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!

An Engineer's Ultimate Guide To 3.21 VS 3.92 Axle Ratio

BowDown

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
3,375
Location
Frisco TX
He was using HP tuners yes.

But thinking about it logically; if you want to move at 60 mph in 8th gear, you need to make a certain amount of HP/torque to do so. You need fuel and air to make HP. I don't see how you can maintain HP while reducing fuel. His claim that you're just swapping fuel from one cylinder to another makes sense, as then the engine is still making the same amount of HP, it's just "robbing peter to pay paul".

If you reduce fuel, you reduce HP, it's a pretty simple equation to me but I'm not an engineer of that sort. Perhaps there are some light effiencies gained by only firing in 4 cylinders instead of 8, but it certainly can't be exactly half; ie, entering MDS MUST be increasing fuel to the other 4 cylinders that are still active; perhaps it doesn't double what it was before activating, but I"m sure it goes up. Only extensive testing or Ram engineers would be able to determine how much extra fuel is pumped into those 4 cylinders once MDS starts.

And I've mentioned more than once how high I've gotten with MDS completely disabled. I cannot believe I would get higher than 25 mpg even when using MDS. Whatever MDS is doing, it's like in the fractions somewhere, next to nothing.

True but you dont need 8 cylinders to make 60HP. You can easily maintain 50-110 HP with 4 cylinders, the whole premise behind MDS/DOD.
Example, the 5.7 running at 15-2000 RPM (65 mph in 8th) probably makes around 150-180 HP. Does the truck need to make 150 HP to maintain 60MPH? No. Drop 4 cylinders, drop HP but not below whats needed to maintain 65 mph. There will a be small increases in fuel to the other 4 cylinders but that's all as long as the speed is constant.

Now, the question Is is it half? I dont think, I'd suspect that its closer to 15-25% reduction in fuel consumption.
What you are doing is reducing parasitic loss power created by the engine ingesting and exhausting air by those cylinders not not firing, that's where the biggest savings likely occur, the fuel savings may be 20%
 

BowDown

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
3,375
Location
Frisco TX
He was using HP tuners yes.

But thinking about it logically; if you want to move at 60 mph in 8th gear, you need to make a certain amount of HP/torque to do so. You need fuel and air to make HP. I don't see how you can maintain HP while reducing fuel. His claim that you're just swapping fuel from one cylinder to another makes sense, as then the engine is still making the same amount of HP, it's just "robbing peter to pay paul".

If you reduce fuel, you reduce HP, it's a pretty simple equation to me but I'm not an engineer of that sort. Perhaps there are some light effiencies gained by only firing in 4 cylinders instead of 8, but it certainly can't be exactly half; ie, entering MDS MUST be increasing fuel to the other 4 cylinders that are still active; perhaps it doesn't double what it was before activating, but I"m sure it goes up. Only extensive testing or Ram engineers would be able to determine how much extra fuel is pumped into those 4 cylinders once MDS starts.

And I've mentioned more than once how high I've gotten with MDS completely disabled. I cannot believe I would get higher than 25 mpg even when using MDS. Whatever MDS is doing, it's like in the fractions somewhere, next to nothing.
True but you dont need 8 cylinders to make 60HP. You can easily maintain 50-110 HP with 4 cylinders, the whole premise behind MDS/DOD.
Example, the 5.7 running at 15-2000 RPM (65 mph in 8th) probably makes around 150-180 HP. Does the truck need to make 150 HP to maintain 60MPH? No. Drop 4 cylinders, drop HP but not below whats needed to maintain 65 mph. There will a be small increases in fuel to the other 4 cylinders but that's all as long as the speed is constant.

Now, the question Is is it half? I dont think, I'd suspect that its closer to 15-25% reduction in fuel consumption.
What you are doing is reducing parasitic loss power created by the engine ingesting and exhausting air by those cylinders not not firing, that's where the biggest savings likely occur, the fuel savings may be 20%


Yep, here you go.


Cylinder deactivation works to save fuel, but it may not be for the reasons you think. The main misconception is that shutting down half the engine's cylinders reduces fuel consumption because the half that are shut down aren't using any fuel. The reality of what's happening is a little different, because at whatever engine speed the switch from 8 to 4 cylinders occurs, the engine will put out the same amount of power (if designed correctly!) whether it is in 4- or 8-cylinder mode. When the change between 8- and 4-cylinder operation happens, things get busy in a short period of time, and understanding what's happening is not only very cool, but can give you the upper hand when deciding to modify your Hemi engine.
003 5 7l hemi lifter valley




During MDS activation, cylinders 1, 4, 6, and 7 are shut down in order, with one cylinder being deactivated every 180 degrees of crankshaft rotation. Part of the cleverness of MDS is that a change to 4-cylinder modecalled "Eco" mode as displayed on the instrument clusterhappens without any apparent loss of power. In order for the driver to perceive no loss in power, the ECM has to ramp up both the throttle opening and injector pulse width of the cylinders that remain running. So as cylinder "1" goes off line, the next cylinder in the firing ordernumber 8must receive an increase in fuel and air by the same amount taken away when cylinder number 1 was shut down. Two crankshaft revolutions later, all four of the deactivated cylinders have shut down, and the remaining four holes have been given the shortfall of fuel and air missing from the deactivated holes.
The Real Reason Cylinder Deactivation Improves MPG
005 hemi mds lifter cutaway
005 hemi mds lifter cutaway


Cutaway version of a Hemi MDS lifter. The key thing here is the transverse pin exposed to oil pressure from the orifice in the lifter body. As the fluid circuit energizes, the pin is pushed in, unlocking the plunger inner body from the lifter's outer body. In this manner, the roller tip can follow the cam lobe without the plunger moving the pushrod up and down.
If you're asking "where's the fuel savings in that?" you aren't alone. The 20 percent improvement in fuel economy from cylinder deactivation isn't from four cylinders of fuel going away, it's actually from a far more modest reduction in pumping losses. In its simplest explanation, pumping loss refers to the power an engine spends sucking in fresh air and fuel past the throttle, then pumping the spent exhaust gases out. It's a mechanical tax, and it works like this: Imagine a big V8 running down the road at a cruise speed of 70 mph. At low load and low rpm, the throttle on that big motor is barely cracked open.
That sounds great, until you pluck that imaginary big-block from between the fenders and stick an in-line four in its place. If you could swap engines that quickly—in a heartbeat—you'd notice that to keep the same speed, you'd need to open the throttle much farther. That little four banger is getting better fuel economy, and because the throttle is nearly wide open, the engine doesn't have to work so hard to suck air past the throttle. You'll never think of WOT the same way again because WOT is actually when your engine is most efficient—not the least efficient.


 

silver billet

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
2,350
True but you dont need 8 cylinders to make 60HP. You can easily maintain 50-110 HP with 4 cylinders, the whole premise behind MDS/DOD.
Example, the 5.7 running at 15-2000 RPM (65 mph in 8th) probably makes around 150-180 HP. Does the truck need to make 150 HP to maintain 60MPH? No. Drop 4 cylinders, drop HP but not below whats needed to maintain 65 mph. There will a be small increases in fuel to the other 4 cylinders but that's all as long as the speed is constant.

Now, the question Is is it half? I dont think, I'd suspect that its closer to 15-25% reduction in fuel consumption.
What you are doing is reducing parasitic loss power created by the engine ingesting and exhausting air by those cylinders not not firing, that's where the biggest savings likely occur, the fuel savings may be 20%

Thanks for the link to hotrod!

You can easily maintain 50-110 HP with 4 cylinders,

Not without increasing fuel to those 4 cylinders. If you simply stop firing 4 cylinders you lose half your HP.

As the article states, "So as cylinder "1" goes off line, the next cylinder in the firing ordernumber 8must receive an increase in fuel and air by the same amount taken away when cylinder number 1 was shut down."

