3rd Gen Engine and Drivetrain -> 2007 and up 6.7 liter Engine and Drivetrain discussion only. PLEASE, NO HIGH PERFORMANCE DISCUSSION!

2008 4500/5500

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 24, 2007 | 10:39 PM
  #1  
mt72916's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: fort smith arkansas
Talking 2008 4500/5500

didnt know where to post this info that i just found. thought i would pass it on


http://www.dodge.com/dodge_life/news...assis_cab.html


mel
Reply
Old Feb 25, 2007 | 12:29 PM
  #2  
Luvnacumns's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,194
Likes: 0
From: Twin Falls, Idaho
52 gallon tank!!!!! He#$ Yeah!!! I want one!!

Shane
Reply
Old Feb 25, 2007 | 09:09 PM
  #3  
98.5POS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
From: Southern Utah
From what I've read on the 4500/5500, the only difference between them and my C&C 3500 is the weight raitings - which I'm sure means bigger axles and springs. The brakes on my 3500 are the same ones in that advertisement. And mine also has the 52 gallon tank. When I heard they were coming out I was not happy that I bought mine, but after some research I'm glad.

Let me say this - I drove my brother-in-laws 2007 Duramax C&C this weekend and was not impressed! The engine felt a lot racier than mine, and the truck felt lighter, but the brakes and handling couldn't compare to my C&C! So far I'm very pleased with it.
Reply
Old Feb 25, 2007 | 09:32 PM
  #4  
06dually's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
From: South Dakota
Originally Posted by 98.5POS
From what I've read on the 4500/5500, the only difference between them and my C&C 3500 is the weight raitings - which I'm sure means bigger axles and springs. The brakes on my 3500 are the same ones in that advertisement. And mine also has the 52 gallon tank. When I heard they were coming out I was not happy that I bought mine, but after some research I'm glad.

Let me say this - I drove my brother-in-laws 2007 Duramax C&C this weekend and was not impressed! The engine felt a lot racier than mine, and the truck felt lighter, but the brakes and handling couldn't compare to my C&C! So far I'm very pleased with it.
another difference is 19.5 inch 10 bolt wheels...I bet you have some range with that tank though.
Reply
Old Feb 25, 2007 | 10:25 PM
  #5  
kawiram's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
From: Hobbs, NM
are those the same axles as the light duty trucks? Hope not.
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 01:51 AM
  #6  
Road Traveler's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: Victoria,TX
Originally Posted by 06dually
another difference is 19.5 inch 10 bolt wheels...I bet you have some range with that tank though.


Heck yeah on fuel range! plus with the C&C you can get a 22gal (I think or 24gal) midship tank as well from dodge! Then put on a 100gal aux. tank and you would be set!!
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 05:40 PM
  #7  
Luke S's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Road Traveler
Heck yeah on fuel range! plus with the C&C you can get a 22gal (I think or 24gal) midship tank as well from dodge! Then put on a 100gal aux. tank and you would be set!!
You can't get the 52 gallon aft axle tank in conjuction with the 22 gallon midship tank, only one or the other.
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 05:41 PM
  #8  
Luke S's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by kawiram
are those the same axles as the light duty trucks? Hope not.
No, they are heavier.
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 10:26 PM
  #9  
C&C Milo's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
The 3500 has smaller brakes than the 4500/5500

Go to http://www.dodge.com/en/chassis_cab/...apability.html

and click on brakes. 3500 is 352.3mm, 4500/5500 is 390mm
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 10:39 PM
  #10  
torquefan's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,449
Likes: 47
From: Calgary, Alberta
Has anyone heard what axles the 4500 and 5500 come with?
Reply
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 11:24 AM
  #11  
bigblock2stroke's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
Dana's I think
Reply
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 11:52 AM
  #12  
scook6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
From: Kenton, OH
110 Dana in the rear, and the front pumpkin is a Magna unit.
Reply
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 10:29 PM
  #13  
torquefan's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,449
Likes: 47
From: Calgary, Alberta
Originally Posted by scook6
110 Dana in the rear, and the front pumpkin is a Magna unit.
Dana 110. I don't think that's as big as the one in the F550.
Reply
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 10:33 PM
  #14  
GOTMEAT's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
From: New Orleans
Originally Posted by torquefan
Dana 110. I don't think that's as big as the one in the F550.
From what I have read, the 450 has a 110 in the rear and the 550 has a 135?


What boggles me though is the increased tow ratings on these things over the 3500's and 2500's. I understand the payload difference, that's a no-brainer. But with the same motor and tranny, how do they increase the rating by changing the gear ratio? I think the 550 carries a GCW of 33,000. You can't tell me that that truck is going to move 33,000 as well as we can move 23,000.
Reply
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 10:46 AM
  #15  
jkitterman's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
If you are comparing the Ford 550, you should use the Dodge 5500's rating of 26,000 GCWR. I do think it is funny that Ford has that rating where I would think they would just steer someone to a larger 650 or 750 for over 26,000.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.