The Stovebolt Page Forums Home | FAQ | Forum | Swap Meet | Gallery | Tech Tips | Events | Features | Search | Hoo-Ya Shop
Work those trucks!




Share what you're up to this summer!

Stovebolt Site Search
 
Old Truck Calendars
Months of truck photos!
Nothing like an old truck calendar

Stovebolt Calendars

Check for details!


Who's Online Now
1 registered members (DatTingTing), 275 guests, and 3 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums47
Topics115,005
Posts912,449
Members42,075
Most Online940
Apr 5th, 2017
Image Posting Policy
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
What is the verdict on the 3.55 conversion? #1289981
Wed Dec 05 2018 07:55 PM
Wed Dec 05 2018 07:55 PM
T
tom moore  Offline OP
Shop Shark
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 554
New Hampshire
Looking for general input on the 3.55 differential conversion. Given the stock torque tube and using a stock four or three speed transmission was the cost worth the gain?

Last edited by tom moore; Wed Dec 05 2018 07:56 PM.
Re: What is the verdict on the 3.55 conversion? [Re: tom moore] #1289997
Wed Dec 05 2018 09:38 PM
Wed Dec 05 2018 09:38 PM
tclederman  Offline
Boltergeist
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,911
Jarvisburg, NC
Yes - I like/notice the 10-15% RPM reduction (from R&P change and larger-diameter radial tires).

An added bonus is that the drivetrain is much quieter - partially due to lower RPMs and due to replacing all driveline-wear parts (using the parts kit sold by Classic Parts and others).


Tim
1954Advance-Design.com
1954 3106 Carryall Suburban - part of the family for 50 years
1954 3104 5-window pickup w/Hydra-Matic - part of the family for 14 years
Z-series (54/55) GMC 350 (2-ton) COE - now part of Dave's family
- If you have to stomp on your foot-pedal starter, either you, or your starter, or your engine, has a problem.
- The 216 and early 235 engine are not "splash oilers" - this is a splash oiler.
Re: What is the verdict on the 3.55 conversion? [Re: tom moore] #1290039
Thu Dec 06 2018 02:48 AM
Thu Dec 06 2018 02:48 AM
C
cmayna  Offline
Shop Shark
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,908
Menlo Park, Ca
Me too. Best thing I've done to the green turd.


Craig's '50 Chevy 3100 5 window
My truck
If I'm not working on my truck or VW camper, I'm fishing with the wife or smoking Salmon.
Re: What is the verdict on the 3.55 conversion? [Re: tom moore] #1290083
Thu Dec 06 2018 03:42 PM
Thu Dec 06 2018 03:42 PM
S
showkey  Offline
Shop Shark
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 436
Wausau WI
Well worth the cost and effort..............no pay back in $$$. The pay back is in increase comfort and noise reduction.

Re: What is the verdict on the 3.55 conversion? [Re: tom moore] #1290161
Fri Dec 07 2018 02:28 AM
Fri Dec 07 2018 02:28 AM
5
52Carl  Offline
Master Gabster
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,966
Virginia
A no brainer for a 4 speed (with granny first gear). If you use the stock 3 speed, you won't be able to pull stumps any more (maybe little ones), but you will enjoy the lower RPM at high speeds.

Re: What is the verdict on the 3.55 conversion? [Re: tom moore] #1290255
Fri Dec 07 2018 11:32 PM
Fri Dec 07 2018 11:32 PM
Y
yar  Offline
Shop Shark
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 849
northern california
Tom,

I did that conversion on my restored '36 Chevy PU and I agree with Tim, Craig and Showkey. Mine was way more work than a simple gear change and is described in this article posted by a VCCA member:

https://vccachat.org/ubbthreads.php/topics/334876/1936-chevy-3-55-rear-gear-conversion.html

My '36 is way more pleasant to drive with the 3.55 rear gears and I would enthusiastically recommend it to anyone. It has the 1932-36 version of the synchronized Chevy & Pontiac 3-speed transmission, a crude device compared to the '37 and up units. The 4-speed of that era is an unsynchronized beast of a trans with a first gear ratio that, as Carl points out, is well suited to pulling stumps and probably also for moving 747s around at the airport. They are cheap, however. In fact guys have told me they can't even give them away.


Ray
Re: What is the verdict on the 3.55 conversion? [Re: tom moore] #1290311
Sat Dec 08 2018 03:18 PM
Sat Dec 08 2018 03:18 PM
T
TrknGMC  Offline
Bondo Artiste
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 678
Boones Mill Va
Well worth the effort and cost.


Phillip
1927 Chevy Capital 1 Ton truck - basket case
1941 Chevy Suburban - Parts only
1949 GMC Suburban - 10 year project
1945 GMC half ton truck - Driver
1946 Chevy COE - Might restore one day...

https://photos.google.com/u/1/albums
Re: What is the verdict on the 3.55 conversion? [Re: tom moore] #1290400
Sun Dec 09 2018 12:32 PM
Sun Dec 09 2018 12:32 PM
T
tom moore  Offline OP
Shop Shark
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 554
New Hampshire
I am using the stock 1941 3-speed with floor shifter Because the truck is basically an around town grocery getter I decided not to go with the 3.55.

Re: What is the verdict on the 3.55 conversion? [Re: tom moore] #1290401
Sun Dec 09 2018 12:37 PM
Sun Dec 09 2018 12:37 PM
S
sstock  Offline
Shop Shark
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,226
Gig Harbor, WA
I hear you Tom, 90% of my driving is on secondary roads too, yesterday the weather was good and roads were dry and I went for a drive and got out in the country a ways, time got away and I jumped onto the freeway for a jaunt and the 235 is not happy at 65mph with 4.11 and 29" tires, too much engine speed, it sweet spot is 50-55. So I have gathered up the parts for a 3.55 but haven't started the work yet. I have a sm420 so I can start out in first if I have too and good synchros in the trans too so there is always that factor..

Re: What is the verdict on the 3.55 conversion? [Re: tom moore] #1290403
Sun Dec 09 2018 01:07 PM
Sun Dec 09 2018 01:07 PM
tclederman  Offline
Boltergeist
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,911
Jarvisburg, NC
Originally Posted by tom moore
I am using the stock 1941 3-speed with floor shifter Because the truck is basically an around town grocery getter I decided not to go with the 3.55.

Good reasoning, Tom


Tim
1954Advance-Design.com
1954 3106 Carryall Suburban - part of the family for 50 years
1954 3104 5-window pickup w/Hydra-Matic - part of the family for 14 years
Z-series (54/55) GMC 350 (2-ton) COE - now part of Dave's family
- If you have to stomp on your foot-pedal starter, either you, or your starter, or your engine, has a problem.
- The 216 and early 235 engine are not "splash oilers" - this is a splash oiler.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  SWEET 

Home | FAQ | Forum | Swap Meet | Gallery | Tech Tips | Events | Features | Search | Hoo-Ya Shop
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1