So yeah, the guy that did the fuel logging was probably correct.

Article claims 20% just because of the efficiencies of 4 cylinders inhaling and exhaling instead of 8.

I find the 20% claim very high. 5% might be more believable in the real world, especially when considering that my truck always surges when MDS deactivates, because I had to ask for more throttle than if it just sat with all 8 going.

Theory and running the numbers is one thing, but I remain completely unconvinced of the effectiveness, in real world conditions.
 

BowDown

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
3,375
Location
Frisco TX
Thanks for the link to hotrod!



Not without increasing fuel to those 4 cylinders. If you simply stop firing 4 cylinders you lose half your HP.

As the article states, "So as cylinder "1" goes off line, the next cylinder in the firing ordernumber 8must receive an increase in fuel and air by the same amount taken away when cylinder number 1 was shut down."

So yeah, the guy that did the fuel logging was probably correct.

Article claims 20% just because of the efficiencies of 4 cylinders inhaling and exhaling instead of 8.

I find the 20% claim very high. 5% might be more believable in the real world, especially when considering that my truck always surges when MDS deactivates, because I had to ask for more throttle than if it just sat with all 8 going.

Theory and running the numbers is one thing, but I remain completely unconvinced of the effectiveness, in real world conditions.

20% is easy to believe, its the same issues you face when building a big power NA motor or a big power SC motor, drawing air through the intake system/throttle body is the biggest parasitic loss.
As for losing 1/2 the power, you're making 120-150 HP at 2000 rpm so losing 1/s the power puts you right at the necessary power to make 60hp or 65 mph.
IDK on the fuel, that may be accurate as 4 cylinders engines sometimes need bigger injectors than v8's.

As to HR's comment of "increase in fuel and air by the same amount taken away" it makes sense in that you're opening the throttle more to get more air in the cylinder while reducing the drag on the motor through the intake system. That increase in air would require more fuel. I do completely disagree about MDS gains being negligible though, it seems to be mainly do to the drag on the engine through the intake, the same reasons a turbo motor makes more power than a surcharged motor with the same boost. Blow through vs draw through. N/A or SC are more sensitive to intake restrictions than a turbo engine. Seems its the pumping affect that reduces the efficiency. Understanding what the HR article suggests, in order to get similar gains without MDS, you'd need the throttle opened more.

The 20 percent improvement in fuel economy from cylinder deactivation isn't from four cylinders of fuel going away, it's actually from a far more modest reduction in pumping losses. In its simplest explanation, pumping loss refers to the power an engine spends sucking in fresh air and fuel past the throttle, then pumping the spent exhaust gases out. It's a mechanical tax, and it works like this: Imagine a big V8 running down the road at a cruise speed of 70 mph. At low load and low rpm, the throttle on that big motor is barely cracked open.
That sounds great, until you pluck that imaginary big-block from between the fenders and stick an in-line four in its place. If you could swap engines that quickly—in a heartbeat—you'd notice that to keep the same speed, you'd need to open the throttle much farther. That little four banger is getting better fuel economy, and because the throttle is nearly wide open, the engine doesn't have to work so hard to suck air past the throttle. You'll never think of WOT the same way again because WOT is actually when your engine is most efficient—not the least efficient.
 

silver billet

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
2,350
20% is easy to believe, its the same issues you face when building a big power NA motor or a big power SC motor, drawing air through the intake system/throttle body is the biggest parasitic loss.
As for losing 1/2 the power, you're making 120-150 HP at 2000 rpm so losing 1/s the power puts you right at the necessary power to make 60hp or 65 mph.
IDK on the fuel, that may be accurate as 4 cylinders engines sometimes need bigger injectors than v8's.

