Mercedes Overland Building/Tuning

RoamIt

Well-known member
The problem with winching these beasts is what do you attach the winch to? Once you get really stuck the options become local farm tractors or heavy equipment, bulldozer, high hoe , etc.

Has anyone ever used a land anchor (or 3)?
 
Has anyone ever used a land anchor (or 3)?
Yes. 2 x 14000 lb Pullpals. 2 each 1/2” 20’ steel cables with loops at each end, big shackles; at 30 deg angle.
Re hydraulic systems, in addition to the obvious F/R winches, I purchased an inexpensive but US made 3.6-4kw hydraulic 240/120 generator that can run everything in my house including very important well pump. This particular model puts out 60hz @ 890 rpm engine speed. Easy to set fast idle in a modern Unimog.
 

RoamIt

Well-known member
I'm still getting some info; Front axle ratio 38.8 / rear 47.9

Front axle listing says: A50 FRONT AXLE WITH INCREASED CARRYING LOAD

Based on what I've picked up on other threads, these are medium fast axles?? Good, bad, indifferent?
 
Last edited:

Geo.Lander

Well-known member
I'm still getting some info; Front axle ratio 38.8 / rear 47.9

Front axle listing says: A50 FRONT AXLE WITH INCREASED CARRYING LOAD

Based on what I've picked up on other threads, these are medium fast axles?? Good, bad, indifferent?

I have 39: 8, its a medium/fast axle ratio i get about 90-95km/h cruising just over 2000rpm (in the green zone) with my larger 385/65R22.5 tires.

There is a detailed thread about the ratios and lots of info about what type of axle ratios are available somewhere on this forum. I priced upgrading to the faster axles at about 4000 euros for parts and another 2000 for labour (43:10 ratio based on Mercedes crownwheel & pinion for the front axle and the existing aftermarket rear crownwheel & pinion). I never went down that road in the end..
 

Roverchef

Adventurer
I have 39: 8, its a medium/fast axle ratio i get about 90-95km/h cruising just over 2000rpm (in the green zone) with my larger 385/65R22.5 tires.

There is a detailed thread about the ratios and lots of info about what type of axle ratios are available somewhere on this forum. I priced upgrading to the faster axles at about 4000 euros for parts and another 2000 for labour (43:10 ratio based on Mercedes crownwheel & pinion for the front axle and the existing aftermarket rear crownwheel & pinion). I never went down that road in the end..
Ya can't have 2 different axle ratios!
 

RoamIt

Well-known member
I can only speak for myself, but the issue I'm having is getting different information from different sites. Obviously, that is the biggest challenge w/MB trucks. If I pull the trigger on this truck, I think I'll just have to wait until I have it in my driveway and get the numbers right off the truck.

Roverchef, are you an actual Chef?
 

Sitec

Adventurer
Ya can't have 2 different axle ratios!

You can if the front axle is a normal axle with a large central diff, and the rear axle has hub reduction hubs... Prop shaft speed going into both axles will be the same, but the axle shafts in the rear axle will be turning a lot faster (lower ratio in the rear axle differential), as the final reduction is done in the hubs in the center of the wheels. With hub reduction axles (though heavier) the diff and shafts can be smaller as they are spinning faster with less torque, but then the speed is reduced in the hub (which in turn increases the torque at the wheel). The gain is axles with better clearance and capable of handelling more hp than a conventional axle. The loss is that a hub reduction axle is a lot heavier, so the payload of the vehicle can then be lessened as the vehicle weight is heavier!
 
You can if the front axle is a normal axle with a large central diff, and the rear axle has hub reduction hubs... Prop shaft speed going into both axles will be the same, but the axle shafts in the rear axle will be turning a lot faster (lower ratio in the rear axle differential), as the final reduction is done in the hubs in the center of the wheels. With hub reduction axles (though heavier) the diff and shafts can be smaller as they are spinning faster with less torque, but then the speed is reduced in the hub (which in turn increases the torque at the wheel). The gain is axles with better clearance and capable of handelling more hp than a conventional axle. The loss is that a hub reduction axle is a lot heavier, so the payload of the vehicle can then be lessened as the vehicle weight is heavier!
That’s true if one axle has reduction hubs (planetary or portal), but not the other. HOWEVER, hub ratios are on the order of 1.5-3.0:1, NOT a mere paltry 1.1-1.3:1, which the ratio of ratios presented here. And, if an axle has hub reduction, the ratio is USUALLY (apologize for capitals) presented as the total product of diff times hubs. And, it usually doesn’t come out as the ratio of 2 lowish numbers (like 43:10). For example, mine is 2.182 (24:11) x 2.714 (38:14 ) = 5.922. Which is precisely 456:77; not reducible beyond that, no common factors.
Specifically, neither 39:8 or 43:10 have common factors; I can’t imagine a 13:4 ring & pinion. And 43 is a prime number!! So no geared huns on either, and a ratio/ratio of 1.1337 too far from 1.00 to be compatible with each other UNLESS front singles 14-15% taller than rear (duals). Which may indeed be the case.
 
Last edited:

Geo.Lander

Well-known member
That’s true if one axle has reduction hubs (planetary or portal), but not the other. HOWEVER, hub ratios are on the order of 1.5-3.0:1, NOT a mere paltry 1.1-1.3:1, which the ratio of ratios presented here. And, if an axle has hub reduction, the ratio is USUALLY (apologize for capitals) presented as the total product of diff times hubs. And, it usually doesn’t come out as the ratio of 2 lowish numbers (like 43:10). For example, mine is 2.182 (24:11) x 2.714 (38:14 ) = 5.922. Which is precisely 456:77; not reducible beyond that, no common factors.
Specifically, neither 39:8 or 43:10 have common factors; I can’t imagine a 13:4 ring & pinion. And 43 is a prime number!! So no geared huns on either, and a ratio/ratio of 1.1337 too far from 1.00 to be compatible with each other UNLESS front singles 14-15% taller than rear (duals). Which may indeed be the case.

@RoamIt stated 38.8 / rear 47.9 not 39:8

Ya can't have 2 different axle ratios!

@Roverchef I never said I did.. I think you were a little quick on the reply button there and the rest of the thread has followed suit.

@RoamIt the VIN lookup tool also said I had difference axel ratios, but more than likely you have 38.8
 

RoamIt

Well-known member
Ha! That's hilarious! I actually was going to go 6x6 at first, maybe 35ft+ long. But the more I researched the more I started thinking I should go smaller.

The Mercedes 1224 I'm looking at is me 'downsizing' ;)
 

Geo.Lander

Well-known member
Ha! That's hilarious! I actually was going to go 6x6 at first, maybe 35ft+ long. But the more I researched the more I started thinking I should go smaller.

The Mercedes 1224 I'm looking at is me 'downsizing' ;)

A 6x6 Zetros or similar Arocs would be great if all you plan to do is zipp around the deserts. But for the EU it will be a very limiting size indeed... My land rovers only just fit around my hometown in Greece :D
 

RoamIt

Well-known member
Exactly my thoughts, as much as I love getting 'out there', I would love to visit cities. Prague has always been on my bucket list because of it's architecture. My plan includes a small motorcycle, I figure I'll have to park outside many places and then explore by motorcycle.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,151
Messages
2,902,849
Members
229,582
Latest member
JSKepler
Top