Quote
That is a 3.0 unless I am mistaken. The 3.0 is the 6g72 and the 3.5 is the 6g73.

RPW told me that the 3.5 bolts right up to the 3.0 tranny, bellhousing paterns were exact acording to them.

Here is the problem that I see. Doesnt out tranny interface with ECU? Because in order to run the 3.5 you need the 3.5 ecu. Will this cause the tranny to screw up? I have no idea personally.

It would give you extra power, but honestly we dont need power, we need better gearing. LOW gearing. Yes there are lower gears available, but our lower gear sets put us only slightly above what alot of rigs come stock with. Also our trannies have pretty weak first gears in comparison to other makes out there. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/sleeping.gif" alt="" />


Interestingly enough a 3.5 and simple 4:88 gears overwhelms the lack of gearing enough that even with 35s it will rarely stall, and 33s and 4:62 will stall substantially less then a 3.0 with 33s. From a crawlability stand point, since everyone uses autos now, WHO CARES? I think many are realizing how rediculous the persuit of 100s to one gears was, especially with autos. I have seen guys red lining there trucks just to move in low range <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> Even the Rubicon guys generally agree there 4:1 is far too low for average wheeling. Maybe it depends upon what you want to do, but crawling as slow as I want all day with no stall under any situation and complete control is all I need. I just figure the 3.5 would sweeten that pot a bit, provide better highway cruise, and a newer engine. AS far as ECU, that is a good question. The Gen Is did not use alot of fancy electronic trans control, but is it tied into the ECU?

1996 SR From the Area 51 Skunk Works. 37"BFG Tires, 5" lift, Rock Track 4:1 Case, Tom Woods Drive Shafts, Oasis Air, Front ARB, lifted gas tank, T-max winch and lots of stuff that cost too much.