4500 vs 5500

Ok not familiar with either but am considering buying one at work to upfit with a reefer box. Specs are regular cab, 4x4, diesel/Aisin, ca 84” or 108”, tradesman or slt trim perhaps a couple other options but nothing that would equate to any real payload deduction. I really only need 5k payload after the upfit, however more often than not it will be under 3k lbs. Am thinking the reefer upfit (insulated box, self contained condensing unit will run on diesel, evaporator) will be in the 2000-2500lb range, ramp 100lbs, interior shelving 500lbs. So somewhere in the 3000lb area of upfit weight.

looks like the 4500 has a payload 7800-8300lbs depending on gvw option 16 vs 16.5k
And the 5500 more like 11,200lbs

So the 4500 could probably squeak by when needed but the 5500 has more than plenty, almost excessive payload for our needs. I realize unloaded both will ride like a brick, how do you think the 5500 would ride using about 1/2 of its payload? Only reason it matters is the loads would be somewhat fragile. Much difference in ride quality between the 4500 and 5500

finding 5500 in the spec I am looking for will be easier based on my looking so far. Always can order and may but 4-5 months to receive order another month or so for the upfit next thing you know 6 or 7 months later you have what you want.

 

About all I can add is the gear ratio. 4.10-4.44 for 4500 and 4.44-4.88 5500.

 

NIsaacs good point on the ratio. This thing is going to be driving up to the mountains here from Denver on up to Vail and some places before that so some serious up hills Denver is 5280' elevation, Eisenhower/Johnson Tunnels are just over 11,000' and Vail pass is at 10,600' so pretty much uphill the whole way there with a serious downhill between the two as well as Vail is at the far side bottom of Vail pass so a second serious down hill and then obviously coming back same thing in reverse for those same 5-6% grades for 10ish miles at a stretch. I think the increase for rpms is approx 300 from 4.10 to 4.44 and another 300rpm from 4.44 to 4.88. Am thinking 4.44 might be the one for either of them

 

SLT (I assume it has more adjustments like seat bottom tilt) will allow more driver comfort and easier driver retention esp. on that long of a drive. What seat do YOU want to sit in for hours when an avalanche has blocked the road, yet again?

I call this "Uphill Both Ways!"

I have fond memories of the GUTLESS engines of the 80's early 90's going over this from Grand Junction to Denver. Yes it's a workout for even an unloaded vehicle! My grandparents van wouldn't even make it in the early 80's I recall due to vapor lock. The brand new ~82 Windsor powered Ford conversion van (remember those for comfort? Not utility) took the dealer 3 tries to get it to Grand Junction to even deliver to us from Denver. Driven this in both in whiteout "can't even see the hood ornament" to summer conditions with extended WOT where the A/C starts to warm up and blow fog out the vents. This pass is a reason I would have nearly killed for a turbo on a GM NA 6.2L diesel to clean up the smoke as well as power in the upper RPM range. A TBI 350 Chevy gas powering the same year Suburbans smelled just as bad with the high sulfur gasoline of the day while barely ahead of us.

If only Chrysler had also stuffed the 5.9 Cummins into a Wagoneer...

The above said I would recommend the 4.88 rear end. You would be hard pressed to find a more difficult steeper route, the top speed of the commercial vehicle, lower speed limits for the long grades (it's been decades so may be higher now IDK) and it's an aerodynamic brick regardless of load. The on-ramps are steep and where the lower rear end will help merge. Slightly higher engine fan and water pump RPM is one thing that most take for granted in rear end ratio choices. Balance an engine working hard liking the better GPM from the pump with MPG the fan steals. My advice may be outdated with the modern Cummins powerband, auto trans gearing, and be simply wasting fuel: likely the biggest bottom line expense.

 

I agree. You are not towing at GCW, just hauling at about 16-17k.

Have you considered a refer trailer? Then you could tow with a nice riding SRW pickup.

 

Tuesdak
I do remember those days of wondering if your vehicle was going to make it up and over without issue. Vapor lock or overheating in the summer was not an uncommon occurrence for sure especially for the vehicles I was using, typically some old beater. Fuel injection sure helped and turbos later made another large improvement.

Nisaacs
we did think about a trailer but just too much of a pain and limited use for us in other capacities that this vehicle may be used for

A 4500 I am pretty sure would work just fine for us problem is finding one out there. Need 108 ca. I can find some 5500's but cant hardly find any 4500's and haven't found any with 108 ca Ordering is an option for sure but shoot 20 weeks to get the vehicle(maybe more) another 8-16 weeks for the upfit trying hard to get this rolling by end of March early April. The search continues and now my Boss wants me to look at an awd Sprinter. It is lacking the higher payload but would handle the normal use trips probably ok. Only thing that scares me about it is loaded up to max gvw with 2 litre 211hp engine. Though my 01 ram only had like 225hp (at least until I worked on it and got it up to 400hp) and it did ok pulling a load up there wasn't the fastest but it made it. After the work no problem at all

 

Go rent one, load it up, and have The Boss drive the route. I doubt you will be bothered about an anemic vehicle again after the experience making Big Rigs with their flashers on change lanes to get around it.

The only van's that still have an engine strong enough to deal with these grades is GM and the 6.6L gas engine. (IDK what is offered above a 3500 as I have only looked at 2500/3500 vans.) GM doesn't even offer the anemic 4 banger turbo diesel in the 2500/3500 vans anymore. Less warranty problems and better TCO with the V6 gasoline engine. (At one time GM did offer a V8 Duramax in a van de-tuned so the weak transmission, vs. the pickup, would last.)

Most vans are all about in town economy. Again if a driver wants to deal with a van they can get on at Amazon.

Point of fact I have plenty of scrapmetal carnage, that used to be an engine, from overworking an under powered 200HP V8 Turbo Diesel on the grades here in Arizona. If you are subject to DOT hours of service doing 33 MPH in a 55 MPH zone eats away at your time. Because of this I 100% agree with your concerns about the joke of a 211HP engine. Except jokes are supposed to be funny. This is not!

As you are on a schedule, even with the UAW strike settled, you make have to take what is available and that appears to be a 5500.

 

If you are willing to buy a new vehicle at least every 100k, go with the Sprinter.
If it should last longer, steer away from it. They aren't built for the long run.
There is a reason why their Curbweight is so low - Tiny engine, tiny transmissions, tiny 8" axles, thin sheet metal, light and tiny everything.
Built specifically for European Drivers license "B" laws, maximum payload below 7500lbs GVW.