Mallett, Donald B wrote:
>Cindy and I are starting to look at travel trailers.
>
We just got one last year, if you have any RV questions feel free to ask
and I can take my best guess :-).
The gross dry weight on our trailer is spec'ed at 3811 lbs. That only
includes standard equipment, no options (so even though it came with a
microwave, A/C, awning, etc. they aren't included in the weight). I
think stuff like the fridge, water heater, etc. are standard, so they
should be included, but I'm not absolutely positive on that one. The RV
dealer said they usually add about 1000 lbs. to the listed dry weight to
guesstimate the loaded weight. I haven't ever bothered to actually
weigh it, I guess that would be the only way to know for sure how much
weight we're really pulling.
We had the 3.55 axle ratio on our 2001 QC 4x4, which put the tow rating
at 4800 lbs. We found it to be what I would describe as "adequate" for
towing the trailer. However, I always made sure to dump the tanks
before going anywhere, and tried not to load it down with too much stuff.
We swapped the gears for 3.92, which according to the manual bumped the
tow rating up to 5800 lbs. It made quite a difference in how easily the
truck handled towing the RV. In our case, there were a couple of things
that influenced the decision. I'm hoping to get a job out west, and
we'll be using the trailer during the move to transport our small zoo
:-). So, we'll be pulling it up over the Rockies, probably loaded with
stuff and with water in the tanks. Plus, I was tired of trying to
calculate the weight of gear, propane, any water in the tanks, always
trying to make sure we didn't overload the truck. Now I just hook up
and go :-).
> Looking at the tow
>rating of my 2000 QC, It shows to be able to pull 4900 lbs.* with the 3.55
>rear gearing and 6100 lbs*. with the 4.10 gears. Why such a big difference
>in towing ability just by the gearing?
>
>
I noticed the same thing (others have pointed out that the factory
option was 3.92, but the question still applies). I think it's due to
the OHC design of the 4.7. It's a very rev-happy engine, and I'm sure
you've noticed that the power band lives fairly high in the RPM range.
Don't know if you ever owned or drove a truck with the 5.2, but the
difference between the two is quite noticeable. The gear ratio doesn't
make as huge a difference for the 5.9 as it does for the 4.7 (at least
not according to the ratings in our 2001 owner's manual).
>What would it set me back to have the rear gears changed to the 4.10 from
>3.55?
>
We provided our own parts, and the shop charged $1500 CDN for changing
both axles, filled with Amsoil. Last year, Koller Dodge had the gear
set for the 8.25" axle for $318.25. Since Koller got assimilated, I'm
not sure what the going rate is these days.
>Would going to the 4.10 decrease the mpg in everyday driving also?
>
>
We haven't noticed much difference, although we haven't ever tracked it very closely. I just check the trip computer every once in a while, and it seems to be at most 0.5 MPG lower than it used to average.
-- Jason Bleazard http://www.bleazard.net Burlington, Ontario his: '95 Dakota Sport 4x4, 3.9 V6, 5spd, Reg. Cab, white hers: '01 Dakota Sport 4x4, 4.7 V8, Auto, Quad Cab, black
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 16 2008 - 21:39:21 EST