your opinions in 321 vs 392

[toofart]

I have to say that this is the first time in my life that i am actually impressed with the transmission in a mopar vehicle.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. I've been driving Mopars since forever and even the TR-6060 in the Challenger has an odd spacing for 2nd gear. The 8 speed it cat's ***.

 

[Buddy]

Well today i got to play a bit, went to the dealership and compared the two - 321 anti slip vs 392 non anti.
The dealer didn't have me drag them side by side, but was totally cool with taking them out one after the other. I did a few from stop runs with traction control off, then with it on for each truck. So I took the 321 out first and it was good I had low expectations. It took off hard, tires spinning hard then when they bit the truck ran strong, lots of power. I was really impressed, I didn't expect it to run so strong out of the hole. TC on it spun a bit, then TC kicked in and it grabbed and pulled. Not disappointed at all in the truck.
But then I took the 392 out....
The thing took off like a beast, tires (or tire, no posi) spun, and spun some more. When it grabbed, the truck just wanted to pull like a big dog on a lease, just raw. TC on, it spun a bit, then like the other, grabbed and pulled.
So they have found 1 truck within 1000km per my specs. They are gonna call that dealer this week to see if it's still on the lot and if they are game for a dealer trade. It's got everything I want, 392 with anti slip even.
But I will say in my opinion, my first choice is yes, the 392 anti slip, but my second choice is not 392 without anti slip, I would go with the 321 anti slip as my second choice. It isn't that bad, it runs like an animal. It's just the 392 is a bit of a wilder beast.
We will see what this week brings about.

 

[Kelli25]

Well today i got to play a bit, went to the dealership and compared the two - 321 anti slip vs 392 non anti.
The dealer didn't have me drag them side by side, but was totally cool with taking them out one after the other. I did a few from stop runs with traction control off, then with it on for each truck. So I took the 321 out first and it was good I had low expectations. It took off hard, tires spinning hard then when they bit the truck ran strong, lots of power. I was really impressed, I didn't expect it to run so strong out of the hole. TC on it spun a bit, then TC kicked in and it grabbed and pulled. Not disappointed at all in the truck.
But then I took the 392 out....
The thing took off like a beast, tires (or tire, no posi) spun, and spun some more. When it grabbed, the truck just wanted to pull like a big dog on a lease, just raw. TC on, it spun a bit, then like the other, grabbed and pulled.
So they have found 1 truck within 1000km per my specs. They are gonna call that dealer this week to see if it's still on the lot and if they are game for a dealer trade. It's got everything I want, 392 with anti slip even.
But I will say in my opinion, my first choice is yes, the 392 anti slip, but my second choice is not 392 without anti slip, I would go with the 321 anti slip as my second choice. It isn't that bad, it runs like an animal. It's just the 392 is a bit of a wilder beast.
We will see what this week brings about.

Right on man. Looks like you got it figured. I did the same thing when buying my RAM and my JGC. I took out a tricked out 5.7 RAM and drove it against the R/T. Not sure how different the first gear ratio is on the 6 compared to the 8sp, but the 4.10s made a huge difference. So I left in an R/T. With the JGC it was about the Diesel vs the Hemi (I really wanted the performance of the SRT, but I don't like the look of the newer model). So again, i drove them back to back and even though I love torque, the hemi won easily. So again I left in an Overland with the 5.7.

In the end its all about you feeling good with your choice. No beating that.

Lookin forward to seeing how your situation plays out.

 

[Buddy]

Lol, thanks! I'm looking forward to the weekend ending (strange to say cause it's a long weekend) so I can find out what this other dealership says. At least it's kind of a decision maker for me.... truck there, "sure I'll take it", truck is gone, "well lets take that one I drove (321 anti slip). Either way I have come to a happy place in either choice. I will take either.

.... but leaning slightly to the wild animal though....

 

[NYCruiser]

I actually found the 3.55 to be a nice compromise for performance/fuel economy. Hemi torque makes it work fine for me.
Good on the highway, commuting to work, and weekend towing.

 

[Statcher1]

I actually found the 3.55 to be a nice compromise for performance/fuel economy. Hemi torque makes it work fine for me.
Good on the highway, commuting to work, and weekend towing.

