1.4 Transfer Case into D1

[muskyman]

The fact is, the low range ratio can be nearly anything at all. What is important for crawl ratio, is the spread between high and low. This is what gives the desired spread between street use and off-road.

As usual, when you run out of logic, you resort to name calling.

No Rob crawl ratio has nothing to do with high ratio in the transfercase.

once again you are wrong and trying to shift the discussion to suit your argument.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Run the numbers:

I have an R380, a 1.2 LT230, and I want to run 2500rpm on the highway in 5th. What is the required axle ratio, and what is the resultant crawl ratio?

Ok, now change the LT230 to a 1:1 high range, and I want to keep the same 2500rpm on the highway. What is my new required axle ratio, and what is the new crawl ratio?

Grab your slide rule, crunch the numbers, and get back to me.

 

[muskyman]

Run the numbers:

I have an R380, a 1.2 LT230, and I want to run 2500rpm on the highway in 5th. What is the required axle ratio, and what is the resultant crawl ratio?

Ok, now change the LT230 to a 1:1 high range, and I want to keep the same 2500rpm on the highway. What is my new required axle ratio, and what is the new crawl ratio?

Grab your slide rule, crunch the numbers, and get back to me.

See you also need a target MPH to make that first calculation worth anything but you would not really know that because you really dont know what you are talking about.

See Rob you always miss the important points.

and once again...crawl ratio and highway driving have nothing to do with each other as a you can adjust the two independent of each other. thats why a transfercase has high and low gears

get a clue!

 

[R_Lefebvre]

It doesn't really matter what MPH for the comparison I am trying to show. You're just throwing things in the way now because you can see where this is going.

Do it for 65mph. I don't care. Use 32" tire size while you're at it, since you'd probably ask for that next. Again, not that it matters for an empirical demonstration of the effect of the high range gearing.

Go get your abacus, do the math, and come back here and post the results.

I DARE you.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

You flushed the tranny fluid I'm guessing as soon as you got home. Just wondering why the delayed failure.

-Sam

Funny, I just talked to a guy who got water in his ZF22, and it failed in exactly the same way. He flushed it 3 times, then again 3 months later, and it failed after 5000 miles.

 

[AxeAngel]

Funny, I just talked to a guy who got water in his ZF22, and it failed in exactly the same way. He flushed it 3 times, then again 3 months later, and it failed after 5000 miles.

I did some research, apparently the clutches are sometimes made of a fibrous cellulose material but generally are a synthetic compound. Your aformentioned glue comment corroborates what i was finding. The glue that holds the clutch breaks down and the clutch comes off in little clumps.

Apparently rebuilding AT clutches isn't too hard a job though and any transmission place can do this.

-Sam

 

[R_Lefebvre]

I did some research, apparently the clutches are sometimes made of a fibrous cellulose material but generally are a synthetic compound. Your aformentioned glue comment corroborates what i was finding. The glue that holds the clutch breaks down and the clutch comes off in little clumps.

Apparently rebuilding AT clutches isn't too hard a job though and any transmission place can do this.

-Sam

Yes, and I might have attempted it, except no service manuals are available for the ZF. The industry guys just wing it, combined with general auto trans experience. I have never done one, and wouldn't attempt it without a manual to work from. It would be stupid to try. Not to mention, all the electro-hydraulic whizbangery inside the trans can be plugged with crap. Need to clean that out. And my torque converter clutch was probably also gone.

It would have cost me $2000 at least for clutches, the converter, and a professionally rebuilt box that I dropped off. Or $3500-5000 for a turn-key job.

And then I could do it all again next time it got wet. No thanks.

 

[muskyman]

It doesn't really matter what MPH for the comparison I am trying to show. You're just throwing things in the way now because you can see where this is going.

Do it for 65mph. I don't care. Use 32" tire size while you're at it, since you'd probably ask for that next. Again, not that it matters for an empirical demonstration of the effect of the high range gearing.

Go get your abacus, do the math, and come back here and post the results.

I DARE you.

You dare me?

LOL

You are such a joker

I wouldent waste my time.

Your a idiot and actual tech just falls on your pompous deaf ears

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Yeah, I dared you and you chumped out as I knew you would.

So I'll do it for you.