As to HR's comment of "increase in fuel and air by the same amount taken away" it makes sense in that you're opening the throttle more to get more air in the cylinder while reducing the drag on the motor through the intake system. That increase in air would require more fuel. I do completely disagree about MDS gains being negligible though, it seems to be mainly do to the drag on the engine through the intake, the same reasons a turbo motor makes more power than a surcharged motor with the same boost. Blow through vs draw through. N/A or SC are more sensitive to intake restrictions than a turbo engine. Seems its the pumping affect that reduces the efficiency. Understanding what the HR article suggests, in order to get similar gains without MDS, you'd need the throttle opened more.

The reason why I don't believe MDS works, is because I've tested it on the freeway more than once. I have a cabin I frequent in the spring/summer/fall, and so I have opportunity to test and retest the exact same trip changing one variable at a time (wind and temp being the biggest variables I can't control). The best run I've gotten, 9.4 l/100 km, with MDS disabled. I've yet to get past 9.7 l/100 km using MDS, but to be honest I've stopped trying and just run with MDS off. So out in the real world, my testing shows MDS = to, or worse, than no MDS. I will do another test at some point, but it really is negligible, with so many other factors being far far more important; slight speed differences, octane/ethanol, wind, temperature/humidity, tire pressure. All of those can do more to change your MPG than MDS will, in my experience.

The reason why I use the word "believe" when my testing is far more conclusive, is because of the other variables I can't control, and the fact that when I tested with MDS the engine was relatively new (about 5000 km on it, just after my first oil change). So yeah, negligble, completely not worth the "pain" on these big trucks of ours. Possibly different story in the cars.

But hey, if you want to use it, knock yourself out, I'm just one data point.
 

DeckArtist

Active Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
50
Very cool info, what sold me on the 3.92 was the extra towing capacity factor. I know it's not the only one factor of several, but it's a major reason my truck tows 11,349 lbs. If the 3.21 were available in the Rebel, that number would have been much lower. I routinely tow lumber on my trailer and the extra capacity was a must.
 

silver billet

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
2,350
Very cool info, what sold me on the 3.92 was the extra towing capacity factor. I know it's not the only one factor of several, but it's a major reason my truck tows 11,349 lbs. If the 3.21 were available in the Rebel, that number would have been much lower. I routinely tow lumber on my trailer and the extra capacity was a must.
In these trucks, payload is the limiting factor. You can't realisitcally pull a 11,349 pound RV, because that means at 15% tongue weight you're looking at 1700 pounds of payload required, just to connect that trailer to your truck. Now add your weight, your family, cargo etc.

Due to low payload on all Ram 1500's, 8000 pounds is a far more realistic max for these trucks, regardless of gear ratio. You will tow the same weight "out of the hole" easier in a 3.92. Once you're moving, it's a wash.
 

Mtsabo

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
56
Reaction score
25
In these trucks, payload is the limiting factor. You can't realisitcally pull a 11,349 pound RV, because that means at 15% tongue weight you're looking at 1700 pounds of payload required, just to connect that trailer to your truck. Now add your weight, your family, cargo etc.

Due to low payload on all Ram 1500's, 8000 pounds is a far more realistic max for these trucks, regardless of gear ratio. You will tow the same weight "out of the hole" easier in a 3.92. Once you're moving, it's a wash.

He said lumber not rv. 10% tongue weight is achieveable depending on how his lumber is loaded. Very possible to max tow with 10%
 

JGRaider

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
61
Reaction score
51
Just took a road trip to Dallas and back over the weekend, about 350 miles each way. The trip from here to Dallas is slight downhill most of the way and my Laramie EcoD with 3.92 rear end got 28.2mpg calculated on the trip out with cruise set to 75mph. I as turning just over 2000rpms. The trip home tallied 26.5mpg. I am very pleased with those numbers., and the truck is whisper smooth and quiet, a real treat to drive. I am using Diesel Kleen as well but not sure if it makes any mpg difference or not.
 

