rear end whine on '98 Ram 1500

Page 1 of 5  
I have a '98 Ram QC 1500, 92k miles, 2wd, Auto, 5.9 V-8 w/ 3.55 sure grip axle.
The differential has developed a high pitched whine that increases in pitch
with speed, simultaneously the ABS and Brake lights have illuminted and the speedo does not register any speeds below 20 mph.
I am pretty certain the ABS/Speedo sending unit in the axle housing is bad....Any ideas what might have died in the differential any why? There is a fine metallic sludge in the bottom of the housing and some small metal chips/shavings/etc.
I plan to replace the ring and pinion with a set of Richmond 3.55's and ther complete overhaul bearing and shim kit.
I have the tool to adjust the carrier bearing preload on the way and have been able to get dial indicators torque wrenches and pinion depth tools from friends.
Anybody had there differential buy the farm? What was the cause? I was pulling an 1800# trailer when the whining started....Any suggestions or tips?
thanks- rich
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is a fairly common problem with this rear. They used lower cost pinion bearings in this rear and this happens more than most would like. The rest of the truck is built fairly well but another place to keep an eye on is the hard live going to the rear brakes up front where it crosses over the frame. It tends to rot out there.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"r_scotto" <r snipped-for-privacy@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 24 May 2006 20:59:31 -0400, "r_scotto"

The biggest reason for this is neglect. Poeple tend to forget about rear axle and never change the fluid in them and this can cause premature failure. That rear axle is not that weak and if you had serviced it regulalry it would have likely never failed. Axle can have hard life but they can handle if properly serviced for usage. I would suggest that you go with at least 3.73 as the 3.55 will not save you any gas with OD. Also change axle lube about 1000 miles after installation (break in period) and about every 20 to 30K after that. Some use SYN fluid but it still get dirty and there is no filter back there. One final comment, I would call a Richmond Gear a "cheap" gearset and it would not be my first choice to use. I would suggest a Yukon or Precision Gear gearset. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That is not what I heard. Someone told me he got 25 MPG with stop rear gears then switched to 3.73 for towing and it dropped to 21 MPG

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Opps..typo.. STOCK, not STOP

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GeekBoy wrote:

Ok, I gotta break my silence on this one.
A halfton dodge of any sort getting 25 mpg? Is yours magical?
I rented a truck like yours, it got about 13. My 318/5 spd/3.21 gets about 12 mpg and its at a very tired 130k miles...
Hell, I know folks that would be trading in their out-of-tune chevy cavaliers for a 25 mpg dodge fullsize!
JS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Did not say it was Half ton

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GeekBoy wrote:

Then the relevance is kinda nil. A 1999 3.9L auto 3.55 2WD Dak extended cab will shit-n-get. A 1999 3.9 auto 3.55 2WD 1500 RC (this engine was not an option in the extended/quad cab) is completely gutless. They're fairly work-able with 4.10s tho.
Reason: Dakotas are much lighter and have a significantly smaller aerodynamic profile. It takes a lot less power to push them down the road. Also most of the driveline is lighter weight which greatly improves overall performance (that 6 ft long 2 piece cast iron drive shaft in my 318 half ton weighs a LOT, as do the 16x7 steel wheels and the big 265/75R15 all terrains... hmm.. no wonder it runs like a slug ;)
Also do realize your transmission actually gets beat on less with higher differential ratios. A reduced need to down shift and reduced cruising torque requirements can greatly extend transmission lifetime.
JS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually I was refering to 2500 CTD

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Even so that is a bit of a reach imo
Roy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not when most people with 99 and up are reporting ~22 MPG

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

i get 21 IF i can keep my foot off the trottle...... 19 most of the time with my normal driving to and from work/around town.
--
-Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Automatic? 50 inch tires? 4x4? 4.11 rear end?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

no 6 speed 3.73 rear end stock steel/michlin 17" wheels/tires
keep in mind my truck is an ST, no frills, bought it for what it was built for truck.
--
-Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Get your head out of the clouds and back to reality... that's a perfectly normal MPG rate for his truck. The 3rd gens, especially the '04.5's and up, get worse fuel mileage than a 2nd gen... the engines make more power, burn more fuel, the gear ratios are higher (3.54 used to be standard - now it's a 3.73), and the aerodynamics aren't as good as the 2nd gens.
I'm also in the 18-19MPG range (closer to 18) with "normal" driving. Like Chris, I can push it up into the low 20's with judicious use of the right pedal - but that's just not an fun.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have not messed with the 3rd gens too much. I know for sure my 2nd gen gets ~21 MPG highway miles with the rear end set at 3.73
At the price for fuel not I am considering going back to 3.54 to get 25MPG.
The thing is that my Banks Power Pack gives me just as much HP and torque as the 3rd gen without the fuel increase.
GB

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL i have to agree Tom. its much more fun to embarass the young hot shot in a little sports car next to me, with the percieved "oversized & slow truck" the lwb quad with 8' of box is just about as oversized as it gets *really big grin*
and besides the right pedal is really a on/off switch right? *grin*
--
-Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
also on a side note, i have to say i was really impressed with the new cummins on my last trip to KY, (this was the first road trip for the new truck). i sold my father in law my 99 durango and hauled it up on the equipment trailer. we pulled the 8% grade on the TN-111 at 60 with no problems. infact we like to have run a f350 over. and we got nearly 15 mpg on that trip. running the truck hard (75 most of the way on the interstate), i have to say it again, getting rid of the 8L and buying this one when we did was the best move we could have made.
--
-Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And it doesn't even come close to using the same axle as the 1500 series.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Roy" < snipped-for-privacy@home.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I agree with the magical part, I take this MPG claim with a grain of salt. No way a Dodge P/U with a 360 got 25 MPG. Typically they get about half that and sometime a bit better. The Dodge 360 gas motor does not have a good track record for fuel economy. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.