Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

  1. Welcome to Toyota Tundra Forums : Tundra Solutions Forums – General discussion forum for Toyota Trucks

    Welcome to Toyota Tundra Forums : Tundra Solutions Forums - a website dedicated to all things Toyota Tundra.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join Toyota Tundra Forums : Tundra Solutions Forums today!
     
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Like Tree11Likes
  • 2 Post By tundrunk
  • 2 Post By BamZipPow
  • 3 Post By tundrunk
  • 3 Post By skilife
  • 1 Post By tundrunk

Thread: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

  1. #1
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    7
    Liked
    0 times
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    I have a 2005 tundra double cab. I read somewhere that the double cab has a 390 rear end ratio and the access cab has a 360 ratio. We only pull 2000 lbs occasionally . Would like to hear from anyone who has made the change and did you pick up any mpg. Thanks
    Last edited by oldtech; 02-17-2013 at 04:38 PM. Reason: Typo

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Toyota Tundra Forum
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Veteran Member tundra3400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Abingdon, MD
    Age
    19
    Posts
    1,659
    Liked
    388 times
    Images
    32
    Rep Power
    32537

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    well the 2005 DC do come with 390s but the 2005 AC dont come with 360 they come with 376s in the SR5 2WD models. the 4WD and limited models come with 390s. changing up ratios may give you more gas mileage but it will kill power.
    2000 Tundra Platinum Metallic 3.4L V6 SR5 AC 4WD, 204,000 miles and counting, Husky Liners, 5K 35 Watt HID Heads & Fogs w/ Fog Mod from IZL, LED Cargo Light, Pioneer 3300UB, redruM69's Quarter Window Arm Mod, Kicker 8" Sub with Custom Box, New Frame via The Rust Recall, 5100s on 3rd Notch, CV Boot Clamp Mod, Hellwig EZ550 Helper Springs, My 1st Gen Anytime Power Window Mod, K&N Air Filter, Electric Fan Conversion (thanks texasranger96), 180 Amp DC Power Alternator, Map Light Mod & LEDs, 285/75r16 Terra Grapplers, Curt Tow Hitch, Keyless Entry, ES Rack Bushings
    CBTMA Member

    Sometime in the Future:
    Offroad LEDs, Lock-Rite (maybe)

  4. #3
    September Sky Highwaylizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    above the below
    Posts
    6,973
    Liked
    1922 times
    Images
    65
    Rep Power
    225693

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    Quote Originally Posted by oldtech View Post
    I have a 2005 tundra double cab. I read somewhere that the double cab has a 390 rear end ratio and the access cab has a 360 ratio. We only pull 2000 lbs occasionally . Would like to hear from anyone who has made the change and did you pick up any mpg. Thanks
    I went from the stock 4.10 gearing to 3.90, not entirely by choice (but that is a story for another time), and picked up a little mileage. I used to own and operate a landscaping company and tree service and never had a problem pulling trailers anywhere from 3,000 pounds to well over 7,000. I was able to switch the differentials at minimum cost due to the kindness of a couple of members here who sold me theirs at very reasonable cost.
    Tundra Fuel Economy Blog
    264,521 miles on the odometer [come see me when you get that on your ford]

    Highwaylizard 2004 Tundra Double Cab Limited Edition 4.7 liter V8, four speed automatic, four wheel drive, testing platform for fuel economy, self designed cold air intake using ram air principle, Scangauge, Fitch Fuel Catalyst, Aero Turbine, "Foolie Exhaust" from Aero Turbine back, True Flow Intake with Amsoil drop-in dry filter, Mobile 1 in the engine, NAPA oil filter, NAPA in the differentials. 3:91 gears in the front (Thanks Cajuntundra!) and rear (Thanks Nytrousboy!) differentials, Michelin LTX M/S2 tires

  5. #4
    Senior Contributor tundrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    check the bar or liquor store
    Posts
    5,850
    Liked
    1986 times
    Images
    216
    Rep Power
    241860

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    The only stock ratios I've ever heard of in Tundra's is 3.91 or 4.10, never heard of 3.60 or 3.76...
    T100's came with 4.30 though.
    ZapcoTundra and Highwaylizard like this.
    “Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
    ― Hunter S. Thompson

  6. #5
    September Sky Highwaylizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    above the below
    Posts
    6,973
    Liked
    1922 times
    Images
    65
    Rep Power
    225693

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    Quote Originally Posted by tundrunk View Post
    The only stock ratios I've ever heard of in Tundra's is 3.91 or 4.10, never heard of 3.60 or 3.76...
    T100's came with 4.30 though.
    Me too - but then again this is not my department.
    Tundra Fuel Economy Blog
    264,521 miles on the odometer [come see me when you get that on your ford]

