Atlas with LS3, 6l80

ak49

ak49

Member
I know there's a few people on here that have done the LS/6l80 swap. My question is regarding the atlas gearing. With the LS/6l80 combo, I'm trying to decide between the 3.0, 3.8, or 4.3 and I'd like to get some feedback on your setups and if you had it to do over again if you would've chose something else.

For those with the 4 speed, if you had it to do over again, would you spend the extra money on the 4 speed or just go with the 2 speed?
 
wayoflife

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
With our 6.2 L94 and 6L80 transmission, we went with an Atlas 2-Speed with a 3:1. It really is all that we need and couldn't see us wanting or needing a lower low range.
 
jedg

jedg

New member
I don't remember the specifics but I calculated what the final ratio is when it leaves the transfer case when running a 6L80 and a 2.72:1 TC. Turns out that its very close to that when running a 4:1 TC and the 42RLE (2007-2011) transmission. So, if you've had exposure to a stock Rubicon then that is close to the gearing with the 6L80 and 3:1. The 1st gear in the 6L80 is much lower that 1st in the 42RLE.
 
ak49

ak49

Member
jedg said:
I don't remember the specifics but I calculated what the final ratio is when it leaves the transfer case when running a 6L80 and a 2.72:1 TC. Turns out that its very close to that when running a 4:1 TC and the 42RLE (2007-2011) transmission. So, if you've had exposure to a stock Rubicon then that is close to the gearing with the 6L80 and 3:1. The 1st gear in the 6L80 is much lower that 1st in the 42RLE.
Click to expand...

I had also done the calculations although mine appear to be a little different. I've currently got the WA580, 5.38 gears and the rubicon 4:1 TC. If I remember correctly, the current gearing I have would be between the 3:1 and 3.8:1. At this point, I'm leaning towards the 3.8:1
 
ak49

ak49

Member
wayoflife said:
With our 6.2 L94 and 6L80 transmission, we went with an Atlas 2-Speed with a 3:1. It really is all that we need and couldn't see us wanting or needing a lower low range.
Click to expand...

What made you go with the L94 instead of the LS3? I haven't seen dyno's of the L94. Does the L94 have more torque at lower rpm's? Since you also have a '12 with the auto and 3.6, do you think it would be worth ditching the 3.6 and going to the L94/LS3?
 
wayoflife

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
ak49 said:
What made you go with the L94 instead of the LS3? I haven't seen dyno's of the L94. Does the L94 have more torque at lower rpm's?
Click to expand...

We want our Jeep to perform off road more than we need it to be a rocket off the line and the L94 was recommended to us for this reason. Designed for trucks, it does have more torque at a lower RPM and that is beneficial for our needs.

Since you also have a '12 with the auto and 3.6, do you think it would be worth ditching the 3.6 and going to the L94/LS3?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, no. This is not to say that I don't love the power and performance of the 6.2 that we now have, it's just that the 3.6L offers enough power for our needs and it is still all factory and covered under warranty. If we had a 3.6 in our old 2007 JK, I'm not so sure we would have been so eager to do a swap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom