Why should I regear?

[entropy]

So again... you are not comparing apples to apples... "smaller house, smaller lot". So if you were to actually buy the same size house and land I would guess you would not be "way richer".

House value is not about the size of land and house. See I can't afford a huge lot and house. But I can walk to the grocery store, everything I need is within a 5 minute drive. Restaurants, gym, swimming pool, golf club, city stuff. Literally 5~10 minutes. Most people around the area are rich. I can afford to do anything I want in my house. I have a really nice central heating system, I have a guest house, I have high end appliances, gardener, beautiful landscaping. It is like I tell my wife, we can have our little palace if we want whatever.

I could not afford any of this in Vermont. I'd have a big house sure, but not nearly as nice. Even if I bought a house the same size, it wouldn't be nearly as nice.

The appreciation of our house has also been astronomical. So that by itself has made me richer. If I stayed in VT, that wouldn't be the case.

So yeah. I am way richer lol.

Sponsored

 

[Zandcwhite]

So again... you are not comparing apples to apples... "smaller house, smaller lot". So if you were to actually buy the same size house and land I would guess you would not be "way richer".

You aren't moving from a rural area to the city/suburbs and still getting acreage anywhere. That just not how it works unless you're buying city blocks for multi-millions. And the retirement difference being as massive as it is combined with the higher property values (even on smaller homes and lots) we have the option to pretty much retire anywhere we want to. The guy who worked his entire career putting $3/hr into his pension better hope he has his home paid off before retirement or he will most likely end up in an apartment. Our modest sized home on a 1/4 acre lot will easily pay for the building of our retirement home on 41 acres in AZ...and then some. If you're income went way up and your cost of living didn't because you moved into a smaller house on a smaller lot how are you not way richer? Couple that with the fact that the property values double every 10 years on average out here even there you're equity will make you way richer in the end. He could work his career in LA, sell the house and move back to Vermont into the bigger house on a larger lot, and end up ahead in the real-estate alone.

 

[mgroeger]

House value is not about the size of land and house. See I can't afford a huge lot and house. But I can walk to the grocery store, everything I need is within a 5 minute drive. Restaurants, gym, swimming pool, golf club, city stuff. Literally 5~10 minutes. Most people around the area are rich. I can afford to do anything I want in my house. I have a really nice central heating system, I have a guest house, I have high end appliances, gardener, beautiful landscaping. It is like I tell my wife, we can have our little palace if we want whatever.

I could not afford any of this in Vermont. I'd have a big house sure, but not nearly as nice. Even if I bought a house the same size, it wouldn't be nearly as nice.

So yeah. I am way richer lol.

Very interesting. I guess then it falls to the tradesmen issue. I make a good buck making microchips but my salary would not change based on where I live, whereas yours most def does. That means for me I want to live where my buck will go the farthest. If I could fetch 3x salary going to a different state I would probably be there on the next flight lol. You renting out your guest house?

 

[entropy]

Very interesting. I guess then it falls to the tradesmen issue. I make a good buck making microchips but my salary would not change based on where I live, whereas yours most def does. That means for me I want to live where my buck will go the farthest. If I could fetch 3x salary going to a different state I would probably be there on the next flight lol. You renting out your guest house?

Exactly. It doesn't work for everyone. It works me me and my wife. But for some people it doesn't. My parents would be in really bad shape if they moved here. They're very happy where they are and have everything they need.

California is like that. And yeah I agree with you. there are over 3,000 reasons for people NOT to move here . I know public school teachers (friends) on government aid. It is f**ed up. But for some people it makes sense.

and not I don't rent the guest house.

 

[grimmjeeper]

I'm in the big city looking at the long term.

Higher pay gives me bigger 401k contributions, and covers the higher cost of living. My house is more expensive but it should be worth 7 figures or close to it when I retire. I can cash out with a bigger retirement savings and move to a cheaper place to live, paying cash for the destination house.

Sure, I only have 0.4 acres now but it's enough for me to do what I want.

 

[Megawatt]

Why not ride in a lifted wrangler on 35” tires with proper aftermarket gears and decide for yourself.

