ARB Locker Wiring & Plumbing
- Thread starter Redline
- Start date
stomperxj
Explorer
robert j. yates said:
How is it any more complicated than an ARB system? And how will the gear oil vapors off-gas into the cab when the solenoid is mounted in the engine compartment?
You realize that the system I have is exactly what an ARB is, only without the high price tag don't you? It's all standard DOT air fittings and line which can be found at any truck stop and I can buy about 4 of these solenoids for the price of 1 ARB solenoid...
robert j. yates
Explorer
....I was assuming that you were talking about using air switches and if thats the case....they WILL off gas vapors into the cab. BTDT.
As for complication....the air switches require additioanal airlines to be routed into and out of the cab which IMO, needlessly complicates the install. BTDT again. The ARB harness is also pretty much foolproof as long as its installed correctly. BTDT as well. Now as I re-read your post, I guess that was a probably a wrong assumption.
As for complication....the air switches require additioanal airlines to be routed into and out of the cab which IMO, needlessly complicates the install. BTDT again. The ARB harness is also pretty much foolproof as long as its installed correctly. BTDT as well. Now as I re-read your post, I guess that was a probably a wrong assumption.
stomperxj
Explorer
Only if you don't run an exhaust line out of the cabrobert j. yates said:
robert j. yates said:
Yes air switches require more line but have fewer components than an ARB system.Only air parts, no electrics at all...
I was just adding what I did to my rig for information to the O.P. as an alternative to being brand loyal to ARB with significant $$ savings. ARB stuff is oddball (threads) and is not readily available in a pinch. That's why I chose to go with all standard DOT fittings and line with my system.
Good Luck Redline with your ARB stuff... sounds awesome :rockon:
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
BajaTaco said:
Yep, I think it is worth a try. The OJ test indicated high temperatures for this ARB pump, but the fill time was okay. I think it will be okay for filling the tires on ‘my’ rig most of the time. If I need to fill several other tires I will use an MV-50 that I don’t mind abusing and is not attached to my lockers, or my Extreme Aire.
I appreciate all the other input and discussion. I wavered a couple times but have decided to stay with the ARB CKMA12 compressor and the included wiring and switches for a clean, easy set-up.
Although there are certainly advantages to using switches and parts that are available over the counter at any truck parts store, I would have to do my own installation for the air/wiring. I have decided to pay a couple hours labor to have my shop do the whole thing (wiring/plumbing), and nobody here seems to be reporting problems with the ARB compressors or wiring. Might I want a more powerful compressor later? Yeah I might, and I may just add one later. First I will give the ARB a try. Aside from high temps, it appears to be a better compressor than the weaker ARB offering in the past.
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
Remote mounting of compressor intake?
What do you guys think about extending the intake on my ARB compressor a bit higher? It looks like I could unscrew the little air filter on the ARB pump and extend it with a hose and put a filter on the end.
I can’t extend it lots higher, but several inches. The compressor is mounted on the passenger side fender behind the air-box on my 4Runner. I could extend it as high as the bottom of the hood/firewall, not a world of difference. I'm not really a water crossing fan, but my car is not very tall either. Of course if I such air into the engine intake I have much bigger problems and I don’t want to add a snorkel.
Thoughts
What do you guys think about extending the intake on my ARB compressor a bit higher? It looks like I could unscrew the little air filter on the ARB pump and extend it with a hose and put a filter on the end.
I can’t extend it lots higher, but several inches. The compressor is mounted on the passenger side fender behind the air-box on my 4Runner. I could extend it as high as the bottom of the hood/firewall, not a world of difference. I'm not really a water crossing fan, but my car is not very tall either. Of course if I such air into the engine intake I have much bigger problems and I don’t want to add a snorkel.
Thoughts
cruiseroutfit
Well-known member
Redline said:
Easy to do and better safe than sorry. I've extended several doing just as you described, or skipping the ARB filter and using a small K&N up on the firewall for a little more filtration.
Redline said:
High temperature is the issue I was describing earlier, and arises from exceeding the duty cycle. In the article, mention is made that the unit is a 50% duty cycle device, 30 minutes on and 30 off. I believe this is a mis-statement.
