2014 jku swap out 4.10 for 5.38 running 35" tires sound right?
04-12-2016 | 04:17 PM
#21
JK Freak
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 531
Likes: 1
From: Lewisburg, PA
I had a 2012 with 37s & 5.38s. And...when I got my 2015 I put 5.38s in for my 37s. Both autos. Love the combination and wouldn't consider anything higher(Lower number). It runs at 2700 rpms at 70 mph. You'll like it too! Pulls away from stops without effort.
04-12-2016 | 04:26 PM
#22
JK Freak
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 531
Likes: 1
From: Lewisburg, PA
I think either would be fine depending on priorities. Personally, I went with 5.13's, and wish i had done 5.38's... 99% of the time the 5.13's are excellent... but that 1% when the rig is in some really precarious situation where lurching even the slightest amount risks body damage and/or rollover... I wish I had that extra bit of control a deeper gear would provide... and this is with the 4:1 ruby case. I will be going to 37's when my 35's wear out, and, will be going 5.38's at that time to offset the increased tire diameter. I'm betting 90% of the people on these forums would opt to not go the places my rig has been, and 99.9% of Jeep owners likely fit that bill. I would agree for them 4.56's or 4.88's would be the cats meow. If you are going to go places where extra slow going is required to keep from crushing body panels and rolling the rig, go as deep as you dare... especially if you have the 2.72:1 case. I think the chart above is excellent for the majority of owners and light to moderate trail use, if you are going to really wheel it (expect/accept body damage, use/utilize armor), the chart is not all that relevant. My .02/opinion.
04-14-2016 | 05:01 AM
#24
Thread Starter
JK Newbie
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: Hotsprings arkansas
I think either would be fine depending on priorities. Personally, I went with 5.13's, and wish i had done 5.38's... 99% of the time the 5.13's are excellent... but that 1% when the rig is in some really precarious situation where lurching even the slightest amount risks body damage and/or rollover... I wish I had that extra bit of control a deeper gear would provide... and this is with the 4:1 ruby case. I will be going to 37's when my 35's wear out, and, will be going 5.38's at that time to offset the increased tire diameter. I'm betting 90% of the people on these forums would opt to not go the places my rig has been, and 99.9% of Jeep owners likely fit that bill. I would agree for them 4.56's or 4.88's would be the cats meow. If you are going to go places where extra slow going is required to keep from crushing body panels and rolling the rig, go as deep as you dare... especially if you have the 2.72:1 case. I think the chart above is excellent for the majority of owners and light to moderate trail use, if you are going to really wheel it (expect/accept body damage, use/utilize armor), the chart is not all that relevant. My .02/opinion.
04-14-2016 | 06:49 PM
#25
JK Junkie
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,256
Likes: 1
From: Madison, New Jersey
The chart is relevant if you plan on driving your jeep to and from the trails. With a 3.6, 4.56's, a manual trans, 37's, and a rubi transfer case I've never had a problem controlling my speed where I felt it necessary to go to deeper gears. I'm not one to shy away from harder trails with probable body damage, as evidenced by the condition of my doors.
Last edited by JE8154; 04-14-2016 at 06:57 PM.
04-15-2016 | 10:38 AM
#26
JK Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 468
Likes: 18
From: Phoenix, AZ
04-15-2016 | 10:52 AM
#27
JK Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 397
Likes: 6
From: Calgary, AB
I'm running 35s with the 6-speed and the 4.10 ratio. I have found it still plenty slow enough for crawling on the trail with a 4:1 tcase. On the highway revs are still pretty low but I still have plenty of power on tap. I am kind of curious why the change would be needed.
5.38 seems like a pretty significant jump with a 3.6L engine, you could pretty easily run 40s with that ratio.
5.38 seems like a pretty significant jump with a 3.6L engine, you could pretty easily run 40s with that ratio.
04-15-2016 | 10:55 AM
#28
JK Freak
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 710
Likes: 3
From: Lexington Park, MD
Ya, had you given people more time to provide input, I think you would have come to a different conclusion. In fact I know plenty of people running 4.10s and 37s. It's not ideal but livable for sure, both on and off road. Personally my answer to you would have been 4.88, but your decision is made. Your driveshaft is going to be screaming. The good news is that you could just go to 40s and then be in a better range for rpms. Lol.
04-15-2016 | 08:27 PM
#29
JK Newbie
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Ventura County
Ya, had you given people more time to provide input, I think you would have come to a different conclusion. In fact I know plenty of people running 4.10s and 37s. It's not ideal but livable for sure, both on and off road. Personally my answer to you would have been 4.88, but your decision is made. Your driveshaft is going to be screaming. The good news is that you could just go to 40s and then be in a better range for rpms. Lol.
04-19-2016 | 05:48 AM
#30
Thread Starter
JK Newbie
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: Hotsprings arkansas
Ya, had you given people more time to provide input, I think you would have come to a different conclusion. In fact I know plenty of people running 4.10s and 37s. It's not ideal but livable for sure, both on and off road. Personally my answer to you would have been 4.88, but your decision is made. Your driveshaft is going to be screaming. The good news is that you could just go to 40s and then be in a better range for rpms. Lol.