thoughts?

[Ohio5pt7]

ok guys so here goes. I plan on doing a lot come the first of the year and here is where my head is.
I'm going to go to a 4" lift but sticking with 33's ( not debatable) because I tow a heavy TT and have 3.21s. now here comes the input I need. I currently have a vararam, PC, and xpipe muffler delete. My plan is to add tune ( likely Jay), ported TB, ATI damper pulley, and long tubes (looking at JBA's to keep cost down). this isn't meant to be a debate on better brand as that is irrelevant to me what matters is the end result and when it comes to headers fit and finish may differ but end result will be within a small enough margin I'll never notice. Now things I would like input on. is this the right path? would I be better off with a different tuner? not interested in changing gears $$$$ and i drive 50k miles a year so the extra mile or 2 a gallon matters to me. anyone else running my proposed set up? what kind of power?

 

[crackerjack1957]

If extra MPG matters then don't lift & avoid an aggressive tread (A/T & M/T)

 

[Ohio5pt7]

If extra MPG matters then don't lift & avoid an aggressive tread (A/T & M/T)

My point is even lifted I'll have that advantage of the mpg. Pretty sure we all know that lifting and heavier wheel tire combo is going to effect mpg.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk all grammar errors brought you by fat fingers and auto correct.

 

[smurfs_of_war]

My point is even lifted I'll have that advantage of the mpg. Pretty sure we all know that lifting and heavier wheel tire combo is going to effect mpg.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk all grammar errors brought you by fat fingers and auto correct.

Maybe someone smarter than me will chime in, but with a heavier tire and a lift that stock 3.21 advantage may go the exact opposite direction for you. Harder work for the 3.21s to roll that mass vs. 3.92s or 4.10s.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

 

[Ohio5pt7]

Maybe someone smarter than me will chime in, but with a heavier tire and a lift that stock 3.21 advantage may go the exact opposite direction for you. Harder work for the 3.21s to roll that mass vs. 3.92s or 4.10s.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

I will agree by Newton's law that makes since at first glance. But here is my logic and it may be wrong. Stock for stock advantage 3.21. Add the weight and the mechanical advantage of the 3.92 closes the gap or possibly takes lead. But the add hp and tq make more power at that same speed with less effort which means it should drink less gas? I'll wait and see how it does and maybe I can get in touch with someone with the 3.92s that's stock performance wise and we can compare if my theory is correct.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk all grammar errors brought you by fat fingers and auto correct.

 

[pacofortacos]

Yeah your lift is going to kill the mpgs (esp. if you do a level with the lift) even with doing the mods I think you will take a hit vs. your current setup.

If you lift without level it might not be as bad of a hit, the lighter the tire will help a bit.

If I am not mistaken you have reported some rather high MPG, higher than most.
After modding you might be down with the rest of us

 

[Ohio5pt7]

Yeah your lift is going to kill the mpgs (esp. if you do a level with the lift) even with doing the mods I think you will take a hit vs. your current setup.

If you lift without level it might not be as bad of a hit, the lighter the tire will help a bit.

If I am not mistaken you have reported some rather high MPG, higher than most.
After modding you might be down with the rest of us

Your right with my current 3" set up and stock tires I'm at 24 consistently. I figured going up and the heavier set up plus obviously make power takes fuel I'd be down 18-20 range maybe better who knows. Either way at the end of the day I like my 3.21s and being a 4x4 I have no interest is paying 3k to switch gears lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk all grammar errors brought you by fat fingers and auto correct.

 

[pacofortacos]

That is really pretty high. I am thrilled when I hit 20 mpg and it has taken some work to hit that.
My 3.92 geared outdoorsman only got 17 highway stock.

After lowering the front 1" and putting some underbelly parts on, I can sometimes hit 20 mpg now at 74 mph. A good cross frontal headwind will drop me to as low as 12 mpg (lowest).

 

[Ohio5pt7]

That is really pretty high. I am thrilled when I hit 20 mpg and it has taken some work to hit that.
My 3.92 geared outdoorsman only got 17 highway stock.

After lowering the front 1" and putting some underbelly parts on, I can sometimes hit 20 mpg now at 74 mph. A good cross frontal headwind will drop me to as low as 12 mpg (lowest).

For what it's worth my commute is a little crazy I do about 180 miles highway to 3-5 miles of 35mph and there is only 2 stops during that 3-5.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk all grammar errors brought you by fat fingers and auto correct.

 

[crackerjack1957]

Well if gas mileage doesn't matter then lift........LoL

 

[2010 Infantry Vet]

If so were you, I would first purchase gears, that will give you the best performance and you won’t lose any mpg. Don’t even waste your time on a TB unless you are adding a cam or blower. I bought one of mows ported TB’s, it did absolutely nothing. Stock TB is more than adequite for what you will be running. Good choice on jay for your tune. He is one of the best.

