Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-01-2013, 05:51 PM   #51
Senior Member
 
wilem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBaron View Post
Wilem - is there a way to force the tranny to lock the torque converter? My expertise is manual transmissions, so I'm curious if a switch or ??? could be added. Also, where is a good place to learn about transmissions/drivetrains?
before OBD II i would say it would be easy, now not so much.

the computers are so dynamic these days they are very Hard to fool. you would almost guarantee yourself a CEL/SES light.

you may be able to through a programmer. you loose all torque multiplication as far as the converter is concerned but that is why it cools when locked.Because a damper plate splined to the input shaft locks to the converter shell itself thus bypassing the guts.(impeller, stator and turbine) it would be similar to being in 6th gear in a manual and not down shifting. It almost has to unlock to climb any kind of hill. but diesels have so much torque you can get away without a dis-engagement. On a gas engine, it would really kill the power. and they are likely limited to 1:1 in the HOT MODE scenario.
__________________

__________________
William
Master ASE
Private pilot SEL
A&P
jack of all trades master of one...LOL
http://imageshack.us/a/img32/3111/ypy.JPG
wilem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 05:58 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
wilem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by youroo View Post
Post # 21 covered that! Youroo!!
this is getting no where, the guy asked what would be the difference in selecting 3.92 over 3.55 or something close to that over 3.21. IT WILL NOT BE TWICE AS MUCH. the labor for the job will be the same. he will MAYBE have to pay a few dollars more (most likely not but maybe) for the different higher ratio maybe even less if they are more popular and more available. you say it will be twice as much, and to you i ask twice as much as what?? does he have two trucks one 4x4 and one 4x2???
__________________

__________________
William
Master ASE
Private pilot SEL
A&P
jack of all trades master of one...LOL
http://imageshack.us/a/img32/3111/ypy.JPG
wilem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 06:42 PM   #53
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Waynesville
Posts: 12,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilem View Post
this is getting no where, the guy asked what would be the difference in selecting 3.92 over 3.55 or something close to that over 3.21. IT WILL NOT BE TWICE AS MUCH. the labor for the job will be the same. he will MAYBE have to pay a few dollars more (most likely not but maybe) for the different higher ratio maybe even less if they are more popular and more available. you say it will be twice as much, and to you i ask twice as much as what?? does he have two trucks one 4x4 and one 4x2???
First off I DIDNT say twice as much! I made a statement that if HIS truck is a 4X4 that it would be a Big diff. in price!
READ POST # 21! Youroo!!
__________________
youroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 07:12 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
wilem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 127
great advice everyone. so maybe I'll go for the 3.92 ratio as that is as low as I can go. There is only like $10.00 difference in price between the 3.55 and the 3.92.


Quote:
Originally Posted by youroo View Post
If your truck is 4x4 there will be a BIG diff.in Price! Youroo!!

and for the last time, NO there will not be a big difference in price. from 3.55 to 3.92 because he already has his price in hand

unless you intent is that he trades trucks and then gets the same job done on a 4x4 and he now has a 4x2

DONE HERE
__________________
William
Master ASE
Private pilot SEL
A&P
jack of all trades master of one...LOL
http://imageshack.us/a/img32/3111/ypy.JPG
wilem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2013, 12:38 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 101
Am I wrong in concluding that the term “gear ratio” is being used with two different meanings in these discussions?

On the one hand, there is the numerical value that can be calculated by dividing the number of teeth on the driven gear (the ring gear) by the number of teeth on the driving or input gear (the pinion). That is the specific meaning I am using. In this case, a lower gear ratio value results from the fact that there are fewer teeth on the ring gear, all other factors being equal.

On the other hand, “gear ratio" also appears to be used by some participants to refer to the condition that exists as a function of a particular arrangement of gears. In this case, a lower “gear ratio” is used to describe an arrangement that results in what is generally referred to as “lower gearing,” i.e., more power to the wheels with the wheels turning at a slower rate for a given engine rpm. In this case, a lower “gear ratio” actually results from the fact that there are more teeth on the ring gear and the calculated gear ratio is higher, all other factors being equal.

In one case, the meaning is prescriptive and refers to the cause – the calculated gear ratio. While in the other case, it is descriptive and refers to the general effect – the resulting so-called lower (or higher) gearing.

