5.29's are to low for 35's
06-21-2009, 09:05 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is nothing wrong with running 3,000rpm on the highway. alot of people don't consider that toyota(and most all japanese enginess)are mid to high range rpm enigines. meaning that are trucks get more power,and toruqe at 3,000 rpm. also they get better gas milage at 3,000rpm. we all drive toys here and you should all know that they don't have any low range power(1,500rmp-2,500).i would sy 5:29s are perfect for 35s and that it would put you back to a stock set-up. when my truck was stock it did 3,300 rpm on the highway.going about 75ish.
and i would second a 5spd to any one who has a 3.0L with an auto...it makes it a whole new truck.
and i would second a 5spd to any one who has a 3.0L with an auto...it makes it a whole new truck.
I don't see how an engine could get better MPG at a higher rpm though. It really depends on gears and tire size and if you can actually use 5th gear to be able to cruise at 3000rpm. From everything I've ever known, keeping the engine spinning the least amount possible(without lugging it of course) is the best way to get the best gas mileage. Revving the piss out of it couldn't possibly get you better gas mileage.
06-21-2009, 09:42 AM
#43
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fortuna, CA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well I was turning under 3k with 33's and 410s on the highway getting 12mpg and now I am turning 3.4k with 5.29s and 35's and I get 16-17mpg..... So I guess LTrunner is right they do get better mileage running more rpms!
06-21-2009, 10:23 AM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coeur d Alene, id
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, dont know why people say the 3.0's are so slow, i think mine has plenty of power, and all the 4cyl's iv driven didnt barely come close to the power of my v6... for about 3 weeks i ran 38's with stock 4.56's and if excellerated just fine... however the rims were off a rolled full size chevy and were bent to , so i couldnt go above 35 with out a tire hopping off the ground. but still, i love my 3.0... 190k on the stock head gasket.
having said that after i complete my sas (in process) i will be runnning 5.29's on 37's to bring my ratios back to stock... i cant wait!
having said that after i complete my sas (in process) i will be runnning 5.29's on 37's to bring my ratios back to stock... i cant wait!
06-21-2009, 10:39 AM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol you must have the miracle truck that defies physics!
Can you explain to me the formula you used to compensate for the gearing change?
If you really are getting 4-5mpg more now, it's only because you were probably bogging and having to downshift alot with the 4.10's. I can promise you your engine isn't consuming less gas at a higher rpm under any other circumstances. If that were true why don't we all just forget about 5th gear and drive down the highway in 4th to save gas??
According to this calculator: http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html
4.10 with 33"= 2630rpm at 75mph
5.29 with 35"=3199rpm at 75mph
At 3000rpm on each setup:
4.10 with 33"=86mph
5.29 with 35"=70mph
Considering even with the 33's and 4.10's your speedo/odometer was already off I don't know how any of your calculations could be accurate.
Last edited by Justinlhc; 06-21-2009 at 11:08 AM.
06-21-2009, 10:45 AM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, dont know why people say the 3.0's are so slow, i think mine has plenty of power, and all the 4cyl's iv driven didnt barely come close to the power of my v6... for about 3 weeks i ran 38's with stock 4.56's and if excellerated just fine... however the rims were off a rolled full size chevy and were bent to , so i couldnt go above 35 with out a tire hopping off the ground.
I could put 44's on my 4Runner and be just fine as long as I didn't have to go above 35mph.
I think most of the comments are about how slow the vehicle is at or around highway speeds. 
06-21-2009, 12:14 PM
#48
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fortuna, CA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol you must have the miracle truck that defies physics!
Can you explain to me the formula you used to compensate for the gearing change?
If you really are getting 4-5mpg more now, it's only because you were probably bogging and having to downshift alot with the 4.10's. I can promise you your engine isn't consuming less gas at a higher rpm under any other circumstances. If that were true why don't we all just forget about 5th gear and drive down the highway in 4th to save gas??
According to this calculator: http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html
4.10 with 33"= 2630rpm at 75mph
5.29 with 35"=3199rpm at 75mph
At 3000rpm on each setup:
4.10 with 33"=86mph
5.29 with 35"=70mph
Considering even with the 33's and 4.10's your speedo/odometer was already off I don't know how any of your calculations could be accurate.
Can you explain to me the formula you used to compensate for the gearing change?
If you really are getting 4-5mpg more now, it's only because you were probably bogging and having to downshift alot with the 4.10's. I can promise you your engine isn't consuming less gas at a higher rpm under any other circumstances. If that were true why don't we all just forget about 5th gear and drive down the highway in 4th to save gas??
According to this calculator: http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html
4.10 with 33"= 2630rpm at 75mph
5.29 with 35"=3199rpm at 75mph
At 3000rpm on each setup:
4.10 with 33"=86mph
5.29 with 35"=70mph
Considering even with the 33's and 4.10's your speedo/odometer was already off I don't know how any of your calculations could be accurate.
06-21-2009, 12:34 PM
#49
Registered User
Don't those gear charts take into account you have a 1:1 transmission? Because when I've used them they are off.
Isn't 5.29s and 35s almost close to what stock would read as far as speed and therefore would be accurate for mileage because it would make the odo correct?