 

[ram1500rsm]

Long tube headers and a real tune would give you power you can feel and measure all the way across the engine powerband. The other stuff is just bagage good for signatures on stock cam but rather than spending money on the 4" lift, get a cam and complete your power package, then your ported TB idea and pulley will complement the last bit of power you can extract. Cam and LT's were easy 80-100rwhp on 6.0L Chevy LS2 engines. Should be about the same on the Hemi ?

 

[crackerjack1957]

Cam & headers only added 50 rwh to mine on Mustang dyno

 

[Ohio5pt7]

Cam & headers only added 50 rwh to mine on Mustang dyno

Which cam did you get?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk all grammar errors brought you by fat fingers and auto correct.

 

[crackerjack1957]

DATE: 05/28/19 SPECIFICATION CARD CPRPSC_SC
TIME: 12:50:06
SPEC CARD#: 19278
ITEM......: 201-000-17
DESCRIP...: CAMSHAFT, DODGE 6.4/6.1/5.7 HE
GRIND#....: Stage 1.5 HL v2

CUSTOMER INSTRUCTIONS:
Stage 1.5 HL v2

HYDRAULIC............: Y
_______________ INTAKE _______________ EXHAUST
LOBE ID..............: 13870Q 13158Q
VALVE ADJUSTMENT.....: HYD HYD
VALVE LIFT...........: .576 .569
CHECKING HEIGHT......: .006
ADVERTISED DURATION..: 259 278
VALVES TIMING @......: .050
VALVES OPEN..........: 1- 60
VALVES CLOSED........: 30 14-
DURATION @ 0.050.....: 209 226
LOBE LIFT............: .3600 .3560
ROCKER RATIO.........: 1.60 1.60
BANK ANGLE...........: STD STD
CENTER LINE..........: 105.0 127.0
LOBE SEPARATION......: 116.0 CAM ADVANCE..........: 11.0
CORE TYPE............: HR GEAR TYPE............:
SMALL BASE CIRCLE....: N REAR PUMP DRIVE......: N
REVERSE ROTATION.....: N FUEL PUMP DRIVE......: Y
JOURNAL DIAMETER.....: LOBE SPACING.........: STD
MATERIAL.............: STL FIRING ORDER.........: STD
CORE SELECTED........: C201-9B
COMMENTS.............:

 

[Ohio5pt7]

DATE: 05/28/19 SPECIFICATION CARD CPRPSC_SC
TIME: 12:50:06
SPEC CARD#: 19278
ITEM......: 201-000-17
DESCRIP...: CAMSHAFT, DODGE 6.4/6.1/5.7 HE
GRIND#....: Stage 1.5 HL v2

CUSTOMER INSTRUCTIONS:
Stage 1.5 HL v2

HYDRAULIC............: Y
_______________ INTAKE _______________ EXHAUST
LOBE ID..............: 13870Q 13158Q
VALVE ADJUSTMENT.....: HYD HYD
VALVE LIFT...........: .576 .569
CHECKING HEIGHT......: .006
ADVERTISED DURATION..: 259 278
VALVES TIMING @......: .050
VALVES OPEN..........: 1- 60
VALVES CLOSED........: 30 14-
DURATION @ 0.050.....: 209 226
LOBE LIFT............: .3600 .3560
ROCKER RATIO.........: 1.60 1.60
BANK ANGLE...........: STD STD
CENTER LINE..........: 105.0 127.0
LOBE SEPARATION......: 116.0 CAM ADVANCE..........: 11.0
CORE TYPE............: HR GEAR TYPE............:
SMALL BASE CIRCLE....: N REAR PUMP DRIVE......: N
REVERSE ROTATION.....: N FUEL PUMP DRIVE......: Y
JOURNAL DIAMETER.....: LOBE SPACING.........: STD
MATERIAL.............: STL FIRING ORDER.........: STD
CORE SELECTED........: C201-9B
COMMENTS.............:

I'm thinking maybe a cam isnt for me at the moment. I guess I could say screw ma and go torqstorm I guess lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk all grammar errors brought you by fat fingers and auto correct.

 

[crackerjack1957]

I'm thinking maybe a cam isnt for me at the moment. I guess I could say screw ma and go torqstorm I guess lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk all grammar errors brought you by fat fingers and auto correct.

If I had it to do over I would have traded in this 6-speed for an 8 & installed a Whipple.

 

[Ohio5pt7]

If I had it to do over I would have traded in this 6-speed for an 8 & installed a Whipple.

I wonder if it would show more gain on a 8sp

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk all grammar errors brought you by fat fingers and auto correct.

 

[crackerjack1957]

I wonder if it would show more gain on a 8sp

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk all grammar errors brought you by fat fingers and auto correct.

Have know idea......guess I could ask tuner after Christmas.

 

[88ROOK]

If you have a 5.7 I am calling serious ******** on getting 24 MPG, i have done a couple decent highway trips and only got 19-20