Grit dog wrote:
^ This is correct theory scooby. But in general, the same overall gear reduction or overdrive ratio is achieved, so the engine sees the same load for equal parameters.
Generally. Now one would have to calculate "minor losses". IE greater friction from greater stress in the 3rd member due to a smaller ring gear vs less friction/stress in the transmission at the same time.
Stress on the driveshaft is real. But that's easy and cheap to beef up (as a mfg).
The ring and pinion in the rearend not only change the speed/power of rotation, they also change the direction. And I'm not a engineer, but I have rebuilt rearends that have different ratios moving the same loads. A higher speed ratio puts a lot more side force on the bearings. (And most of the "Bang! truck won't go" failures happen in reverse. Turning backward, the shape of teeth adds to the force"
And yes, it is not hard to beef up a driveshaft, as a mfg. Larger tube or thicker walls. Beef up motor mounts? No issue. (Remember when GM had the recall to add a cable from engine to frame?) Make frame stiffer to reduce flex under power? Sure. But all that adds weight. And it takes fuel to move the weight. I'm sure they have worked out all the numbers, account for percentage of time the vehicle will be working at max, and are sure everything will last at least as long as the warranty.