Isn't 5.29s and 35s almost close to what stock would read as far as speed and therefore would be accurate for mileage because it would make the odo correct?
06-21-2009, 12:35 PM
#50
Registered User
im agreeing with pitster, with my 5.29s/33s/R150F/3VZE i can get 20 mpg going down the interstate and chilling at 3000 RPM.
My foot is not in the throttle near as much. that is what really counts, how open you have the throttle; mroe open means more air which needs more fuel to burn off, less open means less air which needs less fuel to power the engine.
Even though the engine may be running a higher RPM because of the low gear, it is not working NEAR as hard as it had to to maintain the speed with the taller gear.
My foot is not in the throttle near as much. that is what really counts, how open you have the throttle; mroe open means more air which needs more fuel to burn off, less open means less air which needs less fuel to power the engine.
Even though the engine may be running a higher RPM because of the low gear, it is not working NEAR as hard as it had to to maintain the speed with the taller gear.
06-21-2009, 12:38 PM
#51
Registered User
06-21-2009, 12:50 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well to be honest with you I am a very simple person, I didnt do all these calculations and internet telling me what my gas mileage SHOULD be. I just know that I can go alot further on a tank of gas with 5.29's/35's than 4.10's/33's....... I divided the number of miles on my tripometer by how many gallons of gas it took me.
All I'm saying is by taking calculations from an incorrect speedo/odo you are getting incorrect mileage readings. You have to take those calculations into account or your numbers mean nothing.
How did you calculate that reading?
06-21-2009, 01:08 PM
#53
Registered User
With a GPS in the truck to calculate actual speed, then when going down teh interstate, for every mile i drive the odometer turns .8 miles, just multiply the total miles by .2 and add that number to the miles that are on your trip meter.
Is this really an argument over how we calculate how many mpg we get and if we are "defying physics." WHO CARES!?
We are jsut passing on good information about how OUR trucks are performing in a given situation with OUR set-up.
I usually drive between 60-65
Is this really an argument over how we calculate how many mpg we get and if we are "defying physics." WHO CARES!?
We are jsut passing on good information about how OUR trucks are performing in a given situation with OUR set-up.
I usually drive between 60-65
06-21-2009, 02:01 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woah, calm down buddy. Why do people get so defensive when asked a simple question??? Is it against the law to ask how someone calculates their mileage after they change gears??
The OP is taking his odometer readings and using that for a reading, which is obviously inaccurate, giving him an inaccurate mileage reading, not to mention the fact that these calculations aren't even based on a full tank of gas. He stated he has only put 200 miles on the setup so far. Passing on good information is one thing, but passing on misinformation isn't something that's going to help anybody.
.............but who cares?!??!?
The OP is taking his odometer readings and using that for a reading, which is obviously inaccurate, giving him an inaccurate mileage reading, not to mention the fact that these calculations aren't even based on a full tank of gas. He stated he has only put 200 miles on the setup so far. Passing on good information is one thing, but passing on misinformation isn't something that's going to help anybody.
.............but who cares?!??!?
Last edited by Justinlhc; 06-21-2009 at 02:17 PM.
06-21-2009, 02:36 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: CHICO, CA
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just got 529s and 35's for my sas...not done yet...but the reason I went with that gear ratio is it lets you go up to a 37 if you want...cause its not like your going to go down a size.
so at least you have the option of the 2 "best" tire sizes.
so at least you have the option of the 2 "best" tire sizes.
06-21-2009, 06:11 PM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CO
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a calculation to find equivalent gearing to stock when increasing the size of your tires.
New Tire Size/ Old Tire Size x Current Gear Ratio= New ratio to maintain final drive.
So, for instance, in order for me to maintain the stock ratio when putting on 33" tires, I would divide 33 by 29(1.137931) then multiply that by the original gear ratio of 4.1 and my new gears should be 4.56 (4.6655171 to be exact, but last time I checked, they didn't make those).
31s to 33s with original gearing of 4.56 would mean new gearing of 4.88.
BTW, when you put bigger tires on your truck w/o changing the gearing, this makes your speedometer/odometer say you are going slower/shorter distances than you actually are. More circumference= further per revolution. With that being said, (without arguing the accuracy of this calculation method) if you simply take your tripometer reading divided by your # of gals, you will actually get a lower number than is accurate. Does that make sense?
New Tire Size/ Old Tire Size x Current Gear Ratio= New ratio to maintain final drive.
So, for instance, in order for me to maintain the stock ratio when putting on 33" tires, I would divide 33 by 29(1.137931) then multiply that by the original gear ratio of 4.1 and my new gears should be 4.56 (4.6655171 to be exact, but last time I checked, they didn't make those).
31s to 33s with original gearing of 4.56 would mean new gearing of 4.88.
BTW, when you put bigger tires on your truck w/o changing the gearing, this makes your speedometer/odometer say you are going slower/shorter distances than you actually are. More circumference= further per revolution. With that being said, (without arguing the accuracy of this calculation method) if you simply take your tripometer reading divided by your # of gals, you will actually get a lower number than is accurate. Does that make sense?