    Highwaylizard 2004 Tundra Double Cab Limited Edition 4.7 liter V8, four speed automatic, four wheel drive, testing platform for fuel economy, self designed cold air intake using ram air principle, Scangauge, Fitch Fuel Catalyst, Aero Turbine, "Foolie Exhaust" from Aero Turbine back, True Flow Intake with Amsoil drop-in dry filter, Mobile 1 in the engine, NAPA oil filter, NAPA in the differentials. 3:91 gears in the front (Thanks Cajuntundra!) and rear (Thanks Nytrousboy!) differentials, Michelin LTX M/S2 tires

  7. #6
    Supporter skilife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Panhandle-MD
    Posts
    291
    Liked
    171 times
    Images
    1
    Rep Power
    22642

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    Just so we're clear...
    Going with a "lower" # ie 3.91 like in my '05 DC vs. 4.10, 4.30, would mean less power (because of the ratio) better mileage right? Higher # better power less mileage??? Kind of thinking like a manual transmission, the higher the gear you shift into the less power but better mileage... I guess that's what I thought is the purpose of regearing was when you put on bigger tires... (maybe I can learn something here)
    Oldtech- What are you wanting to do?

  8. #7
    Veteran Member tundra3400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Abingdon, MD
    Age
    19
    Posts
    1,659
    Liked
    388 times
    Images
    32
    Rep Power
    32537

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    Quote Originally Posted by tundrunk View Post
    The only stock ratios I've ever heard of in Tundra's is 3.91 or 4.10, never heard of 3.60 or 3.76...
    T100's came with 4.30 though.
    and the V6 auto tundra comes with 430s. my tundra has em.

    this site has all the gear ratios for toyota vehicles: Toyota Motor Company Axle Gear Ratios
    2000 Tundra Platinum Metallic 3.4L V6 SR5 AC 4WD, 204,000 miles and counting, Husky Liners, 5K 35 Watt HID Heads & Fogs w/ Fog Mod from IZL, LED Cargo Light, Pioneer 3300UB, redruM69's Quarter Window Arm Mod, Kicker 8" Sub with Custom Box, New Frame via The Rust Recall, 5100s on 3rd Notch, CV Boot Clamp Mod, Hellwig EZ550 Helper Springs, My 1st Gen Anytime Power Window Mod, K&N Air Filter, Electric Fan Conversion (thanks texasranger96), 180 Amp DC Power Alternator, Map Light Mod & LEDs, 285/75r16 Terra Grapplers, Curt Tow Hitch, Keyless Entry, ES Rack Bushings
    CBTMA Member

    Sometime in the Future:
    Offroad LEDs, Lock-Rite (maybe)

  9. #8
    Veteran Member tundra3400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Abingdon, MD
    Age
    19
    Posts
    1,659
    Liked
    388 times
    Images
    32
    Rep Power
    32537

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    Quote Originally Posted by skilife View Post
    Just so we're clear...
    Going with a "lower" # ie 3.91 like in my '05 DC vs. 4.10, 4.30, would mean less power (because of the ratio) better mileage right? Higher # better power less mileage??? Kind of thinking like a manual transmission, the higher the gear you shift into the less power but better mileage... I guess that's what I thought is the purpose of regearing was when you put on bigger tires... (maybe I can learn something here)
    Oldtech- What are you wanting to do?
    thats correct skilife.
    2000 Tundra Platinum Metallic 3.4L V6 SR5 AC 4WD, 204,000 miles and counting, Husky Liners, 5K 35 Watt HID Heads & Fogs w/ Fog Mod from IZL, LED Cargo Light, Pioneer 3300UB, redruM69's Quarter Window Arm Mod, Kicker 8" Sub with Custom Box, New Frame via The Rust Recall, 5100s on 3rd Notch, CV Boot Clamp Mod, Hellwig EZ550 Helper Springs, My 1st Gen Anytime Power Window Mod, K&N Air Filter, Electric Fan Conversion (thanks texasranger96), 180 Amp DC Power Alternator, Map Light Mod & LEDs, 285/75r16 Terra Grapplers, Curt Tow Hitch, Keyless Entry, ES Rack Bushings
    CBTMA Member

    Sometime in the Future:
    Offroad LEDs, Lock-Rite (maybe)

  10. #9
    Veteran Member BamZipPow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    College Station, TX
    Posts
    681
    Liked
    58 times
    Images
    5
    Rep Power
    4040

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    Here's a listing of what differential ratios that came with the T-100...on www.car-part.com.

    1993 Toyota T100 (6cyl = 3.0L engine)
    Carrier

    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x2, 1 ton, ABS, AT (4.70 ratio)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x2, 1 ton, ABS, MT (4.46 ratio)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x2, 1 ton, w/o ABS; AT (4.70 ratio)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x2, 1 ton, w/o ABS; MT (4.46 ratio)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x2, 1/2 ton, ABS, AT (4.27 ratio)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x2, 1/2 ton, ABS, MT (4.08 ratio)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x2, 1/2 ton, w/o ABS; AT (4.27 ratio)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x2, 1/2 ton, w/o ABS; MT (4.08 ratio)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x4, ABS, 4.46 ratio (MT)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x4, ABS, 4.70 ratio
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x4, ABS, 4.90 ratio (AT)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x4, w/o ABS; 4.46 ratio (MT)
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x4, w/o ABS; 4.70 ratio
    Rear Axle, (6 cyl), 4x4, w/o ABS; 4.90 ratio (AT)


    1994 Toyota T100 (6cyl = 3.0L engine)
    Carrier

    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, ABS, 3.62 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, ABS, 3.77 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, w/o ABS; 3.62 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, w/o ABS; 3.77 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1 ton, ABS, AT (4.70 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1 ton, ABS, MT (4.46 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1 ton, w/o ABS; AT (4.70 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1 ton, w/o ABS; MT (4.46 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, ABS, AT (4.27 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, ABS, MT (4.08 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, w/o ABS; AT (4.27 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, w/o ABS; MT (4.08 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, ABS, 4.46 ratio (MT)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, ABS, 4.70 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, ABS, 4.90 ratio (AT)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, w/o ABS; 4.46 ratio (MT)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, w/o ABS; 4.70 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, w/o ABS; 4.90 ratio (AT)


    1995 Toyota T100
    Carrier

    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, AT, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, AT, 4.08 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, MT, 3.62 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, MT, 3.77 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1 ton (3.91 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, 3.77 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, AT, 4.10 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, AT, 4.30 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, MT, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, MT, 4.10 ratio


    1996 Toyota T100
    Carrier

    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, AT, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, AT, 4.08 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, MT, 3.62 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, MT, 3.77 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1 ton (3.91 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, 3.77 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, AT, 4.10 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, AT, 4.30 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, MT, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, MT, 4.10 ratio


    1997 Toyota T100
    Carrier

    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, AT, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, AT, 4.08 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, MT, 3.62 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, MT, 3.77 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1 ton (3.91 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, 3.77 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, AT, 4.10 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, AT, 4.30 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, MT, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, MT, 4.10 ratio


    1998 Toyota T100
    Carrier

    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, AT, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, AT, 4.08 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, MT, 3.62 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4 cyl, MT, 3.77 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1 ton (3.91 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, 3.77 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x2, 1/2 ton, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, AT, 4.10 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, AT, 4.30 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, MT, 3.91 ratio
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl, 4x4, MT, 4.10 ratio
    This is what they are showing fer the 2005 Tundra...

    2005 Toyota Tundra
    Carrier

    Front Axle, (8 cyl, 3.91 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 6 cyl (3.77 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 8 cyl, 4x2, 3.62 ratio, locking (posi)
    Rear Axle, 8 cyl, 4x2, 3.62 ratio, w/o locking
    Rear Axle, 8 cyl, 4x2, 3.92 ratio, locking (posi)
    Rear Axle, 8 cyl, 4x2, 3.92 ratio, w/o locking
    Rear Axle, 8 cyl, 4x4, (3.91 ratio), locking (posi)
    Rear Axle, 8 cyl, 4x4, (3.91 ratio), w/o locking

    ...and fer the 2004 Tundra.

    2004 Toyota Tundra
    Carrier

    Front Axle, 6 cyl, AT (4.30 ratio)
    Front Axle, 6 cyl, MT (4.10 ratio)
    Front Axle, 8 cyl, 3.91 ratio
    Front Axle, 8 cyl, 4.10 ratio
    Rear Axle, 4x2, 6 cyl (4.08 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 4x4, 6 cyl, AT (4.30 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 4x4, 6 cyl, MT (4.10 ratio)
    Rear Axle, 4x4, 8 cyl, 3.91 ratio, locking (posi)
    Rear Axle, 4x4, 8 cyl, 3.91 ratio, non-locking
    Rear Axle, 4x2, 8 cyl, 3.91 ratio, locking (posi)
    Rear Axle, 4x2, 8 cyl, 3.91 ratio, non-locking
    Rear Axle, 4x2, 8 cyl, 4.08 ratio, Double Cab (4 Dr), locking (posi)
    Rear Axle, 4x2, 8 cyl, 4.08 ratio, Double Cab (4 Dr), w/o locking
    Rear Axle, 4x2, 8 cyl, 4.08 ratio, w/o Double Cab
    Rear Axle, 4x4, 8 cyl, 4.10 ratio, Double Cab (4 Dr), locking (posi)
    Rear Axle, 4x4, 8 cyl, 4.10 ratio, Double Cab (4 Dr), w/o locking
    Rear Axle, 4x4, 8 cyl, 4.10 ratio, w/o Double Cab
    Last edited by BamZipPow; 02-18-2013 at 04:25 PM.
    tundrunk and tundra3400 like this.