32" tires, 2500 rpm, 5th gear, 3.54 rear end, 1.2 high range, gets me 76.8mph. The crawl ratio with this setup is 39:1 as previously stated.

Now, change the LT230 to a 1:1 high-range ratio. Same tires, same speed, same RPM, I can run 4.25 gears in the axle to get the same speed. But the crawl ratio in low range is now 46.85!

Here's where you throw a red herring in. There's no such thing as 4.25 gears!

Fine.

Pick the 4.12 ratio, and run 79.2mph at 2500 rpm, and a crawl ratio of 45:1.

Or pick the 4.37 ratio, run 74.6mph at 2500rpm, and the crawl ratio is 48:1!

Go on. Try to debate this with actual technical content, not just insults! Don't do it for me, do it for all the poor newbies being led astray! Think of the children.

 

[muskyman]

WOW you can can do simple math... You really must be a engineer!

 

[R_Lefebvre]

You're not even man enough to admit I made my point are you. (it's a statement, not a question)

And THAT is how the high range ratio can affect the crawl ratio. The 1.2 high range ratio handicaps you into running a lower axle gear ratio, which hurts the crawl ratio.

 

[Maryland 110]

You're not even man enough to admit I made my point are you. (it's a statement, not a question)

And THAT is how the high range ratio can affect the crawl ratio. The 1.2 high range ratio handicaps you into running a lower axle gear ratio, which hurts the crawl ratio.

I for one have never seen a 1.1 lt230 tcase. The 1.2's are as tall as I have seen. The old lt95 came in a 1.1.

 

[muskyman]

You're not even man enough to admit I made my point are you. (it's a statement, not a question)

And THAT is how the high range ratio can affect the crawl ratio. The 1.2 high range ratio handicaps you into running a lower axle gear ratio, which hurts the crawl ratio.

Man enough?

LOL

the discussion was about crawl ratio and how land rover compared to other makes.

your statement was the land rover was not great.

then you tried to change the the discussion to high ratio gear choices.

in the end Rob you keep changing your position thinking you are winning a argument that I have continued to respond with "your a idiot I have no reason to argue with you"

you go get your 1-1 gear set for your LT230 and add that into the cost of your 5 speed swap

then go back to the other threads where you claim you saved money by going 5 speed instead of just replacing the automatic.

then maybe go back and explain where you claimed your trailer was not that heavy because in this thread you admitted it was heavy as all hell.

see Rob in the end you keep showing yourself as exactly what I and a number of others have long since known.

a poser idiot that really knows very little at all about what he posts.

have a great weekend everyone I am actually off on the road in a land rover

 

[R_Lefebvre]

I for one have never seen a 1.1 lt230 tcase. The 1.2's are as tall as I have seen. The old lt95 came in a 1.1.

http://www.ashcroft-transmissions.co.uk/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=175

your statement was the land rover was not great.

And it's still not that great. I already demonstrated compared to an 80's Bronco. 6.5*2*3.55=46:1. Better than a Rover. If you have any other examples, bring it you old codger. I really don't care to try to dig up info trucks from the 60's and 70's that were built before even the Range Rover.

then go back to the other threads where you claim you saved money by going 5 speed instead of just replacing the automatic.

Nice strawman argument you fool. Go back and read. I said it was about the same cost.

then maybe go back and explain where you claimed your trailer was not that heavy because in this thread you admitted it was heavy as all hell.

I keep using the term tongue in cheek to poke fun at your stupid comments. The trailer weighs 2000lbs. If you think that's heavy as hell, that's your problem. Still, 2000lbs is relatively hard to get rolling with a 3.32 1st gear.

then you tried to change the the discussion to high ratio gear choices.

I didn't change the discussion. The discussion was fluid and I was responding to others who actually want to learn something new. You're the one who always wants to talk about old **** that has nothing to do with the conversation.

You keep doing that because you're completely out of touch with modern technology, have no new ideas, and the one way you can feel superior is to talk about the old days.

 

[David Harris]

Funny, I just talked to a guy who got water in his ZF22, and it failed in exactly the same way. He flushed it 3 times, then again 3 months later, and it failed after 5000 miles.

Did he say how it got in, out of curiosity?