nilsfisher24

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
19
Reaction score
20
I have a older Gen 3:92 truck, i purposely looked for a 3:21 truck this time, 3:92 was a deal killer for me. Like you, I did the math and its a 20% difference in RPM and thats huge on the highway, secondly, the 8spd ZF trans negates a lot of the 3:92 advantage I've had both and I'll take the 3:21 all day every day and the 18 MPG city that I'm getting

View attachment 65189

I average 18 mpg back and forth to work and that is about 40/60 (city/highway) with 3.92 gears in the back. DTE per tank averages 455 miles consistently.
I completely understand the argument with both gear sets, but the main factor is how a person drives the truck also. I bet I could get 16 mpg with 3.21 gears if I wanted to.
I’ve seen 22mpg highway with mine. Good enough for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BowDown

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
3,375
Location
Frisco TX
I average 18 mpg back and forth to work and that is about 40/60 (city/highway) with 3.92 gears in the back. DTE per tank averages 455 miles consistently.
I completely understand the argument with both gear sets, but the main factor is how a person drives the truck also. I bet I could get 16 mpg with 3.21 gears if I wanted to.
I’ve seen 22mpg highway with mine. Good enough for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could get 14-15 if I wanted to but driving this truck the same way I drove my previous truck with 3.92s is a 5mpg improvement. Also, you're driving 40/60 highway getting 18, im driving 80/20 highway. The majority of my driving is stop and go city. In the city, a 3.92 truck is not getting 18 mpg, too many people posting and complaining about exactly that
 

nilsfisher24

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
19
Reaction score
20
I could get 14-15 if I wanted to but driving this truck the same way I drove my previous truck with 3.92s is a 5mpg improvement. Also, you're driving 40/60 highway getting 18, im driving 80/20 highway. The majority of my driving is stop and go city. In the city, a 3.92 truck is not getting 18 mpg, too many people posting and complaining about exactly that

Not doubting you at all. I believe the mpgs your getting. I personally think that the mileage that I’m getting with 3.92 gears is pretty good for a truck. People need to realize that a truck isn’t for mileage but for hauling/towing. The people that complain about getting bad mileage should get a different kind of people hauler and not a truck.
I really like the 3.92’s berthed tranny isn’t always shifting down with minor acceleration or when towing the trans is always in the right gear and not having to go to a lower gear when cruising or wanting to pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BowDown

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
3,375
Location
Frisco TX
Not doubting you at all. I believe the mpgs your getting. I personally think that the mileage that I’m getting with 3.92 gears is pretty good for a truck. People need to realize that a truck isn’t for mileage but for hauling/towing. The people that complain about getting bad mileage should get a different kind of people hauler and not a truck.
I really like the 3.92’s berthed tranny isn’t always shifting down with minor acceleration or when towing the trans is always in the right gear and not having to go to a lower gear when cruising or wanting to pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It absolutely is for a 3.92, but I dont tow often at all and I've had a 3.92 truck. The advantages of the 3.92 gear vs the disadvantages were extremely small to me, primarily 1st gear acceleration from a dead stop then it was over. I daily this truck and wanted something extremely nice, Limited, and good gas mileage, 3.21 gear. I believe I got both. I've seen some people make the performance argument for 3.92 and my response to that is that this is a 5200+lbs (mine is 5273 according to the BNSF shipping order left in the truck) and its never going to be fast. Also, its a 5200lb truck so its never going to get prius mileage but 18 city is a HUGE improvement over my previous truck. I am very satisfied with the 3.21 choice which w/o, was actually a deal keiller for me

weight.JPG
 

vegaskeith

Active Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
24
I have a 2020 EcoD, 3.21 Limited 2WD. I just towed a car hauler and car to So Cal from Las Vegas, Weight is about 5,500, low profile rig. Towed in Aero Mode, 2 bars showing, non tow haul mode, ran 65 MPH average. Got 22.8 MPG!

On return trip that always gets worse mileage I was unloaded not towing. Drove 70-75MPH, got 30.2.

I have a Range Rover Sport TDiesel. Same load, it got within 1 MPG of these figures last year.
 

