruising rpm. Look up the 6L80e's gear ratios, off memory 6th gear is something like .62 or close to that. Fuel mileage should go up a fair amount because the truck will require less throttle to maintain the same speeds with more mechanical advantage. And get it tuned for the new gear ratio.

  • Like 1
Matt2013LT Enthusiast

Matt2013LT

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 hours ago, diyer2 said:

Back to stock tires and get rid if the lift for fuel efficiency. Bigger gears will give more torque but higher rpms. I don't think it will help with fuel efficiency. 

I totally don't disagree! That would be most optimal for fuel efficiency! But I love a lifted truck! Just my preference though!

Matt2013LT Enthusiast

Matt2013LT

Posted
  • Author
Posted
54 minutes ago, CamGTP said:

Did you ever tune the truck for the new tire size? I would have hoped you did, but that alone wouldn't have really helped much with the mechanical disadvantaged you already had.

 

Going to 3.73's will help a lot, the truck will work less hard to get to the same speed. Ideally with true 35's you'd want 3.90's or 4.10's. But with a 6 speed auto you can get away with less gear, I'd go with 3.73's or 3.90's personally in a 6 speed.

 

Use an RPM calculator to figure out your highway speed cruising rpm. Look up the 6L80e's gear ratios, off memory 6th gear is something like .62 or close to that. Fuel mileage should go up a fair amount because the truck will require less throttle to maintain the same speeds with more mechanical advantage. And get it tuned for the new gear ratio.

 

I honestly never got it tuned! I've only ever got the speedometer calibrated, but I've only driven it 10k miles since August 2022 When the lift + tire's were installed!

 

And you are correct, a gear ratio like a 4.10 would probably be more optimal (that option is still on the table) but even the gearing with 3.73's on 35's is even slightly better than 3.08's on 265/70R17's! The 6L80E has a 1st Gear Ratio of 4.03 and a 6th Gear Ratio of 0.67, so I also agree with you that the 6 spd still wouldn't mind the 3.73! The RPM's would also be quite low with the 3.73 according to the gear charts & calculators I tried!

 

I also will get it tuned at the same time as the new gear ratio. I should've got it tuned to begin with, but I for sure will when the gears go in for maximum efficiency. 

  • Like 1
swathdiver Senior Enthusiast

swathdiver

Posted
Posted
On 10/17/2023 at 7:07 PM, Matt2013LT said:

I currently have a 2013 Silverado CCSB 5.3 2wd with a 6.5 inch zone lift kit on 2020 Silverado 20 inch RST Wheels mounted on 35 inch trail grapplers! I currently have the crappy factory 3.08 gear ratio.

 

...do you think it's possible to put a 3.73 gear ratio in with a 6L80E & 35s, and have lower RPM's, or is it best to go for a lower gear ratio like a 4.10+ ??

 

4.10s will help more around town, 3.73s will be better for the highway.

 

I have a lifted Sierra with the same Zone lift on 35s for ten years now.  It came with 3.73 gears (NHT) which are the equivalent of 3.42s now with the 35 inch tires.  When we get around to it, we're going to regear for 4.10s so that it's gearing will be back to stock with the 35s.

 

She'll get about 13-14 mpg on the highway and averages 10 in the city.  It's a 6.2, tuned with a muffler delete.

 

 

334752147_734359528148641_1467822101475696730_n.jpg

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • James Beyer
      Trading 7.3 (Godzilla) for G.M.C gas

      By James Beyer · Posted

      Congratulations Isttype, on your gmc. Really like my 2024 2500hd sle doublecab now with 85,500 miles.  I checked the oil today at 4800 miles since last oil change and barely reading on the stick.  I don't care if GM says it's Acceptable adding a quart every 2000 miles because that is 100% BS, It is not a 1966 Harley Shovelhead! Sounds like it's setting up a future failure like I had with my 1500 6.2l. Other than oil consumption problems, I really like the 6.6l gas and 10 speed is really nice.  Towed a light 4000 pound trailer last week and averaged 14 mpg.  I was pretty impressive that a 7300 pound gas truck did 14mpg towing, Later-
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing   Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.    http://papers.sae.org/600190/:   http://papers.sae.org/850215/:   Up to 75% of  engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.   So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.    How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".      https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.      Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.    There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.    The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:      Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.   It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.     
    • asilverblazer
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      I don't think you will need a split, separate product, etc., the OBD port should be able to deliver everything you need. Since your device would be plugged into it all the time, it wouldn't miss anything.    Hardware in this case will be the easiest part of your project - ELM 327 devices will already deliver all the data you need. Reporting/software is where your advantage/marketability is.
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      I do too. I’ll never be stuck again 😂
    • KARNUT
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By KARNUT · Posted

      It has happened to me a few times. I carry a jumpstart-tire inflator with me.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...