Assuming my conclusion is correct, it would be helpful in these discussions if those who comment would let us know which of these two different meanings they are using when they talk about gear ratios. This would be especially helpful for those, such as myself, who are relative novices when it come to this subject. Otherwise we can easily end up talking past one another.
__________________
Al Fresco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2013, 10:10 PM   #56
Denver, CO
 
garbonz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Fresco View Post
Garbonz (assuming your post 43 was addressing me): I agree with you that “higher numerical gear ratios will require higher engine rpm at the same speed.” Can you cite anything I have written that argues against that relationship? If “higher numerical gear ratios will require higher engine rpm at the same speed,” then it follows that lower numerical gear ratios will require lower engine rpm at the same speed. For the umpteenth time, I have been responding to an earlier post (number 7) that claimed “the lower your gear ratio, the greater the RPM's from your engine to maintain an equal driving speed. “ Am I correct in assuming we both agree that claim is not accurate, all other factors being equal?
Yepper's you is right.
__________________
2007 Chevy 2500HD Classic LBZ Duramax/Allison (Stock)
2005 Bigfoot 1500C8.2 AWESOME
garbonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2013, 10:12 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
wilem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Fresco View Post
Am I wrong in concluding that the term “gear ratio” i?

On the one hand, there is the numerical value that can be calculated by dividing the number of teeth on the driven gear (the ring gear) by the number of teeth on the driving or input gear (the pinion). That is the specific meaning I am using. In this case, a lower gear ratio value results from the fact that there are fewer teeth on the ring gear, all other factors being equal.

On the other hand, “gear ratio" also appears to be used by some participants to refer to the condition that exists as a function of a particular arrangement of gears. In this case, a lower “gear ratio” is used to describe an arrangement that results in what is generally referred to as “lower gearing,” i.e., more power to the wheels with the wheels turning at a slower rate for a given engine rpm. In this case, a lower “gear ratio” actually results from the fact that there are more teeth on the ring gear and the calculated gear ratio is higher, all other factors being equal.

In one case, the meaning is prescriptive and refers to the cause – the calculated gear ratio. While in the other case, it is descriptive and refers to the general effect – the resulting so-called lower (or higher) gearing.

Assuming my conclusion is correct, it would be helpful in these discussions if those who comment would let us know which of these two different meanings they are using when they talk about gear ratios. This would be especially helpful for those, such as myself, who are relative novices when it come to this subject. Otherwise we can easily end up talking past one another.

yes, it is being used with two different meanings in these discussions. It is not uncommon

you seem to have it clearly understood, it is just not understood equally by others. But the reason could be attributed to Low gear in the transmission is first gear or granny gear which is 1. High ratio, or with a transfer case being Low range 4, (way higher ratio) so people with or without a thorough understanding refer to a higher a ratio gear as low.... clear as mud?? hope it helps.


i hate to add this BUT (in reference to trannys only)
it can be under driven or over driven, either way the ratio is not directly relative to the reference of high gear and low gear..
__________________
William
Master ASE
Private pilot SEL
A&P
jack of all trades master of one...LOL
http://imageshack.us/a/img32/3111/ypy.JPG
wilem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2013, 11:08 PM   #58
Denver, CO
 
garbonz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,905
Looking at all the posts in context of the OP's questions it is apparent that the confusion is around terminology with low gear ratios creating higher engine rpm's and vice versa.

Simply put, I think the questions are answered, and that is that. I'm tired
__________________
2007 Chevy 2500HD Classic LBZ Duramax/Allison (Stock)
2005 Bigfoot 1500C8.2 AWESOME
garbonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 12:41 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 101
Thanks garbonz and wilem for confirming that two different and conflicting meanings for “gear ratio” are being used in these discussions. I was beginning to think I had slipped a gear myself!
__________________
Al Fresco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2013, 02:49 PM   #60
Just a member
 
kandl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cool Pool, AB
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwbybee View Post
My question is if I switch the gear ratio out to 3.92 or 3.55 will my miles per gallon improve significantly. I'm hopping for 10 mpg into wind and 14 with no/little wind.
I would opt for the 3.92 gears - that ratio works half decently with the 5-speed RFE trans. We've averaged about 21 L/100km (10+ US MPG) overall while lugging the 7500 lb Rockwood some 18K km. And that includes lots of Rocky Mountain climbing as well. Unloaded the truck gets 14 L/100km (~17 US MPG) combined city/hwy. Hwy, unloaded and not making like a banshee, I've seen 11 L/100km (21 US MPG).

Safe travels!
__________________

__________________
Keith, Lori & the Wild Bunch
TT: 2011 Rockwood 8293RKSS
TV: 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 CC 4x4 (ya.. it's got a Hemi
)
kandl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




ForestRiverForums.com is not in any way associated with Forest River, Inc. or its associated RV manufacturing divisions.


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 PM.