Silverado with 3.08:1 rear gears

Status
Not open for further replies.
supton

supton

Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
26,856
Location
NH
and a 4.3L V6???

In my spare time I'll sometimes look at CL*, see if anything strikes my fancy, if anything just to see what things currently cost. Sorta fun. I'll sometimes look at vehicles I'm not interested in buying. Anyhow, came across an ad that had pics of the window sticker also, and it shows a base '99 SWB, automatic *and* 3.08:1 rear gears! I guess that is what it took to get a 4.3 up to an indicated 20mpg (also shown on the sticker).

65mph would be just shy of 1,600rpm. Ouch! Nice of the poster to put that info into the ad, though. I'd think that it'd be a sad, slow vehicle, unless if it was only an unloaded highway hauler.

[No real reason to post this, just having fun.]

[Is it me, or is the search option on CL now broken? It won't return anything if I put in a keyword. Bummer.]
 
Talk aboout TALL. Can't pull anything with that eh? I've got 3.73s in my 84 suburban and 4.55s in my 62 chevy plow truck
 
4.55's? Wowzer. Well, that was in '62 and all. Bet that thing is a beast.

Yeah, on the window sticker it states "trailering wiring harness" as a standard feature. I can't imagine it being used much. I'm sure I'm berating it too much, but still... 3.08's? I found a curb weight of 3,962 for the auto.
 
I pull 5,000 lbs 4 days a week on a semi-commercial schedule..... no this would not work for me.

Still, I would highly recommend it to most of my neighbors....... really hauling for them means a sheet of sheet rock and two 2X4's about once every other year.
I think my daughter hauled way more stuff on the roof of her Chevette than any of these macho men have ever hauled. Interesting, they like to talk trucks a lot, just never use them.
 
A friend of mine had 3.08's in an older chevy pickup with a 350 in it. Towing his boat up to the lake was a 12mph ride on 1 steep hill . My truck with a 392 and 4.30 gears maintained the speed limit on that same hill and boat
 
With those gears and that engine that poor truck can barely tow itself!

Just remember it will be major sluggish and you'll be fine. The 4.3 would be much better with the 5 speed
 
i drove a nearly new 97 or 98 with a 4.3L, short bed single cab, it was VERY slow. PAINFULLY slow. i was glad that i only had to drive it 5 or 6 some odd miles to help them bring it back to their house. it may or may not have had that gearing, but i wouldnt be surprised. big PASS.
 
Oh I can't see myself buying that, it was just an observation. If I did buy it (not sure what for, standard cab/2wd, not sure what it'd be good for, for me) I'd probably spring the coin to fix the gearing issue. I'd probably go all out at 4.10:1. It's a 4.3, and in a truck at that--it can use all the help it can get.

A 350 that couldn't do more than 12mph up a hill? I have to think it was worn out. Maybe if it had the misfortune of having a Powerglide, maybe.
 
I have a 2012 with a V6. Not sure of the rear end ration but I get 19 to 25 depending on how hard I drive it. It not a power house but empty it will spin the tires and get up to sixty pretty fast.
 
Originally Posted By: Brons2
3962 is pretty light for a half ton pickup...there are lots of cars that weigh more than that.

It mostly likely weights that if it is a 2WD. My no options 3/4 ton 2WD Crew Cab Long bed is 5820 on the scales with 3/4s of a tank of gas and me in it.
 
Wow, is the 4.3 litre Chevy engine really that weak?

My Sienna is only a 3.5 litre and is some heavier, and also equipped with a 3.08 differential. Using 4th for towing 3.08 X 1.047
4th gear ratio gives an effective 3.22 axle ratio which seems nearly perfect for towing my triple rig (5,000 lbs but low profile). Lots of power for hills etc, but about 2400 rpm at 60 mph (3,000 at 75 mph) for relaxed highway operation. Of course there are a bunch of lower gears for the steeps. Even the steepest hills are still topped at 65 mph.
Of course we are comparing a pushrod engine to a overhead cam 4 valve engine but still?

Now, 50 years ago I was often riding shotgun on a "Jimmy 6" running a semi into Chicago twice a week. About 120 hp and over 50,000 lbs......often down under 30 mph on long hills.
Now, that is underpowered....... but we always got there!!
 
Originally Posted By: fsskier
Wow, is the 4.3 litre Chevy engine really that weak?


The 4300 isn't anemic. 195 hp/260 ft/lbs in a 2012 Silverado. It's horribly geared with 3.08 rear gears. With shorter rear gears, the truck would likely do better since it wouldn't be hunting gears like a rally driver on a case of Red Bull.

In a smaller vehicle, the 4300 is a fine engine as long as one doesn't expect much past 18-20 mpg highway from it.
 
My BIL has a cherry pickin perfect 85 Silverado with the 4.3 and a 5 speed stick. It is still a bit weak but passable as long as you realize what it is and drive it appropriately.

It ran 190k miles on 3k dino changes before he rebuilt it. Great little engine.
 
