5thGenRams Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

3.21. vs 3.92 gear

IvoryHemi

Ram Guru
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
1,525
Reaction score
1,534
I’ve had real world experience with two very comparable vehicles, towing the same 7,000 lb GVWR camper.

Ram 5.7L/ 8HP75/ 3.92/ 5,700 lbs

Durango 5.7L/ 8HP70/ 3.09/ 5,400 lbs

Both are 4WD, the MDS always off, 89 gas, tires are 30.4” vs 32.1”.

From a dead stop the 3.92 pulls easier, no question. That’s not saying the 3.09 struggled, it just doesn’t feel as effortless.

On the highway not much difference. 3.09 stayed in 6th and never 7th gear, while 3.92 is 7th and rarely sees 8th

Engine breaking with downshifting is significantly better with the 3.92

After 12,000 miles of towing (6k each), overall the 3.92 averaged ~1.5 mpg better than 3.09

Also worth noting, when not towing I averaged ~16.5 mpg with both vehicles. Durango slightly (+0.5 mpg) better

7759F993-D118-486E-BFE6-FAA329B6E327.jpeg B59117C9-9C30-4A18-B0B9-5F3D8D107176.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Bt10

Ram Guru
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
686
Reaction score
359
Location
MI
The 3.92 is rated higher because it is easier on the transmission for warranty purposes, such as ease of accel from stopped, as noted above. The max rating for the frame, brakes, etc would be the same. My son has the same basic truck, except 3.21, and his feels faster than mine unloaded because it spends less "TIME" at reduced power for shifting, and more "TIME" pulling in a gear. Again, mine tows "easier". Ever heard a "tuned" charger (challenger, durango, etc) shift lighning quick? Far less time at reduced power for transmission warranty.
 

Bt10

Ram Guru
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
686
Reaction score
359
Location
MI
I didn’t read the whole thread, but the 3.92 would preserve more towing capability (not OEM published) and longevity on trucks with bigger diameter tires. Makes sense to start with the gear that would grow with you.
 

VegasRob55

Active Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
35
Location
Las Vegas
Sorry, I find this very hard to believe. You must drive 45MPH down hill and never hit a stop light.

Log your mileage and tank fills on Fuelly.com.
Yup, BS. I use 91 and can't ever do better than 16mpg of combined driving
 

VegasRob55

Active Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
35
Location
Las Vegas
2wd, This input and thought gives me hope for my configurations.
I have a 2wd Laramie with 3.21 rear axle. I tow a 7,000 lb. recreational trailer up into 10,000' Utah Mountain elevations with zero problems. This is also with about 2,000 lbs. worth people & camping gear in the truck as well. Truck is an absolute beast, bone-stock. No tow pack, basic rear end, 5.7L HEMI, 2WD/Rear Wheel. As basic a setup you can get in a V-8 truck, and can tow tough/max-rated loads at very high elevation (10,000'+) and ultra-high heat (120+ degrees fht)
 
Last edited:

SnowBlaZR2

Fuel Economy Champion
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 17, 2021
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
3,261
Location
FL
I have a 2wd Laramie with 3.21 rear axle. I tow a 7,000 lb. recreational trailer up into 10,000' Utah Mountain elevations with zero problems. This is also with about 2,000 lbs. worth people & camping gear in the truck as well. Truck is an absolute beast, bone-stock. No tow pack, basic rear end, 5.7L HEMI, 2WD/Rear Wheel. As basic a setup you can get in a V-8 truck, and can tow tough/max-rated loads at very high elevation (10,000'+) and ultra-high heat (120+ degrees fht)
You have 2700 lbs of payload? That's pretty good. :cool:
 

Talon4U2NV

Active Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2022
Messages
196
Reaction score
90
Location
Bellevue, NE
We just picked up a 2019 Laramie 1500 Sport, It has the 3.92 gears with LSD and we snagged it 'used'. I can say coming from 3/4 and one ton Cummins truck for the past almost 17years... The half ton is a change... but not bad, I love the 3.92 gears so far. The day after the truck came home we hit the road empty and bucked some cross and head winds but averaged 17.5-17.7 MPG running 77-80mph. Only upgrade is a bed cover and we just ran 87 for fuel... I'm pretty happy with the pick up and my back appreciates the ride. We do not have the livestock or big toyhauler anymore and with costs on the rise... I really couldnt justify the 1 ton mega anymore... Though we miss the truck and disposable tow power.. I think this will do just fine.. Hoping this spring to head from Nebraska town to Texas to haul a Mach1 back so curious to see how the truck does.. but i'm happy this far.
 

JimD007

Active Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
126
Reaction score
84
Location
South Carolina
3.92 gears means the driveshaft rotates .71 more of a turn for the axle to rotate once than with 3.21 gears. From a stop, that means more torque since both should be in first gear and the engine in the 3.92 truck will be higher in rpm. But on the highway, unless both trucks are in the same gear, the difference in rear end ratio will not mean the 3.92 truck is higher in rpm. A difference in the transmission ratio can easily make up for the difference in rear end ratio. The truck with 3.92 gears may be turning lower rpm and getting better mileage if the 3.21 truck has to drop down too far in transmission ratio.
 

Gman

Ram Guru
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Messages
1,134
Reaction score
834
Location
Puyallup, WA
I haven't read this thread in a loooong time. But here it is, still going.

The 5.7 Hemi produces significant torque, so it's not like the 3.21 equipped trucks start hunting for lower gears at the slightest incline (at least not in my experience with eTorque). If I'm careful with the throttle, I can even maintain the cylinder deactivation with a bit of load.

A 3.92 is not going to turn more revs and be more fuel efficient. It's just physics. The 3.92 provides better mechanical advantage but it does so at the cost of more revolutions per linear distance. All things being equal, more revs equals more fuel consumption over the same distance.

 
Last edited:

SnowBlaZR2

Fuel Economy Champion
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 17, 2021
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
3,261
Location
FL
I haven't read this thread in a loooong time. But here it is, still going.

The 5.7 Hemi produces significant torque, so it's not like the 3.21 equipped trucks start hunting for lower gears at the slightest incline (at least not in my experience with eTorque). If I'm careful with the throttle, I can even maintain the cylinder deactivation with a bit of load.

A 3.92 is not going to turn more revs and be more fuel efficient. It's just physics. The 3.92 provides better mechanical advantage but it does so at the cost of more revolutions per linear distance. All things being equal, more revs equals more fuel consumption over the same distance.

20220306_152352.jpg
 

ferraiolo1

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Aug 18, 2021
Messages
2,312
Reaction score
3,605
Location
North Central PA
Took over two hrs to drive 74 miles. That’s an odd scenario. If so that’s a lot of stop and go traffic.

Can’t wait to see that screen and 400 miles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

SnowBlaZR2

Fuel Economy Champion
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 17, 2021
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
3,261
Location
FL
Don't see any 3.21s hitting 28.2mpg with a Hemi, regardless of speed, distance, or length of time.

So not only do you have weak gears that can't pull anything, you also have a gas guzzler.
 

SnowBlaZR2

Fuel Economy Champion
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 17, 2021
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
3,261
Location
FL
If I was going downhill I might have broke 50mpg with these 3.92s.
 

theblet

Legendary member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
5,333
Reaction score
5,084
I could make 30mpg if I set the cruise at 45 and run in MDS for a long period of time. But that’s no fun
 

VegasRob55

Active Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
35
Location
Las Vegas
I haven't read this thread in a loooong time. But here it is, still going.

The 5.7 Hemi produces significant torque, so it's not like the 3.21 equipped trucks start hunting for lower gears at the slightest incline (at least not in my experience with eTorque). If I'm careful with the throttle, I can even maintain the cylinder deactivation with a bit of load.

A 3.92 is not going to turn more revs and be more fuel efficient. It's just physics. The 3.92 provides better mechanical advantage but it does so at the cost of more revolutions per linear distance. All things being equal, more revs equals more fuel consumption over the same distance.

Well said
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top