Re: Rear Axle Ratio 3.21 vs

From: Phil McClay (Phil_McClay@iegate.mitre.org)
Date: Sat May 10 1997 - 18:50:04 EDT


         Reply to: RE>Rear Axle Ratio 3.21 vs 3.55

Ray,

The Dakota is not known for it's economy, so hopefully you won't be disappointed.

I would guess that the truck you are describing (3.21 rear 4x4 V6 manual trans.) will get 20 mpg overall, maybe 22 mpg maximum unloaded highway mileage. In general, the V6 is good for +2 mpg over the V8, while the 5-speed transmission will also add about 2 mpg over an automatic. The difference between a 3.21 rear-end vs. a 3.55 is probably in the noise. The 4WD is probably minus 2 mpg.

My truck (3.55 rear 4x4 V8 manual trans.) gets 18 mpg overall/20 mpg highway.

The difference between 18 and 20 mpg, assuming you drive 15,000 miles/year and gasoline costs $1.259/gallon, is about $105 per year or $2 a week. Here in Massachusetts I cannot save enough money driving a 30 mpg beater to work (mandatory, state regulated $700/year insurance) to justify keeping a third vehicle. So I just drive my gas-guzzling V8 Dakota everyday, smile, and break-even on the $'s. Fuel economy won't make you wealthy.

I also have the payload option --> 1800 lbs. total for the club cab. I like the stiffer suspension and heavy-duty shocks. I believe the 3.21 rear-end is not recommended (by Chrylser) for towing, so the 3.55 is good for that reason also.

My recommendation: get the payload option and don't worry about the 3.21 rear. The manual trans. is definitely good for fuel economy. Consider getting the V8 ;-)

Phil McClay
mcclay@mitre.org
'94 Dakota CC SLT 4x4 V8 5-speed, 1800# payload option, engine-block heater

--------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 13:50:46 -0700
From: Piziali <piziali@slip.net>
To: Dakota Email List <dakota@ait.fredonia.edu>
Subject: Rear Axle Ratio 3.21 vs 3.55

I'm about to order a '97 4WD Dakota with the V6 and manual 5-speed
which comes standard with the 3.21 rear end but if you get the payload
package (an additional 500 lbs.) they put in the 3.55 rear end. I'm
looking for the maximum ecconomy so suspect that the 3.21 would be the
best choice. Then when carrying a heavy use a set of Helwig overload
springs. Any thoughts appreciated.

-- 
           >--------------------------------------------<
            >Ray <Piziali@slip.net>   PGP Key Available<
           >--------------------------------------------<



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:40 EDT