I'm in the same train of thought here. My Ram has 3.55s. And it does everything I ask of it without the slightest hesitation


Sent from the Rocket in my Pocket

 

[Mgpatton1s]

I've got a 2012 hemi with 3.55's and hate em. I'll never own another truck with anything lower than 3.73's. I also have 35's and always will on my trucks. But still. 3.55 is to low for a full size truck in my opinion, no matter what speed transmission.

 

[loveracing1988]

I've got a 2012 hemi with 3.55's and hate em. I'll never own another truck with anything lower than 3.73's. I also have 35's and always will on my trucks. But still. 3.55 is to low for a full size truck in my opinion, no matter what speed transmission.

Try driving a 8 speed, there is no comparison between the 6 with 3.92's and 8 with 3.55's.

 

[Mgpatton1s]

Try driving a 8 speed, there is no comparison between the 6 with 3.92's and 8 with 3.55's.

Personally. I don't even want to. Maybe I'm being hard headed but I hated the idea of an 8 speed when I first heard about em and that hasn't changed. I just don't see what Ram was thinking when they geared these trucks. They're one of the more powerful stock gas engines but then they hold them back in the gears. That's just my opinion though.

 

[loveracing1988]

Personally. I don't even want to. Maybe I'm being hard headed but I hated the idea of an 8 speed when I first heard about em and that hasn't changed. I just don't see what Ram was thinking when they geared these trucks. They're one of the more powerful stock gas engines but then they hold them back in the gears. That's just my opinion though.

Towing hands down 8 speeds are far superior to 5 speeds. The engine is always making peak torque while acceleration and holding speed. Why not have the best of both worlds with the gearing? Even with the 3.21 gears I would much rather have the 8 speed thsn the 5 speed with 3.92's. I drove one and honestly was not remotely impressed, it didn't feel like 395 horse.

 

[Buddy]

Times always change, and tech always moves forward. There was a time not too long ago a 4 speed was the norm, in a few years 8 speeds will probably be the standard. Already the 9 speeds have begun, they too will move across the board. Auto manufacturers are always looking for that power efficacy dollar combo to keep consumers happy and buying from them. If anyone on this forum was asked 10 years ago about 8 speed transmissions everybody would have dismissed the idea...... wonder what 5-10 years from now will have????

 

[loveracing1988]

Times always change, and tech always moves forward. There was a time not too long ago a 4 speed was the norm, in a few years 8 speeds will probably be the standard. Already the 9 speeds have begun, they too will move across the board. Auto manufacturers are always looking for that power efficacy dollar combo to keep consumers happy and buying from them. If anyone on this forum was asked 10 years ago about 8 speed transmissions everybody would have dismissed the idea...... wonder what 5-10 years from now will have????

Gm and ford are developing a 10 speed truck transmission. They won't go too much higher because it just will add complexity without really gaining anything.

 

[Buddy]

Haha already!!! All manufacturers want that bragging right of being the "first to market". Oh well, only good for the consumer.

 

[Gardenfan]

8 speed with 3.21's, full tank of fuel, couple people my dog, etc. Sitting at about 6200 pounds. Diablosport put it at 6.91 fastest, 7 with a bit of wheelspin to 60. 15.4 quarter with a 91mph trap speed. That is definitely faster than my 2012 hemi 6 speed with 3.92's.

 

[mhb1638]

8 speed with 3.21's, full tank of fuel, couple people my dog, etc. Sitting at about 6200 pounds. Diablosport put it at 6.91 fastest, 7 with a bit of wheelspin to 60. 15.4 quarter with a 91mph trap speed. That is definitely faster than my 2012 hemi 6 speed with 3.92's.

Nice !

 

[DannyMK2]

if they were to cut you a great deal on the non slip 3.92 and its the perfect truck in every other aspect, take it. its easy enough the have a limited slip carrier swapped in, hell you could maybe even talk the dealer into doing that as part of the deal. swapping ring and pinions on these trucks gets expensive, especially on a 4x4. i would never buy a 3.21 truck, ever.

if they arent going to make it worth your while, then dont do it of course.

 

[Buddy]

The original truck I was looking at that had the 392 non anti slip rear has the 6'4 box, I want a 5'7 box, which the 321 posi truck has.
They do have a possible truck that is exactly what I want, but that dealership is closed today so will know more tomorrow......