I hope it happens soon
http://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/questi...ser=1328919005
Sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk 2
Printable View
I hope it happens soon
http://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/questi...ser=1328919005
Sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk 2
people need to start voting 4.56. I think there's too many WK/XK owners who just havent been around the offroad world long enough to understand gears.
4.10's are not worth the trouble since 3.73 are available and its really not that big of an improvement. 4.56's would be the best compromise between all XK/WK engine/trans combos.
4.88s are a bit too much since there arent enough lift options that would really enable us to run tire sizes to utilize 4.88s.
True but I got a 3.7 so 4.10s would be great. I wouldn't have to go find an front axle out in the wild just to get 3.73.
Sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk 2
Why would 4.10s be "great"? You can get 3.73s already which is close enough.
4.56s would be the next logical step to help our platform, regardless of engine/trans combo. If there's a possibility of another gear option for our platform, 4.10s would be a waste. (4.10s with 32s is weaker than a stock vehicle with 3.73s. The final drive ratio is the same, but that doesnt account for inertial forces. And anyone with 3.73s already has a 4.7 or 5.7L so they're not going to waste the money to regear for a negligible difference. )
Also, don't make the same mistake most people make by comparing the worst OEM gear option to the next step. Think about it this way... whats the best OEM gear option available in your platform? (in this case, 3.73). So now pretend you're not "handicapped" already and have 3.73s.... what gear ratio would you like to have?
I've seen this with multiple truck platforms. There's no reason to handicap yourself just because your OEM options set you up with the weakest gears from the factory. Pretend you have the "best" gears from the factory and work up from there.
I would like either or. But of course 4.56 is most logical like Matt said. I voted
I voted 4:56's.. that would be nice!
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I can spend 2 grand to get 3.73Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk 2
I do agree with you I'd rather run 32s with a 4.56 than 31s with a 3.07. 4.56 is the best option for all engines just because we are ifs and limited by our liftQuote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk 2
I voted 4:56's
I feel both options need to be available as not all owners use their vehicle's the same way. Granted someone superlifted (or running 33 +) would most likely want a 4.56 where as the 2" guys running 32's who don't spend a whole lot of time off road/still use their ride day to day for highway trips and around town would be better suited with 4.11's to keep that final drive rpm down. No doubt the rapid acceleration of the 4.56 would be freakin sweet though!
Just sayin.
I also agree both would be nice. If they are only making one or the other it doesn't really matter to me. But 4.56's would be great for my next rig. Hey quick question cause I can't remember. Does the QD II front axle use the same part number for the ring and pinion as the QT II?
Yes they are the same #. The QDII has a different, larger front housing. I'd imagine someone superlifted or 33's plus would upgrade before anyone else so it would be a good sales decision to produce 4.56s first.
4:56's would be nice for my soon to be 35's!
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I'd pull the trigger on front gears the first day they are available!
My vote goes to the 4.56s. I think you would see a nice improvement on both 32s and 33s. The 4.11 gears are okay if you want to return to a more normal performance, but it seems like a lot of work and money just to go back to stock performance. I'm basing this on a tire to gear ratio chart and not any real experience with re-gearing.
You would actually have less performance than stock since those charts dont account for added weight from larger tires or additional wind resistance from the lift. To get closer to stock performance you find the equivalent gear to stock then +1 ratio... hence 4.56s are a more rounded gear for the majority of the market.
Epiphany .... thought it is worth noting that 3.7L owners with the NAG1 might be better suited with 4.10s; i forgot the trans gearing was steeper already for 3.7L owners. I'll put together a quick table to see how the final drive ratios work out.
Edit: heres a spreadsheet with final drive ratios
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24438380/Gears.xlsx
You can definitely see why the jump in performance from 3.07 to 3.73 for the V6 guys is well worth it! That's like the 4.7/5.7L guys getting 4.56s BTW
Based on this information, I still think the next gear option for our platform needs to be 4.56s since the majority of owners who will do this mod aren't concerned with a 200 RPM difference on the highway, and 3.7L owners have a good option already with the 3.73s.
Then, coming out with 4.10s would be a good gear for 3.7L guys to go a bit more extreme with their gears and the 4.7/5.7L guys to be a bit more conservative with theirs.
I need to take back what I said here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
What I said only holds true when you're dealing with the same trans gearing. It completely escaped me last night that the 3.7L owners who have 3.07 (or 3.55 option) gears stock have completely different trans gearing.
3.07 in the W5A580 actually has (practically) the same final drive gearing as 3.73 in the 545RFE.
So, you guys with 3.07's are not "handicapped". :cool:
Jay has 33x12.50R18 Toyo Open Country MT's on 18x9 XD SPY wheels = very heavy setup. The 3.73's we installed in his 05 WK 3.7 made a world of a difference. Like Matt said, there is no need really for 4.10s for guys running the 3.7 liter due to the nag1 trans. Especially when a 3.73 swap is so much easier since you can get a front diff for a 4.7 liter that ready to bolt in.
Matt I can appreciate what you said regarding "the majority of owners who will do this mod aren't concerned with a 200 RPM difference on the highway" I agree.
But... I do see an awful lot of threads on gas mileage (I Know we don't drive fuel efficient vehicles. Primarily why I got such a great deal 4 years ago) But to put it out there someone who has the 545RFE and sees 2000rpm @75mph with the effective higher gear ratio from their 32's is gonna crap themselves with the gas mileage at 2200-2500 rpm! I'm fortunate to live here in Colorado with plenty of wide open spaces between places so my fuel economy is a bit better than someone who is stop and go, speed up and slow down. But as they say Slow and Steady.
- Just trying to discuss..
What effect would an over geared axle drive ratio have on the (4 Low) Crawl Ratio. Would that be beneficial or negative to off road performance?
The highway gas mileage difference isnt going to be that drastic between the two gears. But like I mentioned, after the 4.56s are available then it might make sense to appease the more conservative crowd with 4.10s.... BUT food for thought, if you have the 4.7L or the 5.7L and are concerned about gas mileage, then you're not going to regear to 4.10s since the 3.73s are sufficient. So even in that regard I dont see a market for 4.10s in this platform.
The lower gears would definitely help crawl ratio.
I totally agree that he would immediately sell more 4.56's simply since the guys running the 4 inch and 33's+ are really lacking in the performance, for the most part tend to wheel their jeep often and are modifying more than the budget boost crowd. I don't foresee myself getting a 4 inch kit and adding 33's or 35's, mostly because of the lack of availability and I really want to start a Stroked/Procharged Hemi project for a future street car...;) but in the meantime lump me into that conservative category. I would like to have some towing performance back while pulling a camper over these long mountain passes and still be able to afford the kids. I wheel 1-2 times a month from June to October or whenever the forest roads are opened, short season cause of snow. I feel that for myself a few hundred RPM on the long haul would be equivalent to losing a portion of overdrive.