Rear Axle Ratio 3.21 vs 3.55

From: Brian Jeffords (roadrunr@ccnet.com)
Date: Sun May 11 1997 - 19:20:03 EDT


I've got the v6 with the 3.55 rear axle ratio and on long freeway trips get
20 mpg at 75 mph. If your really concerned with gas then go with the 3.21.
But in my case the 3.55 gearing is economical enough.

----------
> From: Phil McClay <Phil_McClay@iegate.mitre.org>
> To: dakota@ait.fredonia.edu
> Subject: Re: Rear Axle Ratio 3.21 vs
> Date: Saturday, May 10, 1997 3:50 PM
>
> 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.

 



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