Notices
GMT 800 & Older GM General Discussion 2006 & Older Trucks | General Discussion

5.57 rear?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-08-2005, 09:38 PM
  #1  
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
 
2000 SILVERADO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default 5.57 rear?

Well i'm bored and was wondering what would happen if I ran this gearing.
Old 02-08-2005, 09:47 PM
  #2  
14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (31)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 2,619
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

You would be pretty fast up to about 80, then be just about done.
Old 02-08-2005, 09:48 PM
  #3  
TECH Veteran
 
Mr. Sandog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 4,632
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

30 mph in 4th? No traction? 5 mpg?
Old 02-08-2005, 09:57 PM
  #4  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hell 80 I was thinking more like 50, take off would be insane, But you couldnt take it on the highway becasue constant rev. of the motor would cause some serous damage. If I were you Go 3.90 I think that what Im gonna run. Right in the middle of a 3.73 and 4.10.
Old 02-08-2005, 09:59 PM
  #5  
TECH Veteran
 
zippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 4,534
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

you'd have less problems towing. might be good for dirt tracking, but that's about it.
Old 02-09-2005, 05:00 PM
  #6  
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
 
2000 SILVERADO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by onequick5.3
Hell 80 I was thinking more like 50, take off would be insane, But you couldnt take it on the highway becasue constant rev. of the motor would cause some serous damage. If I were you Go 3.90 I think that what Im gonna run. Right in the middle of a 3.73 and 4.10.
I thought a higher gearing would would be better for top end. So you're saying the 3.42 rear I have now is for top end or more low end?
Old 02-09-2005, 05:07 PM
  #7  
TECH Addict
iTrader: (18)
 
Zick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: WI
Posts: 2,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 2000 SILVERADO
I thought a higher gearing would would be better for top end. So you're saying the 3.42 rear I have now is for top end or more low end?

Yours is better for Top end.
Higher the number=more low end
Lower the number=more top end
Old 02-09-2005, 05:19 PM
  #8  
Baltimore Whore
iTrader: (95)
 
Mangled03gmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a van DOWN BY THE RIVER
Posts: 16,820
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

ha you would be tached out around 45
Old 02-09-2005, 05:21 PM
  #9  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
CAMMIN03''s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,581
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Get you some 4.10's and then a nice cam.... you should be alright..
Old 02-09-2005, 08:06 PM
  #10  
TECH Enthusiast
 
GMC_DUDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Western WA
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Max. speed would be as if he had 3.90 gears and no overdrive (5.57 * 0.696 = 3.87672). Using stock tires, he would be turning about 4200 RPM at 70 MPH and his max. speed, assuming a redline of 6000 RPM, would be about 100 MPH, about where the stock PCM tune limits the truck.

Not all that bad IMAAHO.

n.b. that many passenger cars in the 1950's and 60's would turn around 3000 RPM or so at highway speeds. It's only been since the common use of overdrive in the mid 1970's that we've seen the now typical cruising RPM's of 2000 or less.
(for the purists yes I know they had overdrive in the 1950's, but it was an option that most cars did not have)


Quick Reply: 5.57 rear?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:35 AM.