BowDown

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
3,375
Location
Frisco TX
I have a 2020 EcoD, 3.21 Limited 2WD. I just towed a car hauler and car to So Cal from Las Vegas, Weight is about 5,500, low profile rig. Towed in Aero Mode, 2 bars showing, non tow haul mode, ran 65 MPH average. Got 22.8 MPG!

On return trip that always gets worse mileage I was unloaded not towing. Drove 70-75MPH, got 30.2.

I have a Range Rover Sport TDiesel. Same load, it got within 1 MPG of these figures last year.

Damn!
 

Rossum

Active Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
120
Reaction score
109
Location
Up & Down the East Coast
I have a 2020 EcoD, 3.21 Limited 2WD. I just towed a car hauler and car to So Cal from Las Vegas, Weight is about 5,500, low profile rig. Towed in Aero Mode, 2 bars showing, non tow haul mode, ran 65 MPH average. Got 22.8 MPG!

On return trip that always gets worse mileage I was unloaded not towing. Drove 70-75MPH, got 30.2.
Nice! 3.21 gears, 2WD, and air suspension would seem to be the trifecta for fuel economy. 2WD alone should be good for at least 1-2 MPG better than the 4x4 drive-train that most of us opt for. I wonder how much the air suspension brings to the table at highway speeds?
 
Last edited:

vegaskeith

Active Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
24
Nice! 3.21 gears, 2WD, and air suspension would seem to be the trifecta for fuel economy. 2WD alone should be good for at least 1-2 MPG better that the 4x4 drive-train that most of us opt for. I wonder how much the air suspension brings to the table at highway speeds?
Hard to tell but I would think 1 MPG. It rides great and I keep it in this mode all of the time. I have owned over 20 new and used SUV's and trucks, aside from my Range Rover Sport, this is the best ride.
 

Finn5033

Ram Guru
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
622
Reaction score
468
Location
MN
I had my 2019 Hemi 4x4 with 3.21 gears for a little over a year. My work commute is 80 miles round trip. I drive the same way every day, best I ever had my mpg up to was 19.5mpg, usually was between 18.5 - 19mpg on average. Towing the camper for probably around 2k miles total it was 8-8.5mpg

Now I have an ecodiesel with 3.92 gears. Same drive everyday my mpg is up to 27.5mpg. Had been staying around 26mpg but now that I’ve gotten a couple thousand miles on it’s been slowly climbing. I would imagine if I had the 3.21 gears I’d be closing in on 30mpg. Towing the camper I’ve only done once so far for 30 miles but I got 15mpg doing it.

Now I know that one’s an ecodiesel and ones a Hemi but besides that difference I can really tell the difference in the gearing. It really climbs through the gears when taking off and of course cruising on the highway in 8th gear at 75mpg I’m around 2,200rpm, in the Hemi with 3.21 I was at 1,800 rpm at 75
 

Jack

Active Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Messages
45
Reaction score
388
Location
Minnesota
Nice! 3.21 gears, 2WD, and air suspension would seem to be the trifecta for fuel economy. 2WD alone should be good for at least 1-2 MPG better than the 4x4 drive-train that most of us opt for. I wonder how much the air suspension brings to the table at highway speeds?
Anything that adds mass is going to decrease fuel economy. 4X4, air suspension, off-road group, and other options will decrease fuel economy. Rated fuel economy is rated with 4X4 and 4X2 with 3.21 and no options(3.92 counts as "premium" axle and not required to be rated in EPA rating).
 

Rossum

Active Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
120
Reaction score
109
Location
Up & Down the East Coast
Anything that adds mass is going to decrease fuel economy.
In "City" or "Combined" driving, yes, very much so. But at a steady speed on the highway, the effects of extra mass become close to negligible, and aerodynamic drag becomes the biggest factor. Yes, an air suspension might add a few pounds (but it's not a lot), and if it can put the truck in at attitude that reduces aerodynamic drag on the highway, it is entirely plausible for it to increase fuel economy under such conditions.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top