The 4.3 isn't a bad engine. We (well my parents) had one in an Astro, and it managed. I'm not sure what gears it had: it was supposed to be the towing package, with 3.42's *and* posi; but when the axle seals were replaced we found an open diff. 3.42 or the 3.23 non-towing gears? Will never know now, but it was a bit slow on the hills, what with a family of six *and* a 20' travel trailer. I guess you could say it managed, although that motor starting drinking oil heavily at 100kmiles and was yanked at 127 when it couldn't go 100miles on a qt.

Gearing for the Sienna is the same as for the V6 RAV4 (same motor), which would be 4.24/2.36/1.52/1.05/0.76. Compared to the ancient 700R4 at 3.06/1.6/1/0.7. The Sienna might have shorter tires too than the Silverado, meaning the 4.3 has less mechanical advantage to get going, and then larger gear splits.

The 2GR-FE 3.5L V6 has about 200ft-lb of torque around 1500-2000 rpm, climbing steadily to 246 at 4700, dipping to 230 at 6000 rpm. The 2012 4.3L, which I should point out had a number of changes over the years and so a '99 isn't quite the same as a '12 nor '85 (carb that year IIRC) starts off at a similar 230ft-lb at 1500, rising to 260 at 2800 rpm but starts declining at that point and dropping to 195 at 5000rpm (which is either redline or close enough). The 3.5 is 246hp vs the 4.3 at 195hp. In the end that means it'll do better (more hp) (ignore every other aspect of towing, like stopping etc--more hp means it can do more work).

Aerodynamics and weight probably are not in the Silverado's favor either.
 
Originally Posted By: sciphi

In a smaller vehicle, the 4300 is a fine engine as long as one doesn't expect much past 18-20 mpg highway from it.


I have the 4300 in a 1995 Sonoma extended cab with 3.08 gears. It gets 23 on the highway. I think the 3.42 gears would be better over all, although the 3.08 may be fine at sea level where I'll have 15% more power.

Ed
 
My Jeep has 3.06, and I hate them. There's no option either. One used to be able to get 3.92s if you had the tow package. Not any more. All they care about is MFG--CAFE. That's my only complaint I have about the vehicle. My truck has 3.92 LSD, and it's perfect.
 
I have 3.73 in my 2004 Sierra (std cab with long bed) with the 5sp and 4.3l V6.

Does fine both empty and towing up to 4000lbs (which IIRC is a little over its rated number)

MPG from 17-23 (average is a little over 21) since I've had it. My 1996 was around the same with same engine/trans combo.

3.08 with the LT245-16 would be nice in the flat areas of the US with no elevation. Up here I'd pass.

Bill
 
Originally Posted By: supton
and a 4.3L V6???

In my spare time I'll sometimes look at CL*, see if anything strikes my fancy, if anything just to see what things currently cost. Sorta fun. I'll sometimes look at vehicles I'm not interested in buying. Anyhow, came across an ad that had pics of the window sticker also, and it shows a base '99 SWB, automatic *and* 3.08:1 rear gears! I guess that is what it took to get a 4.3 up to an indicated 20mpg (also shown on the sticker).

65mph would be just shy of 1,600rpm. Ouch! Nice of the poster to put that info into the ad, though. I'd think that it'd be a sad, slow vehicle, unless if it was only an unloaded highway hauler.

[No real reason to post this, just having fun.]

[Is it me, or is the search option on CL now broken? It won't return anything if I put in a keyword. Bummer.]


Having driven Silvys and vans with that exact drivetrain, it actually works great fror anything except towing. Bonus: about 22MPG on the highway.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: supton
and a 4.3L V6???

In my spare time I'll sometimes look at CL*, see if anything strikes my fancy, if anything just to see what things currently cost. Sorta fun. I'll sometimes look at vehicles I'm not interested in buying. Anyhow, came across an ad that had pics of the window sticker also, and it shows a base '99 SWB, automatic *and* 3.08:1 rear gears! I guess that is what it took to get a 4.3 up to an indicated 20mpg (also shown on the sticker).

65mph would be just shy of 1,600rpm. Ouch! Nice of the poster to put that info into the ad, though. I'd think that it'd be a sad, slow vehicle, unless if it was only an unloaded highway hauler.

[No real reason to post this, just having fun.]

[Is it me, or is the search option on CL now broken? It won't return anything if I put in a keyword. Bummer.]


Having driven Silvys and vans with that exact drivetrain, it actually works great fror anything except towing. Bonus: about 22MPG on the highway.


Yup, I drove Silverado quite frequently with this powertrain. It was a decent working truck, just don't ask it to tow anything. Mind you, we had the same issue with the Sierra 1500 with the 305 in it. Truck would scoot along just fine until you asked it to tow something..... Then it said "no".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
13' Ford Focus: 1 1/2 years and 31k mile review
2
Replies
23
Views
7K
LazyPrizm
Back
Top Bottom