Although ARB lists the duty cycle, it does not publish the cycle time that goes with it, or the thermal limit that goes with it, whichever is used or comes first. It would require some knowledge of the engineering of the unit to know just how hot is too hot for the unit, but if the target temperature is, say, 200 degrees (approximately what some of the other tested units ran to), then when the pump reaches this temperature, it has hit its duty cycle limit and should be shut off for the same amount of time it took to get to that temperature. It won't be 30 minutes. (If the pump could run indefinitely, it would be rated as a 100% duty cycle pump. Since it isn't, it would be helpful to know how the 50% duty cycle rating should be interpreted.)
Unfortunately, how many minutes it took to get to a target temperature was not one of the test parameters, and I have not seen published data for any of the pumps that would allow a tester to pick a suitable cut-off temperature. I just have to think that 300+ degrees is way too hot for a small oil-less pump, and running the pump to these temperatures on anything like a regular basis will cause the pump to fail.
Also note that in the article, tires were inflated to 35psi which is 20% higher than the rated performance of the unit (29psi), also contributing to the elevated temperatures. The harder it works, the faster it gets hot and the shorter the duty cycle. Certainly the pump will produce more than 29psi since the lockers run at around 100psi, but ARB chose to list 29psi for a reason, mostly having to do with amperage and marketing. The difference between achieving 100psi for lockers and 29psi for tires is night and day because of the vast difference in volume of air needed for each task. It takes only moments to raise the pressure in the locker system to 100psi. Peak amperage was not tested in this mode, nor was temperature achieved. Having used a similar pump for years, I believe the results would show that amperage stays fairly low and the pump never really gets hot, as long as it is used to lock lockers.
I also noted in the article that the peak amperage draw was 34 or 35 amps which is something like 60% higher than the published draw. I assume without knowing that the amperage peak occurred while pumping over the rated pressure of 29psi, i.e., just before the tire reached 35psi. If the relationship between peak amperage and pressure produced was tracked, it was not published, but amperage, pressure load, and temperature rise are all related.
All of which is why I still believe the pump is not suitable for airing tires. I would use one of your other pumps for that purpose and leave the ARB pump to locking the axles.
[edit] On the ARB spec sheet for the pump, it does, in small print, say "on time/off time - 30/30". Presumably this is intended to mean 30 minutes not 30 seconds. If so, the run time stated would still be at no more than the rated amp draw and flow for the same specification, 22.9 amps @ 200KPa. The test parameters in the article went well beyond this rated output with the results noted by the author. I don't fault the author for this since 35psi is not an unreasonable target for the forum and his test procedures were uniform. Rather, I find the ARB specifications to be misleading as even our technically inclined author apparently didn't make the connection between exceeding the rated output and the effect on the duty cycle run time. In laboratory testing it took 30 minutes at a constant pressure of 29psi for the pump to achieve a shut-off temperature, whatever that is, whereas in field testing using the pump to inflate 4 tires from zero to 35psi it took around 16 minutes but drove the temperature of the pump to 329 degrees (IIRC). Without the lab data we still do not have a basis for comparison but if the pump got to 329 degrees in a bit over 15 minutes, some part of which was down time to switch tires and a good part of which was at pressures between zero and 29psi, how hot would it be at 30 minutes of any kind of continuous use? I believe the ARB pump is a good tool for a limited purpose, but if a similarly priced, tiny pump can do the same basic job, quietly and with a 100% duty cycle at a fraction of the amp draw and at a far lower temperature, why make excuses for the ARB pump as a tire airing tool?
Last edited:
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
Good/interesting info as usual, even if it will be unpopular with some.
Your cautions are probably correct, but I do plan to use it for tires. If it burns up quickly I can replace it.
I'm lucky enough to be in the position of having other compressors and CO2 at my disposal should I care to haul them around (the little MV-50 always goes with). I'm also fortunate that I really don't need that much volume or PSI for my 255/85R16 treads. 29-PSI is plenty for my highway driving so I can 'air-up' to a lower pressure 27-29 to save the pump if I chose. What I won’t do is use it to fill up other people's tires. The MV-50 or Extreme Aire can do that.