I see many dealerships over the years sell jeeps on 35” with aftermarket items like life, sliders, tire carrier but still on stock 3.21 gearing. Lots of happy owners out there that don’t know what they don’t know.

 

[Zandcwhite]

Why not ride in a lifted wrangler on 35” tires with proper aftermarket gears and decide for yourself.

I see many dealerships over the years sell jeeps on 35” with aftermarket items like life, sliders, tire carrier but still on stock 3.21 gearing. Lots of happy owners out there that don’t know what they don’t know.

It's how you define proper gears that doesn't jive. You mention 3.21 gears which would be a JK or older as the JL was never offered with less than 3.45s. In that JK depending on year the auto either had a 2.84-1 1st gear or a 3.59-1 1st gear. What was proper gearing for 35s then? 4.56 or 4.88 like people still recommend today? What if I told you the stock 4.10s with our 4.7-1 1st gear are equal to a JK with 5.38s or 6.73 axle gears depending on the transmission? Looks like your JL is already properly geared for 40s compared to a JK? Even with 3.45s you've got the same 1st gear ratio as the better auto JK with 4.56s. And yet some somehow think we need the same axle gears because they don't understand that it's final drive ratio not the axle gears that matter? Sure the JL is a bit heavier, but the current 3.6L also makes more power. Not saying 3.45s are optimal for 35s either, but you certainly don't need as much axle gearing as the JK did and that's simple math.

 

[Zandcwhite]

I'm in the big city looking at the long term.

Higher pay gives me bigger 401k contributions, and covers the higher cost of living. My house is more expensive but it should be worth 7 figures or close to it when I retire. I can cash out with a bigger retirement savings and move to a cheaper place to live, paying cash for the destination house.

Sure, I only have 0.4 acres now but it's enough for me to do what I want.

I know some think its taboo to talk about income, but that's another side effect of being in the trades. Unionpayscales.com will show you the rates including hourly, pension contributions, health and welfare etc for all of us all over the country (at least minimums as some of us are foreman, get paid over scale, etc) so I've always been an open book about it. Also drive a company car with a gas card so the high CA gas prices don't mean a whole lot to me either. If I could make the same income in AZ while building out our cabin on our property I wouldn't look back. That's just not how it works so it will be our vacation property until retirement.

 

[Terry R]

Going back to your original question. Why should you re-gear?

The short answer is: To get the right balance of functionality and experience.

Long Answer:
A drivetrain is comprised of the engine (power), transmission, transfer case, axle gears, and tire diameter. All of these work together to provide the ability for a vehicle to move a range of speeds.

The goal when designing a system is to provide a certain driving functionality and experience.

Functionality = Does the jeep move?

Experience = You can design the system for max speed, or best gas mileage or best acceleration or best towing ect… (experience)

Engineers pick what they feel is the right combination and then design the system to find what they feel is the right balance between functionality and experience.

Gearing (in a transmission, TC, or axles) exchanges speed and torque. Want more speed? You get less torque. Need more torque? You get less speed.

The larger tires, will increase your top speed. (They travel a longer distance per revolution than the smaller tires.) But because you gain more speed, you lose torque.

So why re-gear?

1. (Feeling / Performance) The loss of torque due to larger tires can make the jeep feel sluggish from a stop. The jeep can still function, but with a lower rate of acceleration, so its functionally still ok, but not as fun to drive (experience decrease). Re-Gearing can bring back the fun or peppy feeling of accelerating from a stop.

2. (Gas Mileage) Because the larger tires increase the overall speed of the drivetrain, every gear in the transmission will produce more speed, so you no longer need the high gears (6,7,8) because the system has the speed it needs. If you don't use all the gears in the transmission, you are loosing the max efficiency of the transmission, creating a loss is gas mileage.

3. (Wear and Tear) Engines have a range of speed (RPM) and torque. When RPM goes up on a gas engine, torque goes up as well. Often, to compensate for the lack of torque due to larger tires, you need to rev the engine higher to generate that extra torque. Higher RPM means the engine is running harder, and could contribute to accelerated wear.

All this said.. as long as the jeep can function (for what you need), and you are ok with the experience, there is no huge reason to re-gear. Maybe its easier on the engine, maybe it could get better gas mileage, but if you are happy with how it drives, then you will be ok.

One last note: If you re-gear, you get to design the drivetrain to behave how you want it to behave. Make it most like stock. Yes you can do that. Make it accelerate faster? Yes you can do that. Make it a better rock-crawler. Yes...

Good luck!

Thank you for your well written response. I know this is an older post and many of the responses have nothing to do with regearing, so it is nice to see an on topic thoughtful response. I’m still trying to justify the cost of regearing. It almost makes more sense to sell the Jeep and get a Rubicon or at least a Willys with the bigger axles. Almost!

 

[2nd 392]

Unless you're in CA where labor rates are astronomical, then they run about $3k.

Actually about 4K including isotropic finish, having the local Jeep dealership install because they “normally” look like other way on non stock parts when they install for warranty work, and the Tazer to recalibrate for gears and tires that they recommended in writing because they couldn’t do it.
Why, because I wanted the 4.56’s, the 3.73’s pulled the 35’s fine with just a small performance loss. 4.10 would likely have been nearly the same as stock, but expensive for one step and 37’s are now an option next time.
Definition of “normally” hopefully will not be necessary.

 

[mgroeger]

Thank you for your well written response. I know this is an older post and many of the responses have nothing to do with regearing, so it is nice to see an on topic thoughtful response. I’m still trying to justify the cost of regearing. It almost makes more sense to sell the Jeep and get a Rubicon or at least a Willys with the bigger axles. Almost!

I'm running 38s with the stock 4.10 gears and honestly if I had $2k laying around I would re-gear. The fact is the jeep's (or any vehicle's) drive-line is designed to perform within a spec created by the engineers. That means that 4.10s were not randomly paired with 33s based on the ZF tranny and t-case. That being said if you change tire size you should change gears to keep that ratio the same and thereby get the best performance out of it. Will it work if you don't? Of course it will as many of us have proven. But the reality is you will create the least wear and tear and get the best performance out of keeping that ratio in the sweet spot.
I would re-gear before I sold the Jeep and got a Rubi, that's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. HOWEVER if you know that you will def be going bigger and building the rig out to do some serious off roading then I would skip the re-gear and go for a better starting point which would be a Rubi.

 

[Terry R]

I'm running 38s with the stock 4.10 gears and honestly if I had $2k laying around I would re-gear. The fact is the jeep's (or any vehicle's) drive-line is designed to perform within a spec created by the engineers. That means that 4.10s were not randomly paired with 33s based on the ZF tranny and t-case. That being said if you change tire size you should change gears to keep that ratio the same and thereby get the best performance out of it. Will it work if you don't? Of course it will as many of us have proven. But the reality is you will create the least wear and tear and get the best performance out of keeping that ratio in the sweet spot.
I would re-gear before I sold the Jeep and got a Rubi, that's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. HOWEVER if you know that you will def be going bigger and building the rig out to do some serious off roading then I would skip the re-gear and go for a better starting point which would be a Rubi.

I love my Jeep and would hate to sell it and end up with a newer Jeep that has a lot of the problems others have posted about on the forum. However, having the lockers, sway bar disconnects and bigger axles is tempting. Especially if I want to go to 37s down the road.

 

[Zandcwhite]

I'm running 38s with the stock 4.10 gears and honestly if I had $2k laying around I would re-gear. The fact is the jeep's (or any vehicle's) drive-line is designed to perform within a spec created by the engineers. That means that 4.10s were not randomly paired with 33s based on the ZF tranny and t-case. That being said if you change tire size you should change gears to keep that ratio the same and thereby get the best performance out of it. Will it work if you don't? Of course it will as many of us have proven. But the reality is you will create the least wear and tear and get the best performance out of keeping that ratio in the sweet spot.
I would re-gear before I sold the Jeep and got a Rubi, that's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. HOWEVER if you know that you will def be going bigger and building the rig out to do some serious off roading then I would skip the re-gear and go for a better starting point which would be a Rubi.

The sport and sahara models come with 32s and 3.45 gears. Up until 2024 the willys had 33s and the same 3.45s. If the 32s and 3.45s are in the sweet spot then 4.10s mathematically are the sweet spot for 38s. Even if you you factor in the extra weight 37s will run around pretty similarly to a stock sport. The idea that is so critical that you need to match it to the stock tire vs gearing is easily disproven by the wide variety of "stock" ratios. Conversely the xr package comes with 4.56s and 38s and 4.95 axle gears. Where exactly is the sweet spot?

 

[grimmjeeper]

The sport and sahara models come with 32s and 3.45 gears. Up until 2024 the willys had 33s and the same 3.45s. If the 32s and 3.45s are in the sweet spot then 4.10s mathematically are the sweet spot for 38s. Even if you you factor in the extra weight 37s will run around pretty similarly to a stock sport. The idea that is so critical that you need to match it to the stock tire vs gearing is easily disproven by the wide variety of "stock" ratios. Conversely the xr package comes with 4.56s and 38s and 4.95 axle gears. Where exactly is the sweet spot?

With the wide spread between first gear and 8th, the fine line has become a gray area.

Back with 2 and 3 speed automatics, you had to sacrifice either crawling or highway friendly driving. You couldn't have both at the same time.

The overdrives that came out mostly in the 80s let you finally have both, but the sweet spot was one ratio with a given tire size. Maybe two if you were lucky. It was pretty obvious if you didn't have a good match between axle ratio and tire.

Even with the 5 speed in the JK, the window was small. 3 different ratios may work with a tire size. One was the good balance, the other two pushed either crawling or highway RPMs.

Now with the 8 speed, that window is bigger. Much bigger.

3.45s were a choice specifically to optimize the EPA test loop under controlled conditions. That's never the ratio you want to base your decisions on. For stock tires, 3.73 or 4.10 are the best baseline to start from. Extrapolate from there.

If you do mostly on road driving, or just a lot of mud, the taller (lower number) gears are better. You end up not really using 8th gear as much. For crawlers, the shorter (higher number) gears are better. You're in 8th by 65-70 for sure so you get a lot of use out of the top end. But on the road you spend almost no time in 1st gear. Either way, you have "wasted" gears in the transmission. But you have a wider range of combinations of axle gear and tire size that all generally work reasonably well.

 

[Zandcwhite]

With the wide spread between first gear and 8th, the fine line has become a gray area.

Back with 2 and 3 speed automatics, you had to sacrifice either crawling or highway friendly driving. You couldn't have both at the same time.

The overdrives that came out mostly in the 80s let you finally have both, but the sweet spot was one ratio with a given tire size. Maybe two if you were lucky. It was pretty obvious if you didn't have a good match between axle ratio and tire.

Even with the 5 speed in the JK, the window was small. 3 different ratios may work with a tire size. One was the good balance, the other two pushed either crawling or highway RPMs.

Now with the 8 speed, that window is bigger. Much bigger.

3.45s were a choice specifically to optimize the EPA test loop under controlled conditions. That's never the ratio you want to base your decisions on. For stock tires, 3.73 or 4.10 are the best baseline to start from. Extrapolate from there.

If you do mostly on road driving, or just a lot of mud, the taller (lower number) gears are better. You end up not really using 8th gear as much. For crawlers, the shorter (higher number) gears are better. You're in 8th by 65-70 for sure so you get a lot of use out of the top end. But on the road you spend almost no time in 1st gear. Either way, you have "wasted" gears in the transmission. But you have a wider range of combinations of axle gear and tire size that all generally work reasonably well.

I agree, but with the caveat of not going too deep on the gears. I figured if I was spending the money I'd go all the way. 5.38s and 38s was the worst gearing combo I've run with the 8 speed and there's been a lot of them. It was in 8th by 40mph and lost 2-3mpg on freeway roadtrips where we set the cruise control at 85mph regularly. And with a Rubicon and the 4-1 transfer case 1st gear was almost useless in 4LO. My favorite combo was 4.56s and 37s for freeway speeds and all having plenty of crawl ratio in 4LO. That's such a small difference though I'll likely never regear the JT mojave as the 4.10s and 37s aren't bad and it regularly sees the 100mph limiter out in the desert so I don't need more gearing. More hp would be nice and if the 3.6L kicks the bucket I might do a 6.4L swap or the LT3. Definitely won't need more gearing with 500+ hp.

Sponsored