more pulling power
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
more pulling power
My brother has a 1991 f250 with a 300 six and 354 rear end. He has 235 tires on the truck and it is speced with 215. Will he get more pulling pulling power if he went back to the 215s? Or should he install a 410 rear end. Another option he has is swaping his six for a 302V8. Any help would be appretiated.
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
410 gears are worse for pulling I think. I would think he should go with 2xx gears. And if all he needs is pulling power, the 4.9 would be better than the 5.0.
That truck with 2xx gears would pull a house off its foundation.
That truck with 2xx gears would pull a house off its foundation.
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
From: Murfreesboro, Tennessee
haha get some good ol 288 gears. Those are whats in the old school Mac trucks that did the ice haul up north made sure they could pull anything out and its like a governor for speed I was told.
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
lol I knew this one guy who had a 64 chevy 3/4 ton, it had 273 gears in it I think, first gear was basically 0-4mph and that was full RPM on the 350 that was in that truck. I think he used to start off in 3rd from a stoplight. In 3rd gear, he could let out the clutch with zero gas and the idle power of the truck would keep it from stalling.
I think it was 273 gear in the rear and the tranny had a granny gear in it or something. It was basically useless unless you were doing nothing but hauling.
I think it was 273 gear in the rear and the tranny had a granny gear in it or something. It was basically useless unless you were doing nothing but hauling.
Hotshot
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,285
Likes: 12
From: Bend,OR
you guys are all smoken crack hehe.
the 4.10's will alow him to tow alot better for sure especially with that motor. the 302 is a crap motor in a truck used for towing. a 302 is a hi rpm motor and really doesnt produce that much torque. if he wants to swap to a v8 he should do a 5.8 swap. its the same amount of work as a 302 swap , he can use the same tranny thats already in there.
the higher the gear ratio the better pulling you will have. the lower the gear ratio number the more power loss it will feel like.
the 4.10's will alow him to tow alot better for sure especially with that motor. the 302 is a crap motor in a truck used for towing. a 302 is a hi rpm motor and really doesnt produce that much torque. if he wants to swap to a v8 he should do a 5.8 swap. its the same amount of work as a 302 swap , he can use the same tranny thats already in there.
the higher the gear ratio the better pulling you will have. the lower the gear ratio number the more power loss it will feel like.
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,402
Likes: 38
From: Bonita Springs FL
You guys all have your gear ratios backwards. Edit - except for Kem. Beat me to it. 
Numerically higher = better pulling, worse gas mileage
Numerically lower = worse pulling, better mileage.
Paul, as for the tires, 215 and 235 refer only to the width. I doubt that an F-250 called for 215 wide tires from the factory. Going to a smaller diameter tire will help with power, but I'd go with a gear ratio change. A 300 needs 4.10 gears to pull really well in that heavy truck.
Swapping to a 302 would be a big mistake. We've had this debate recently, and I don't want to rehash it, but most people (myself included) are of the opinion that the 300 will outpull the 302 any day of the week.
If you really want to make the swap worthwhile, get a 460.
Numerically higher = better pulling, worse gas mileage
Numerically lower = worse pulling, better mileage.
Paul, as for the tires, 215 and 235 refer only to the width. I doubt that an F-250 called for 215 wide tires from the factory. Going to a smaller diameter tire will help with power, but I'd go with a gear ratio change. A 300 needs 4.10 gears to pull really well in that heavy truck.
Swapping to a 302 would be a big mistake. We've had this debate recently, and I don't want to rehash it, but most people (myself included) are of the opinion that the 300 will outpull the 302 any day of the week.
If you really want to make the swap worthwhile, get a 460.
Last edited by andym; Jan 26, 2006 at 11:41 AM.
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Trending Topics
Elder User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
From: Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Hmmm Im most def going to take your knoweldge just why did the older trucks use the lower gears?
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
Hotshot
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,285
Likes: 12
From: Bend,OR
it depended on tranny type for instance. how the truck was ordered. etc...
most 2wds will have like a 2.** or 3.08 for instance especially if its a halfton.
3/4 - 1tons mostly came with a 4.10 both 2wd or 4wd models due to weight of vehicle and expected uses.
most 2wds will have like a 2.** or 3.08 for instance especially if its a halfton.
3/4 - 1tons mostly came with a 4.10 both 2wd or 4wd models due to weight of vehicle and expected uses.
Postmaster
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,908
Likes: 2
From: West Mansfield, Ohio
Originally Posted by Kemicalburns
you guys are all smoken crack hehe.
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 158
Likes: 1
The tire width does have an effect on tire diameter on tires using the metric designations.
For example: 235/85R16
235 = tire section width (not actual tread width) in millimeters
85 = the aspect ratio in % (the height of the side wall is 85% of the section width
R (I believe the R means radial but I'm not sure)
16 = rim diameter in inches
So the diameter of this tire would be (235mm X 0.85 X 2) + 16in = 31.7in
Note: To convert millimeters to inches, divide the millimeters by 25.4
235mm / 25.4 = 9.25in
If you increase the section width without changing the aspect ratio, the tire diameter will be larger. To keep the same diameter with a wider tire, you must decrease the aspect ratio.
None of this applies to the older tire sizing convention, for example, I run 33 X 12.5 X 16.5 tires on my truck. They are 33in in diameter, 12.5in section width (not tread width) and fit a 16.5in diameter rim.
Tread width is independent of section width. See the tire manufacturer's spec for this and rim width recommendations. My 33 X 12.5 x 16.5 BFG AT's have a tread width of 10in.
For example: 235/85R16
235 = tire section width (not actual tread width) in millimeters
85 = the aspect ratio in % (the height of the side wall is 85% of the section width
R (I believe the R means radial but I'm not sure)
16 = rim diameter in inches
So the diameter of this tire would be (235mm X 0.85 X 2) + 16in = 31.7in
Note: To convert millimeters to inches, divide the millimeters by 25.4
235mm / 25.4 = 9.25in
If you increase the section width without changing the aspect ratio, the tire diameter will be larger. To keep the same diameter with a wider tire, you must decrease the aspect ratio.
None of this applies to the older tire sizing convention, for example, I run 33 X 12.5 X 16.5 tires on my truck. They are 33in in diameter, 12.5in section width (not tread width) and fit a 16.5in diameter rim.
Tread width is independent of section width. See the tire manufacturer's spec for this and rim width recommendations. My 33 X 12.5 x 16.5 BFG AT's have a tread width of 10in.
Postmaster
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,908
Likes: 2
From: West Mansfield, Ohio
Very well put Turbocoupe. I myself learned quite a bit from your post and I thank you for that. I never 100% fully understood how those numbers worked. The only question I have is what is the difference between tread width and tire section width? Reason I ask is because my ranger calls for 215/75R-14's, but right now I'm running 205/75R-14's Let me try the math...
(205 x .75 x 2) + 14 = 321.5mm. Divide 321.5 by 25.4 to convert that to inches right? That gives me 12.65 inches.
Now I'm confused. Either I had a brainfart... or I still dont get it! lol
(205 x .75 x 2) + 14 = 321.5mm. Divide 321.5 by 25.4 to convert that to inches right? That gives me 12.65 inches.
Now I'm confused. Either I had a brainfart... or I still dont get it! lol
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
you converted your number too early.
it's ((205*.75*2)/25.4)+14 = 26.106
here's a nice tire size calculator for ya:
http://www.1010tires.com/TireSizeCalculator.asp
Mike
it's ((205*.75*2)/25.4)+14 = 26.106
here's a nice tire size calculator for ya:
http://www.1010tires.com/TireSizeCalculator.asp
Mike