It may not be the perfect pump for airing tires but likely is much better than the previous offerings from ARB which many have used, and it fits the space I have under the hood very well. I'm glad I choose it for my system/lockers instead of trying to make an MV-50 work. I like the clean ARB install. I might even keep track of how many times I fill my tires and to what PSI. If I kill the compressor I will know and be able to report on its longevity or lack thereof.
Your cautions are probably correct, but I do plan to use it for tires. If it burns up quickly I can replace it.
I'm lucky enough to be in the position of having other compressors and CO2 at my disposal should I care to haul them around (the little MV-50 always goes with). I'm also fortunate that I really don't need that much volume or PSI for my 255/85R16 treads. 29-PSI is plenty for my highway driving so I can 'air-up' to a lower pressure 27-29 to save the pump if I chose. What I won’t do is use it to fill up other people's tires. The MV-50 or Extreme Aire can do that.
It may not be the perfect pump for airing tires but likely is much better than the previous offerings from ARB which many have used, and it fits the space I have under the hood very well. I'm glad I choose it for my system/lockers instead of trying to make an MV-50 work. I like the clean ARB install. I might even keep track of how many times I fill my tires and to what PSI. If I kill the compressor I will know and be able to report on its longevity or lack thereof.
madizell said:
cruiseroutfit
Well-known member
madizell said:
Why make a bunch of scenarios that have proven thusfar to be non-issues? A proportional relationship between pressure, heat and amperage, no brainer there. I didn't assume otherwise I doubt many did. Why does ARB rate is performance at 29psi, well its the obvious ideal efficiency mark for the compressor, same reason a vehicles motor peak fuel mileage is rated at 1700 RPM in one setup and 3200 RPM, does it mean the engine can't go faster? Shall we expect the motor not to produce more heat with a higher load? I don't see what ground breaking info you have here?
Temperature is a real deal, but you can't compare the baseline and high end temperatures from compressor to compressor. Different designs, different materials, etc. If ARB didn't want their compressor to get so hot, they would have adjusted the thermal motor protector to a lower level
I guess we can agree to disagree. You've brought up every issue that has proven to be a non-issue so far and based the majority of your experiences on the old compressor. You've still never even told me if you've laid your hands on the new compressor. Given the fact your initial comments were based on the old RDCKA, I'm doubtful you have. Lastly, given my customers and my personal successful results with the CKMA12 and the favorable OJ results... I'll take your "experience" with a grain of salt.
Last edited:
I am not trying to sell, or not sell, any particular product. Instead, I am trying to point out rather obvious characteristics of (in this case) a pump that I believe you touted for use in expedition mode. I am not trying to run the ARB unit down, but get folks to think for themselves about issues that had not been raised otherwise, and I believe would not have been raised had I not pointed them out.
No, I don't have and don't intend to buy a new version of the ARB pump because I already have one that works, and don't have any other vehicle with ARB lockers. I don't see why that is an issue. I also don't believe that the performance characteristics of the older unit and the current iteration are significantly different. Do we all have to go out and buy one before we can comment? If you would like to provide me with a unit for testing, I would not mind testing it, but doing so is not my mission in life. As in most of life's situations, we can make reasonable decisions based on our own prior experience and those of others without always having first-hand information. If this were not so science would not be where it is today and no one would have yet walked on the moon.
All I would ask of the readers in this forum is that they read the specifications of any product they entertain purchasing, and consider carefully how they intend to use the product. This is not different from the prologue in the OJ article in which the author recommends looking beyond the surface numbers before drawing conclusions. As consumers in this age, we tend to accept things that we read at face value and we are too ready to believe the marketing that is presented to us as if it were neutrally correct. Case in point, the ARB specification that the pump in question is a 30 minute on, 30 minute off unit. A true statement only when seen in the context in which it is offered by ARB. The fact that the exact context was not stressed by ARB in its specification sheet, and that the specification was even misunderstood or mis-stated in a technical article by a competent author, underscores the point.
No doubt there is a very good reason why ARB decided to rate their pump at 50% duty @ a mere 29psi, whereas Viair rated their comparable unit at 100% at 100psi. We can reasonably assume that if ARB felt comfortable rating their pump at 100% at 100psi they would have done so. I am only suggesting that it would be worth the time of the consumer to understand those reasons and the implications as they apply to expedition use before making a selection.
I have not opposed the use of the ARB compact unit for airing tires, and I still don't. It would not be my first choice for the reasons I have stated. It is not my intention to convince you or anyone that I am "right." But without an exchange of information and a free debate, this forum would be a different place.
No, I don't have and don't intend to buy a new version of the ARB pump because I already have one that works, and don't have any other vehicle with ARB lockers. I don't see why that is an issue. I also don't believe that the performance characteristics of the older unit and the current iteration are significantly different. Do we all have to go out and buy one before we can comment? If you would like to provide me with a unit for testing, I would not mind testing it, but doing so is not my mission in life. As in most of life's situations, we can make reasonable decisions based on our own prior experience and those of others without always having first-hand information. If this were not so science would not be where it is today and no one would have yet walked on the moon.
All I would ask of the readers in this forum is that they read the specifications of any product they entertain purchasing, and consider carefully how they intend to use the product. This is not different from the prologue in the OJ article in which the author recommends looking beyond the surface numbers before drawing conclusions. As consumers in this age, we tend to accept things that we read at face value and we are too ready to believe the marketing that is presented to us as if it were neutrally correct. Case in point, the ARB specification that the pump in question is a 30 minute on, 30 minute off unit. A true statement only when seen in the context in which it is offered by ARB. The fact that the exact context was not stressed by ARB in its specification sheet, and that the specification was even misunderstood or mis-stated in a technical article by a competent author, underscores the point.
No doubt there is a very good reason why ARB decided to rate their pump at 50% duty @ a mere 29psi, whereas Viair rated their comparable unit at 100% at 100psi. We can reasonably assume that if ARB felt comfortable rating their pump at 100% at 100psi they would have done so. I am only suggesting that it would be worth the time of the consumer to understand those reasons and the implications as they apply to expedition use before making a selection.
I have not opposed the use of the ARB compact unit for airing tires, and I still don't. It would not be my first choice for the reasons I have stated. It is not my intention to convince you or anyone that I am "right." But without an exchange of information and a free debate, this forum would be a different place.
cruiseroutfit
Well-known member
madizell said:
I guess my point is the lack of a point on your part. All of the things you have pointed out are based on your experience with the RDCKA. To me thats like using the FJ60 as a basis to compare a FZJ80 against a Discovery II... Apples and oranges. The CKM is a 100% new design, built to air up tires and run the air compressor. They realized a void with their RDCKA for this use (as I've admitted the RDCKA was "ok" at best for airing up). The new compressor has filled that void IMO. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not... the guy with 37" tires, 44" tires, an impact wrench used on occasion... of course not. But the original poster never stated any of those as criteria. I based my comments accordingly. There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer for any product, so to introduce "what-ifs" and variables based on the use of an obsolete product makes it a moot point IMO.
madizell said:
Significantly different? Over DOUBLE the volume and DOUBLE the duty cycle. An all new design, new motor with thermal protection. Pretty significant to me.
No you don't have to go out and buy one, but at a minimum familiarize yourself with the unit before you instantly start posting
"your" facts. (referring to your comment about 3 times the amperage).
madizell said:
Huh??? You don't have any prior experience with the CKMA12, nor apparently any first-hand either. Apples and oranges.
madizell said:
Would you like to be the pot or the kettle?
madizell said:
Absolutely, and the original poster made his intentions for this product very clear on the first page. No air tools, 33" tires and air lockers with a speed and efficiency at or near the current compressor he is using MV50. I'm 150% confident that the CKMA12 fit the bill. No other variables needed in this case. We can discuss those when the guy with an air powered margarita machine and 39" tires starts a thread
madizell said:
Fill in the blank, why did they not rate it at 35psi? I've explained my belief, lets here yours. They rated it at its maximum volume/pressure/duty/amperage relation, why rate it anywhere else? Is it marketing? Sure, but so is rating the torque and horsepower of an engine? Do we expect otherwise? Of course not, at least I don't.
madizell said:
Agreed there, I'd like to think we could have this same conversation over a beer and a campfire :friday:
Last edited: