lower gears would have a negative effect on perceived power, you want steeper gears (higher ratio), you have 3.92, 4.56 is a considerable jump up 4.11 is another option (a little more efficient on the highway).

in order to get a good look at the differences you should look at FINAL DRIVE RATIO in each gear, its really easy to do if you know the rear end gears and the transmission gears, based on this you can calculate engine rpm at a given speed (or vice versa) and see which gears will keep you in the powerband the largest percent of the time.

 

well in the spring i am putting a considerable amount of money into this truck. 5.9 motor, possibly stroked. and a 46re tranny. along with completely redoing the body. so if i need different gears for towing then so be it. ill get whatever set i need. and since i have owned this vehicle i have only been on the highway once! plus i live 2.5 miles away from where i work. my gas milage now is ****ty. under 10mpg. im thinking its due to the age and state of the engine. thats mainly why im putting a bigger better motor and tranny into it. so with you being the "go to guy" for trannys and axles. and knowing that i dont give a darn about milage. should i go with the 4.56 gears with the 46re tranny and the 5.9 motor? cuz i wasnt planning on towing a trailer as much as i do, but i am. and i have been going easy on the load size also.
my double axle trailer can handle 7,000lbs easy. and if i can get a set up for my d that will allow me to tow that much, i wont have to pay slip fees for my boat either. i can just haul it when i want to go out. p.s its a 28ft twin engine bayliner. and i already know that my d cant tow that thing. i have to have my my brother tow it with his f350 dually.

 

also would the 4.56 gears be better for offroading?

 

4.56s tend to be favored in the off-road community(especially rock crawling) because off roading isnt about going fast and you get more power at low speed with steeper gears

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...1pLS3FnZ3JncVE

here are your gear ratios and driving force by speed for each gear ratio, if there isnt enough information there for you idk what to tell you, about the only thing i could add yet would be required force to move a given load at a given speed, but i would need gtw and a bunch of other stuff to add it


but the gearing is a decision that YOU need to make noone can do it for you

 

thank you very much for all that information. it was much more than i had anticipated, but very much appreciated.
after looking at all that information, i didnt know that the 5.2 had a much higher tq rating than the 5.9. i believe that the tq rating on the 5.2 was like 248. and the 5.9 was only like 171. and the 5.2 put out 300hp and the 5.9 puts out 330. but im willing to bet thats not what my engine has.
if i were to get a 5.9 and have it rebuilt with better forged pistons, the edelbrock performer alluminum heads, and put my headers, intake, and my 52mm bbk t/b, and that dual x/over exhaust along with a dyno'd professional tuning i bet i bet i could get at least 200 more hp out of the motor.
but anyways not to get to far off track.
i am going to go with the 4.56 gears and the 5.9 built the way i said and ill go with the 46re tranny.
if you have any input on my idea for the block build. feel free to give me any sugguestion. i want to squeeze every bit of power out of that magnum motor as possible.
and i looked into the mopar performance intake manifold, and i just wasnt to thrilled about the responses that were written about it. it was a limited hp gain. and you have to custom modify a few things to make it work with fuel injection.

 

the 5.9 makes 330 ft-lbs of torque, the math says it makes around 200 hp, but thats low (the torque curve i found is also for a 97 5.9 from a ram so the tuning may be a little bit different, should be around 240-250 hp)

i will point out that reading column headers is important seeing as how you referenced torque as hp, however its the driving force that you want to increase if you are going to tow, it doesnt matter how you increase it the end results will be the same.

also i found a mistake in a one of my equations for driving force, i used circumference instead of radius to calculate it, its fixed now

 

Mine is a 99 5.9 with 3.55 gears. In my avatar I'm pulling 3 chords of wood. I never had a problem until 55 mph. She didn't want to go much faster than that. I didn't turn o/d off, that could have had something to do with it. I had plenty of power, but bent my leaf springs into an "s" shape lol. But we aren't talking about leaf springs. I have pulled our 35 foot gulf stream camper across town with no problems other than sagging. Not saying you shouldn't build a monster just saying mine had the power stock.


Posted from Dodgeforum.com App for Android

 

referencing my post about doggin it pulling wood. i got a double axle trailer that i use to pull my famileis tractors around. but thats with my uncles f450 sd. i have been constantly using it to haul wood. and the leaf springs on our durangos are s shaped from the factory to eliminate wheel hop. not the best for towing tho. im used to hauling wood or other things with desiel driven trucks. this is a first time hauling with a gas suv. so obviously its going to alot different. my 5.2 does a good job it takes a while for it to get up to speed. thats what i meant by doggin it. it also doesnt help that the area that live in is all hills and valleys. so i rarely ever driving on a flat surface. my d did the job but she always was huffin it up hills. didnt help that i was also hauling about 3 face cord with a vehicle that wasnt made for hauling that much. but ill be solving that next year.

 

Oh lol well you got me there, there aren't many hills here In northern Ohio. More like bumps in the road compared to the hills down south. Our leaf springs really are supposed to be shaped like an S? I compared mine to a couple other year Durangos and Dakotas and they all look to be the normal arch shape


Posted from Dodgeforum.com App for Android

 

yea there all supposed to be s shaped. the s hape downward hook is in front of the axle right where it connects to the frame. its a slight s shape. but shaped none the less. i thought mine were bad when i first bought it. but i was mistaken. i know that not all of the dakotas had the s shape in em. if they were meant for hauling than they might have had the normal u shape. but all the r/t's had the s shape, they designed it that way to eliminate the wheel hop.
but yea my area is noting but hills man. down more twards lake erie its flat but where i live and drive its all hills. sucks on gas. lol. i get about 10 mpg. or less. around 5-7 towing wood. ugh!!!