R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
No. It's Kyle T. He might talk to you over at Pirate.
He got stuck in the water too. That's all I know. You get stuck in the water, and it gets in. I didn't have water in anything else but the trans.
1.4 Transfer Case into D1
- Thread starter David Harris
- Start date
No. It's Kyle T. He might talk to you over at Pirate.
He got stuck in the water too. That's all I know. You get stuck in the water, and it gets in. I didn't have water in anything else but the trans.
David Harris
Expedition Leader
Time to pressurize the bell housing . . .
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Good luck with that. I tried sealing mine up on the R380, but it might be pointless. It has a lot of holes. Namely the starter. I didn't remove it to have a good look.
I suppose if you had enough volume, you could just let it bubble out, but I don't know if it would work.
Also, there are 2 big rubber plugs on the rear face of block skirt, and they'd just pop out with any pressure.
Probably better to pressurize the trans itself.
I suppose if you had enough volume, you could just let it bubble out, but I don't know if it would work.
Also, there are 2 big rubber plugs on the rear face of block skirt, and they'd just pop out with any pressure.
Probably better to pressurize the trans itself.
Maryland 110
Adventurer
"This ratio is usually only adviseable for those vehicles with Portal Axles or large diesel engines."
Ie highly modified vehicles with either incredible amounts of torque or geared way down . Which do you have ? I currently have both 1.4 & 1.2 tcases for my 130 and can't for the life of me understand what your argument/point you are trying to make is or why anyone would want a 1:1 ratio tcase.
It seems the more rational choice would be an underdrive if rock crawling is what you are about.
SeaRubi
Explorer
Rob, you gotta settle down on this.
First of all - the Range Rover was designed in 1967. It was in production for 25 years with minor revisions. the first box in the rangie was the LT95, which was actually designed for the FC101 but was then sourced to the rangie wagon project. The LT95 had a 4.07:1 first gear and a 3.22 low range. that comes out to 46.4:1. Isn't that the same or "better" than that Ford of the same vintage?
Secondly - 46:1 or 39:1 - I highly doubt that you would really be able to tell the difference on the trail. This is your first 4x4, right? Do you know what other ratios feel like off-road? I'm talking about major jumps - like 40'ish compared to 60'ish compared to 100:1 or better. I think your lack of experience here with other makes and rigs has got you pointing to numbers on paper that you don't have experience with on the trail. Like freeway speeds, too, the torque being put down to the ground is also affected by tire size. an old bronco is probably wearing 35's, and very likely wearing heavy, bias ply swampers at that because they're less expensive than 35" radials. your 39:1 with 32's is going to be identical gear wise, but feel lower than the Bronco because of the reduced weight and having less mass to spin on the wheels. If you go ahead and change out the axle gearing to 4.11's, as you should anyway, or the 3.90's to get back to stock, then undoubtedly you'll have more gear than these old broncs. But here's the thing - nobody is running a stock mid 80's bronco.
The other big beef I have with your line of logic is that some how an extra 6 or 7:1 in gearing is going to make up for the fact that those old 4sp manuals shift like farm equipment. I've had a T-19 wide ratio in a Scout and it was a ***** to shift. The R380 feels very modern and smooth shifting in comparison as did both NSG370 6 speeds in my LJ and the JK. Have you driven a truck with an NP435? I have. not exactly a barrel of fun on the highway and around town.
The other thing is that the vast majority of those broncs had autoboxes and a poor low range box. They are a turd compared to the same year Range Rover or Disco I as you approach the later years. Leaf springs, huge body, low hanging bumpers - the list is long in how inferior those full-size broncos are compared to the coiler rovers. If you want a bronco you go for an early bronco and drop in an NV4500 and mate it to an atlas II transfer case and call it a day. If you are building a fullsize bronco, it's not going to be stock. Most of those guys are all running 203/205 doubler cases anyway and are setup to turn huge tires without any regard to finesse or care for what's left of the body. You probably don't want to wheel with those guys.
Is this your idea of "better"?
Let's get real, here.
If you can find one, an Ashcroft crawler box is only $3k and will take you to well over 100:1 crawl. Look up the price of Atlas and Inchworm stuff and you'll see that we have a pretty sweet deal on the rover side of the fence, in addition to having a much sweeter truck for on and off highway use. If not, you'll find that your gearing for a lightly modded rover is, in fact, very good for what the truck's set up to do and in no way deficient compared to other makes of vehicles that are setup in a similar way.
my .02
cheers
-ike
Last edited:
got a question...
beyond the math, have you ever driven anything with a high crawl ratio?
you keep spouting off numbers, but what trail experience do you have with anything but a rover...
and don't give me **** about my experience, I had a jeep with a atlas behind a th400...
beyond the math, have you ever driven anything with a high crawl ratio?
you keep spouting off numbers, but what trail experience do you have with anything but a rover...
and don't give me **** about my experience, I had a jeep with a atlas behind a th400...
Viggen
Just here...
Im glad someone finally said it. Im so very rarely in 4lo I couldnt give a **** about my overall crawl ratio. Ill swap lower gears into my axles it will do the same thing for a lot less work. The transfer case is a heavy SOB and if I cdont have to touch it, Im not going to. For the traveling and off road driving that I do here on the East Coast, wheel speed is a pretty important part of it, read mud, so 4lo rarely happens. When I do need 4lo, I cannot imagine a situation where I would need a compounded ration as high as a lot of those that you espouse.
Ive got 3.80's and a set of Ashcrofts axles coming that will make their way onto/ into my truck. Thats all I need. Im not going to be running a lot terrain where huge rocks will be encountered. The way many of the trucks here are built, I cant imagine that a lot of people will. Crawl ratios are great to spout off online or around the camp fire. The occasions where you will actually need huge reductions are very rarely encountered, at least here on the right coast.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
As shown in the example, when you regear the axles, the total high range ratio from flywheel to tires remains EXACTLY the same. Engine power has no consequence.
I am settled down. I'm not even the one who brought it up.
All these other factors are all fine and dandy. I did not say, and that one truck was better than any other truck. What I said was, the Land Rover crawl ratio is *not that low*. And I proved that it is not that low. Everything else you are talking about here are good reasons why old Broncos aren't as good as Range Rovers. But that wasn't the discussion.
Again, I'm not concerned with any of this. I'm talking about low range ratio in a Land Rover. An extra 6 or 7:1 in gearing sure would make my truck a bit easier to drive off-road. With the "smooth shifting" trans I have.
No.
But I bet his crawl ratio was not much higher than mine. That's all that this was about.
The ENTIRE discussion was a strawman argument created by Musky to detract from the original point I was making. The OP needs to gear down his high range. He was talking about going to a 1.4 LT230. I simply said, it makes sense to change his axle gears instead. That way his crawl ratio and highway driving BOTH improve. That's all. That was this about. I even said right off the bat, that I don't CARE about old trucks.
I don't want any of that, for the same reason I didn't want an NV3500 gearbox. I'm simply saying, when I find the money, I'll re-gear the axles. Hopefully, I could find enough at the same time to do the axles really deep, and change the LT to a 1:1. That'll be good enough.
I wheel all the time with JK Rubis. I wheel with them more than other Rovers. I have driven a Rubi with the Rocktrac. It's nice. I've never had a problem where those guys found the low range too low. I've also driven a non-Rubi. I can compare the 39:1 directly with the 76:1. 50 or 60:1 would be nice on my truck.
I won't, as long as you respect my opinion as well. I give a lot of respect to members with experience, and have a lot to teach. Call me an idiot, then I'll fight back.
If I was wrong on this, that would be one thing. But I'm not wrong.
Look at this from the other side. If some guy came in here and was running 37s, with the original gearing, and wanted to change his LT230 to a 1.6:1 ratio to fix his over the road gearing, and keep the 3.54's, would that make sense? No. Regear the axles.
That's all I was getting at.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
That's great.
Do you remember what my first post in this thread was?
Then you said:
We agree! And I never changed what I said.
Then Aliastel said:
To which I disagreed, and proved.
The rest of it was a strawman argument.
David Harris
Expedition Leader
We are basically just talking about rock crawling where such a crawl ratio would be useful. It would be way too low for most everything else. Good observation above from Ike on tire size. This is the crucial missing link to the equation. Without the practical effect of tire size on gearing, it is just a theoretical discussion. Most people with Jeeps or other 4x4's are running much larger rubber than most LR's ever do. So it equals out between the two approaches.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
David Harris
Expedition Leader
You're telling me.
My old CJ5.
TF999 First Gear 2.74
Dana 300 Low Range 2.61
Axle Ratio 4.88
Overall Crawl Ratio 34.9
But . . . with 35 inch tires, the feet per minute crawl speed was 197
Compare this to my current D1 stock gearing with 245/75R16 tires (31's), crawl ratio 29.15:
Crawl speed in feet per minute: 205 Not too far off . . .
The tires nearly equalize things.
Attachments
Last edited:
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Wow, just found this, pretty nice calculator:
http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html
It agrees with your numbers, and shows mine as being 156 ft/min. So it looks great right? But don't forget, with an auto, the ft/min is practically meaningless. You can happily go as slow as you want all day long. Just use the brakes. With the manual, anything below 156 ft/min and you have to burn the clutch.
Using the same calculator, the Rubicon shows a crawl speed of 86 ft/min. It shows it can do 34 mph at 5000rpm in 6th gear low. I could see where maybe there would be occaisions where you could exceed that off-road. For me, where I run, it would be pretty rare. That's booking it. I'd long since have shifted to high range. At 3000rpm, it's 20mph.
So yeah, I could see where people could find themselves falling in this inbetween range on a trail and have to shift back and forth between high and low which would be annoying.
Now, look at my "money tree" setup with the 1:1 high range and 4.37's. 124 ft/min crawling speed. Low range first at 3000rpm is 25mph, and 5000rpm is 42mph.
That sounds like a happy medium to me. It's not too often I'd exceed 25mph on a trail. I'm usually on a road by that point, and shifted into high range. Oh, and 65mph requires 2287 RPM. That's nice, nothing wrong with that.
It's all magazine racing. But I don't think what I'm suggesting is out of line.
http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html
It agrees with your numbers, and shows mine as being 156 ft/min. So it looks great right? But don't forget, with an auto, the ft/min is practically meaningless. You can happily go as slow as you want all day long. Just use the brakes. With the manual, anything below 156 ft/min and you have to burn the clutch.
Using the same calculator, the Rubicon shows a crawl speed of 86 ft/min. It shows it can do 34 mph at 5000rpm in 6th gear low. I could see where maybe there would be occaisions where you could exceed that off-road. For me, where I run, it would be pretty rare. That's booking it. I'd long since have shifted to high range. At 3000rpm, it's 20mph.
So yeah, I could see where people could find themselves falling in this inbetween range on a trail and have to shift back and forth between high and low which would be annoying.
Now, look at my "money tree" setup with the 1:1 high range and 4.37's. 124 ft/min crawling speed. Low range first at 3000rpm is 25mph, and 5000rpm is 42mph.
That sounds like a happy medium to me. It's not too often I'd exceed 25mph on a trail. I'm usually on a road by that point, and shifted into high range. Oh, and 65mph requires 2287 RPM. That's nice, nothing wrong with that.
It's all magazine racing. But I don't think what I'm suggesting is out of line.
David Harris
Expedition Leader
Yeah. I use the same one. It's great because it breaks everything down at every RPM and speed. The feet per minute number is much more important than the crawl ratio itself. However, a good rule of thumb for crawl ratio's is with an auto, you would ideally be in the range of 35-50:1, for manuals, in the range of 60-100:1.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Well, that completely agrees with what I've been suggesting, doesn't it?