Any mods needed to 8.8 to go from 4.10 > 4.56/4.88
#1
Any mods needed to 8.8 to go from 4.10 > 4.56/4.88
I thought there was a different center pin or something that was needed to swap to a lower ratio. But am not sure. I'd like to run 4.88s on mine, for the fact i just like running lower gears. Engine seems more happy at higher revs on the highway.
Thanks!
Thanks!
#2
#3
#4
Grinding the teeth of the ring gear sacrifices NO strength whatsoever. You have to grind a very tiny bit off the tip of the edge of the teeth at the tall part of the gear. Mine was only 2 teeth and I've seen ppl get away with only grinding a single tooth. I didn't have the option of using a notched pin because of the full carrier e-locker that went in. But personally I wouldn't use a notched pin even if I could.
Here is a good thread Shane started about grinding the teeth on the ring gear.
https://www.ranger-forums.com/forum2...8751&highlight
Here is a good thread Shane started about grinding the teeth on the ring gear.
https://www.ranger-forums.com/forum2...8751&highlight
#5
#7
#8
#10
YES, IT SUCKS...don't do 4.88's if you drive hwy a lot...at 70 it's almost 3k rpms...
I tow and a drive hwy all the time, and I wish to god I had 4.56, I loved 4.10's and 33's...at the time I hated it and through it was slow, but the RPMS with 4.88's and 35's are way way too high...just feels like it's revving up too much. I don't know why i decided on 4.88 but I want 37's to calm it down! I actually want 5.13's and 38.5's :) soon soon
#11
#13
#14
haha, thats 2 for 4.88s is too low for me. I cruise more at 75 and 80 for long rides. 4.56 should be a decent mix. 3k at 80 would be perfect, the 3.0 likes more revs. Last time i went to california i got 18mpg with it at 80-85 because the revs were up and less downshifting up the hills. So i'll take the 4.56!
#16
haha, thats 2 for 4.88s is too low for me. I cruise more at 75 and 80 for long rides. 4.56 should be a decent mix. 3k at 80 would be perfect, the 3.0 likes more revs. Last time i went to california i got 18mpg with it at 80-85 because the revs were up and less downshifting up the hills. So i'll take the 4.56!
#17
Too many hills out here, plus a little higher elevation depending on which part of town i'm in makes me want to toss the 4.10s. Too many hills in this terrain to bog down the little 3.0L. Much different than Florida! Higher rev's dont bug me so much, i run synthetic and change it out like I should. Shouldn't hurt too much.
Probably wont be much worse rpm wise than when I was stock running 29s and 4.10s...
Probably wont be much worse rpm wise than when I was stock running 29s and 4.10s...
Last edited by Goodysgotacuda; 04-12-2009 at 10:37 AM.
#18
Too many hills out here, plus a little higher elevation depending on which part of town i'm in makes me want to toss the 4.10s. Too many hills in this terrain to bog down the little 3.0L. Much different than Florida! Higher rev's dont bug me so much, i run synthetic and change it out like I should. Shouldn't hurt too much.
Probably wont be much worse rpm wise than when I was stock running 29s and 4.10s...
Probably wont be much worse rpm wise than when I was stock running 29s and 4.10s...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
OneTireFire
General Ford Ranger Discussion
3
04-15-2010 06:34 AM