  11. #10
    Senior Contributor tundrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    check the bar or liquor store
    Posts
    5,850
    Liked
    1986 times
    Images
    216
    Rep Power
    241860

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    Quote Originally Posted by skilife View Post
    Just so we're clear...
    Going with a "lower" # ie 3.91 like in my '05 DC vs. 4.10, 4.30, would mean less power (because of the ratio) better mileage right? Higher # better power less mileage???
    It isn't as simple as that but you are on the right track, the power part is essentially correct. It seems fair to conclude that at any given speed (lets say 60mph) the lower the RPM your motor spins at, the less fuel you will consume. The logic would be that since your motor is spinning less, it is completing less combustion cycles and therefore burning less fuel. The problem with that logic is that your motor doesn't consume the same ratio amount of fuel per combustion cycle at 1500 as it does at 2500. There is a sweet spot for your 4.7L to run at its best efficiency, and depending on several variables (weight, gearing, motor modifications, air temperature, altitude, wind resistance, road grade, etc) the sweet spot will be different for different trucks.

    For example, my truck has 285/75/16 tires, headers/exhaust and carries an extra 200lbs give or take not counting me. When I ran on 3.91 gears, my highway averages were in the 17-18mpg range running around 65-70MPH with an RPM range from 1600-1900. I later went to 4.56 gears and my highway average is up to 19-20mpg range running 65-70MPH with RPMs running between 2200-2400. Sounds counter intuitive right? The secret is that my motor was previously operating at a range where the torque power band wasn't optimal, the term used by hot rodders would be "bogging". It now is in a very good power band and uses less fuel to motivate my truck. I can actually touch on 21-22MPG on longer highway trips now provided the right weather and traffic conditions as long as I stay around 68MPH. That's Highwaylizard territory but with a lot of mods that should be killing my gas mileage, in Toby's defense he does have a larger and heavier truck since he had a 4x4 DC and I have a 2WD AC.

    I don't know enough about the Tundra's ignition system, fuel system or valve operation to understand all of the variables. There are a lot of factors to consider when it comes to fuel efficiency, but in my case the lowered (or numerically raised) gear ratio worked in my favor for operating with more power available and better fuel economy. Lizard has increased fuel economy by going with higher gearing (numerically lower) which I would assume is because he stuck to a more reasonable tire size than I did.

    Thanks for that info Bamzippow, nice to learn something new. Now I'm curious if Tundras with the 3.62 gears were only offered with the 245 tires, those don't seem very common. Points on the way if I'm able to send.
    Last edited by tundrunk; 02-18-2013 at 04:39 PM.
    “Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
    ― Hunter S. Thompson

  12. #11
    Supporter skilife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Panhandle-MD
    Posts
    291
    Liked
    171 times
    Images
    1
    Rep Power
    22642

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    Old tech,

    I at some point will be doing 4.56 front/rear in mine. (expensive? YES!!) I'm going up and doing bigger tires so I can't comment now as to how it will affect anything but....
    I wouldn't think you would really need a regear if only towing 2k "occasionally"
    But what's the point in what you really need and what you want?!!!!
    I don't NEED to buy bigger tires, buy and get the diffs removed, rebuilt, and replaced, buy pretty much a whole new suspension for what I WANT but I WANT to.... Because every vehicle I've ever owned has had something done to it...It's fun!

    Great info Drunk! and everyone else!
    DAMN I love this site!

  13. #12
    Senior Contributor tundrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    check the bar or liquor store
    Posts
    5,850
    Liked
    1986 times
    Images
    216
    Rep Power
    241860

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    I don't think I've NEEDED to do anything I've done to my truck, it was all WANT... except my rear end rebuild because that was blown out.
    skilife likes this.
    “Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
    ― Hunter S. Thompson

  14. #13
    Lurking Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cypress
    Posts
    28
    Liked
    1 times
    Rep Power
    4

    Default Re: Anyone with a double cab switched to higher rear end ratio. results.

    Quote Originally Posted by tundrunk View Post
    When I ran on 3.91 gears, my highway averages were in the 17-18mpg range running around 65-70MPH with an RPM range from 1600-1900. I later went to 4.56 gears and my highway average is up to 19-20mpg range running 65-70MPH with RPMs running between 2200-2400.
    Thanks for the great real-world info!

    Was it difficult to get your speedo re-calibrated to match the new gearing?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •