gear ratio question.
#1
Senior Board Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 975
gear ratio question.
how would a truck with 2.64 rears do with pulling weight? at gross? the truck in question is a walmart truck. i heard somewhere that its basically 3.55's because the trans is direct and not od. true?
#2
2,050 x 0.73 x 3.42 = 5,118 lb-ft of torque WalMart truck (I'm guessing) torque - 1,650 gear ratio - 1 axle ratio - 2.64 Torque at the wheels: 1,650 x 1 x 2.64 = 4,356 lb-ft of torque If this was a regular setup with 3.55 rears and 0.73 top gear ratio (13-speed), it'd have: 1,650 x 0.73 x 3.55 = 4,278 lb-ft of torque So, the Walmart truck would pull a little bit better in the top gear than the truck with the 3.55 rears, provided they both have 1650 torque. When I had 3.73 rears, I remember my wheels were spinning on a wet pavement going at 58 MPH up a hill in Texas. Here's why - with 3.73 axle ratio I had 2,050 x 0,73 x 3.73 or 5,581 lb-ft of torque at the wheels! This formula doesn't take into account the tires - with smaller tires you'll have the truck pull harder and accelerate a bit faster.
__________________
Watch my YouTube videos
#3
Senior Board Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 975
You have to look at the TORQUE at the wheels. Take ENGINE Torque X Top Gear Ratio X Axle RATIO. This way you'll be able to compare different trucks. My example: torque is 2,050 lb-ft; top gear ratio is 0.73; and axle ratio is 3.42; so my torque at wheels is
2,050 x 0.73 x 3.42 = 5,118 lb-ft of torque WalMart truck (I'm guessing) torque - 1,650 gear ratio - 1 axle ratio - 2.64 Torque at the wheels: 1,650 x 1 x 2.64 = 4,356 lb-ft of torque If this was a regular setup with 3.55 rears and 0.73 top gear ratio (13-speed), it'd have: 1,650 x 0.73 x 3.55 = 4,278 lb-ft of torque So, the Walmart truck would pull a little bit better in the top gear than the truck with the 3.55 rears, provided they both have 1650 torque. When I had 3.73 rears, I remember my wheels were spinning on a wet pavement going at 58 MPH up a hill in Texas. Here's why - with 3.73 axle ratio I had 2,050 x 0,73 x 3.73 or 5,581 lb-ft of torque at the wheels! This formula doesn't take into account the tires - with smaller tires you'll have the truck pull harder and accelerate a bit faster.
#4
tracer that mumbo jumbo actually makes sense! now theres a bit of a twist to these trucks. they were bought from the walmart fleet with bad motors. a newer isx was put in them. he has a few of them all the same way. some can be turned up to 500 hp, some 565. so the tq might be higher. now my next question is, with that ratio is the fuel milage around the same as 3.55's?
I have a load of steel plates right now heading west on I-94 in MI (45,000 lbs) and the truck pulls like there's no tomorrow at 1,270 RPM (!). At that RPM I'm still at 59 MPH and I hardly burn any fuel. I've been receiving threats from fuel station owners along the route
__________________
Watch my YouTube videos
#6
My father has been driving for Wal-Mart for close to 30yrs now. He said that the old IH's got around 6.5mpg and the Columbia's avg between 6.8-6.9 most times. I am guessing this one has an APU on it as well??? That would be nice
#7
Senior Board Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 975
a while back i saw a 03 (pre egr) walmart columbia.. gone though. also found some ex swift trucks too...
#8
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: jackassville (winnipeg, mb)
Posts: 3,280
Yup 2.64's and 3.55's are very close to each other when matched to their respective 10 spd(in all gears, 1-10). If you think that's a lot of torque, do the calculations on low gear!
|
|