Outer Limits 4x4 Board

what would people recommend for 4.11 diffs and 35s?

presto wrote:what would people recommend for 4.11 diffs and 35s?

30% will give you a 1st gear low range of about 43:1 which is a massive increase over standard.
49% will be about 50:1

Its up to you which way you go and that is dependant on the type of terrain that you like to drive.

DEFMAC when you are up this way QLD you will have to come out wheeling with the rest of the rovers that get down to ormeao

uninformed wrote:

ISUZUROVER wrote:I'll probably grab a set as well for that price - have to decide which...

49% is great, what are you thinking Ben?

Serg

I am not sure. There is lots of sand over here, and I am not keen on finding out what 49% does to using reverse low in soft sand.

Probably go 30% on the 110 and 49% on the IIA. Just need to decide whether to buy one set or two!!!

ive decided not togo with the reduction gears i cant afford 1200, ive just got the rebuild kit from british offroad which includes all bearings seals gaketss o rings replacement locking nuts c diff lock sender for 380 for any ones info which i think is cheap considering when i rang bearing services with a discount through work for bearings alone was over 400
its in the truck now

Micka wrote:

presto wrote:what would people recommend for 4.11 diffs and 35s?

30% will give you a 1st gear low range of about 43:1 which is a massive increase over standard.
49% will be about 50:1

Its up to you which way you go and that is dependant on the type of terrain that you like to drive.

i thought stock was 43-1

so 30% would be 56-1 and 49% would be 64-1. the new 6 speed defenders are about 65-1 stock....

4.11 + 30% = 64-1
4.11 + 49% = 74-1

landrover 101fc ran 75-1 with 900-16 tyres, they are 36 inches tall....

if you have lockers front and rear and love to crawl terrain then 49 will be fine, may be a bit low if in lots of mud.....

Serg

ISUZUROVER wrote:

uninformed wrote:

ISUZUROVER wrote:I'll probably grab a set as well for that price - have to decide which...

49% is great, what are you thinking Ben?

Serg

I am not sure. There is lots of sand over here, and I am not keen on finding out what 49% does to using reverse low in soft sand.

Probably go 30% on the 110 and 49% on the IIA. Just need to decide whether to buy one set or two!!!

i have the 49% in my 110 trayback, running 235/85r16.... was out west and drove the warrago river bed.... when i came apon it, it was course river sand and i thought it would be very easy...... it was so dry and soft, much softer than the east coast beach sand i have driven.... i was crawling in 2nd low, couldnt build momentum to get into 3rd....sand was to soft..... im glad i had another gear lower to be back up. i did use reverse a bit too, it just crawled around nicely....

on another note the other vehicle driving with me was same gearing, but a rover v8 and ran 750r16 mud tyres, it seemed to do it a bit easier.....

Ben, what tyre size do you run on your 110?

Serg

uninformed wrote:

ISUZUROVER wrote:

uninformed wrote:

ISUZUROVER wrote:I'll probably grab a set as well for that price - have to decide which...

49% is great, what are you thinking Ben?

Serg

I am not sure. There is lots of sand over here, and I am not keen on finding out what 49% does to using reverse low in soft sand.

Probably go 30% on the 110 and 49% on the IIA. Just need to decide whether to buy one set or two!!!

i have the 49% in my 110 trayback, running 235/85r16.... was out west and drove the warrago river bed.... when i came apon it, it was course river sand and i thought it would be very easy...... it was so dry and soft, much softer than the east coast beach sand i have driven.... i was crawling in 2nd low, couldnt build momentum to get into 3rd....sand was to soft..... im glad i had another gear lower to be back up. i did use reverse a bit too, it just crawled around nicely....

on another note the other vehicle driving with me was same gearing, but a rover v8 and ran 750r16 mud tyres, it seemed to do it a bit easier.....

Ben, what tyre size do you run on your 110?

Serg

255/85-16

Thanks for the info... Decisions...

also forgot to ask is your 110 diff locked front/rear?

if so def go the 49%.... the other rig showed me lockers in the sand. he bogged it in good on purpose.... front axle was resting in the sand... bellyed out.... engaged both lockers, 1st low and very slowly crawled out... didnt even look like it was moving at first, but it was very slowly then it just kept going....

its one of those things if you have lockers youll run out of gearing with stock gearing.... if you have lowered gearing youll run out of traction without lockers....

30% will still be a great improvement in your 110 tourer....if you even only have a rear locker and your running 255/85r16 your going to have a good footprint and traction so I would go 49% but thats just my personal opinion... youvr driven much more terrain than me mate.

Serg

uninformed wrote:also forgot to ask is your 110 diff locked front/rear?

if so def go the 49%.... the other rig showed me lockers in the sand. he bogged it in good on purpose.... front axle was resting in the sand... bellyed out.... engaged both lockers, 1st low and very slowly crawled out... didnt even look like it was moving at first, but it was very slowly then it just kept going....

its one of those things if you have lockers youll run out of gearing with stock gearing.... if you have lowered gearing youll run out of traction without lockers....

30% will still be a great improvement in your 110 tourer....if you even only have a rear locker and your running 255/85r16 your going to have a good footprint and traction so I would go 49% but thats just my personal opinion... youvr driven much more terrain than me mate.

Serg

Rear locker about to go in. Front will either be a TT or arb if a cheap 2nd hand one turns up.

The 110 (isuzu) has a much harder time in the sand that the IIA - I never use the IIA's locker in the sand.

uninformed wrote:

Micka wrote:

presto wrote:what would people recommend for 4.11 diffs and 35s?

30% will give you a 1st gear low range of about 43:1 which is a massive increase over standard.
49% will be about 50:1

Its up to you which way you go and that is dependant on the type of terrain that you like to drive.

i thought stock was 43-1

so 30% would be 56-1 and 49% would be 64-1. the new 6 speed defenders are about 65-1 stock....

4.11 + 30% = 64-1
4.11 + 49% = 74-1

landrover 101fc ran 75-1 with 900-16 tyres, they are 36 inches tall....

if you have lockers front and rear and love to crawl terrain then 49 will be fine, may be a bit low if in lots of mud.....

Serg

Landrover 101's had the same transfer raito as early rangies they ran the same box the LT95 if they were geared at 75-1 it was because they ran 4.7 to 1 in the diffs tho they had sals axles front and rear

lokka wrote:

uninformed wrote:

Micka wrote:

presto wrote:what would people recommend for 4.11 diffs and 35s?

30% will give you a 1st gear low range of about 43:1 which is a massive increase over standard.
49% will be about 50:1

Its up to you which way you go and that is dependant on the type of terrain that you like to drive.

i thought stock was 43-1

so 30% would be 56-1 and 49% would be 64-1. the new 6 speed defenders are about 65-1 stock....

4.11 + 30% = 64-1
4.11 + 49% = 74-1

landrover 101fc ran 75-1 with 900-16 tyres, they are 36 inches tall....

if you have lockers front and rear and love to crawl terrain then 49 will be fine, may be a bit low if in lots of mud.....

Serg

Landrover 101's had the same transfer raito as early rangies they ran the same box the LT95 if they were geared at 75-1 it was because they ran 4.7 to 1 in the diffs tho they had sals axles front and rear

just so you have your facts correct....

landrover 101 forward control:

produced from 1975-1978
3528cc v8 petrol, permanent four-wheel drive. axle ratios are 5.57-1 high range step down 1.174-1 low range step down 3.321-1,

overall ratios
high:
4th 6.54
3rd 9.84
2nd 16.01
1st 26.55
reverse 23.97

low:
4th 18.50
3rd 27.84
2nd 45.29
1st 75.11
reverse 67.80

Serg

ISUZUROVER wrote:

uninformed wrote:also forgot to ask is your 110 diff locked front/rear?

if so def go the 49%.... the other rig showed me lockers in the sand. he bogged it in good on purpose.... front axle was resting in the sand... bellyed out.... engaged both lockers, 1st low and very slowly crawled out... didnt even look like it was moving at first, but it was very slowly then it just kept going....

its one of those things if you have lockers youll run out of gearing with stock gearing.... if you have lowered gearing youll run out of traction without lockers....

30% will still be a great improvement in your 110 tourer....if you even only have a rear locker and your running 255/85r16 your going to have a good footprint and traction so I would go 49% but thats just my personal opinion... youvr driven much more terrain than me mate.

Serg

Rear locker about to go in. Front will either be a TT or arb if a cheap 2nd hand one turns up.

The 110 (isuzu) has a much harder time in the sand that the IIA - I never use the IIA's locker in the sand.

do you put that down to weight?

they both have sals rear correct?

Serg

uninformed wrote:

lokka wrote:

uninformed wrote:

Micka wrote:

presto wrote:what would people recommend for 4.11 diffs and 35s?

30% will give you a 1st gear low range of about 43:1 which is a massive increase over standard.
49% will be about 50:1

Its up to you which way you go and that is dependant on the type of terrain that you like to drive.

i thought stock was 43-1

so 30% would be 56-1 and 49% would be 64-1. the new 6 speed defenders are about 65-1 stock....

4.11 + 30% = 64-1
4.11 + 49% = 74-1

landrover 101fc ran 75-1 with 900-16 tyres, they are 36 inches tall....

if you have lockers front and rear and love to crawl terrain then 49 will be fine, may be a bit low if in lots of mud.....

Serg

Landrover 101's had the same transfer raito as early rangies they ran the same box the LT95 if they were geared at 75-1 it was because they ran 4.7 to 1 in the diffs tho they had sals axles front and rear

just so you have your facts correct....

landrover 101 forward control:

produced from 1975-1978
3528cc v8 petrol, permanent four-wheel drive. axle ratios are 5.57-1 high range step down 1.174-1 low range step down 3.321-1,

overall ratios
high:
4th 6.54
3rd 9.84
2nd 16.01
1st 26.55
reverse 23.97

low:
4th 18.50
3rd 27.84
2nd 45.29
1st 75.11
reverse 67.80

Serg

Yep ok i got the diff raitos wrong but the transfer ratios are much the same as early RRC

lokka wrote:

uninformed wrote:

lokka wrote:

uninformed wrote:

Micka wrote: 30% will give you a 1st gear low range of about 43:1 which is a massive increase over standard.
49% will be about 50:1

Its up to you which way you go and that is dependant on the type of terrain that you like to drive.

i thought stock was 43-1

so 30% would be 56-1 and 49% would be 64-1. the new 6 speed defenders are about 65-1 stock....

4.11 + 30% = 64-1
4.11 + 49% = 74-1

landrover 101fc ran 75-1 with 900-16 tyres, they are 36 inches tall....

if you have lockers front and rear and love to crawl terrain then 49 will be fine, may be a bit low if in lots of mud.....

Serg

Landrover 101's had the same transfer raito as early rangies they ran the same box the LT95 if they were geared at 75-1 it was because they ran 4.7 to 1 in the diffs tho they had sals axles front and rear

just so you have your facts correct....

landrover 101 forward control:

produced from 1975-1978
3528cc v8 petrol, permanent four-wheel drive. axle ratios are 5.57-1 high range step down 1.174-1 low range step down 3.321-1,

overall ratios
high:
4th 6.54
3rd 9.84
2nd 16.01
1st 26.55
reverse 23.97

low:
4th 18.50
3rd 27.84
2nd 45.29
1st 75.11
reverse 67.80

Serg

Yep ok i got the diff raitos wrong but the transfer ratios are much the same as early RRC

yep... and they were geared at 75-1, as u did ask IF they were....

the range rover actually "borrowed" the gearbox and transfer from the 101.... now i know the first range rovers were built in 1970 and the 101 in 1975...but they were both being developed at the same time in the 60's... landrover was much more confident of winning the military contract with the 101 and could only afford to develop one box/trnasfercase... so they banked on the 101. at the time no other auto manufatcure was producing anything like the range rover so it was unchartered waters as far as sales etc...thats why the gear change in the 4 speed rangies is so truck like... it is a truck box!

also the 101 ran spung over axles and full length springs (parabolics???) the only rover to do so..... maybe also the 110 lightweight but it never went into production and im not sure about the 127 light trucks but they never made it into production either....

Serg

uninformed wrote: do you put that down to weight?

they both have sals rear correct?

Serg

Big heavy engine... The IIA also has 285/75s. The 110 has double the power and torque, but it doesn't make up for the heavy engine.

Both have Sals rear - IIA is shaved. However I am talking about the ease with which they roll over soft sand, not extraction when down to the axles.

I would happily drive either, but the IIA has an easier time of it.

nottie wrote:DEFMAC when you are up this way QLD you will have to come out wheeling with the rest of the rovers that get down to ormeao

for sure i will be down by new years .im originally from the coast and have been to ormeao about 8 years ago .cant wait to be back

ISUZUROVER wrote:

uninformed wrote: do you put that down to weight?

they both have sals rear correct?

Serg

Big heavy engine... The IIA also has 285/75s. The 110 has double the power and torque, but it doesn't make up for the heavy engine.

Both have Sals rear - IIA is shaved. However I am talking about the ease with which they roll over soft sand, not extraction when down to the axles.

I would happily drive either, but the IIA has an easier time of it.

so you put this down to floatation of the wider tyres??? i havent drivin the type of sand you have, alot of rainbow beach and fraser isl though.... but that isnt tough sand driving.....as i said before it was funny how i seemed to be doing it tough on my 235/85r16 big horns and my mate did it easier on his 750r16 mich xzl's... but maybe it was only the top that was soft, it just seemed that mine had to displace more sand around the front of the tyre than his.....was interesting driving though...

i guess no 2 conditions are the same....i wonder if there is a floatation to weight ratio that would be ideal as in running the same tyre on both your 110 and IIa wouldnt be a fair comparison as there is a weight difference...

uninformed wrote:

Micka wrote:

presto wrote:what would people recommend for 4.11 diffs and 35s?

30% will give you a 1st gear low range of about 43:1 which is a massive increase over standard.
49% will be about 50:1

Its up to you which way you go and that is dependant on the type of terrain that you like to drive.

i thought stock was 43-1

so 30% would be 56-1 and 49% would be 64-1. the new 6 speed defenders are about 65-1 stock....

4.11 + 30% = 64-1
4.11 + 49% = 74-1

landrover 101fc ran 75-1 with 900-16 tyres, they are 36 inches tall....

if you have lockers front and rear and love to crawl terrain then 49 will be fine, may be a bit low if in lots of mud.....

Serg

I was working on ZF/LT230 figures for a RR/Disco. Obviously the Manual R380/LT95/LT77 box has a better crawl ratio in first gear.

Either way...the crawl ratio is far superior to stock - whether it be an automatic or manual.

uninformed wrote:

ISUZUROVER wrote:

uninformed wrote: do you put that down to weight?

they both have sals rear correct?

Serg

Big heavy engine... The IIA also has 285/75s. The 110 has double the power and torque, but it doesn't make up for the heavy engine.

Both have Sals rear - IIA is shaved. However I am talking about the ease with which they roll over soft sand, not extraction when down to the axles.

I would happily drive either, but the IIA has an easier time of it.

so you put this down to floatation of the wider tyres??? i havent drivin the type of sand you have, alot of rainbow beach and fraser isl though.... but that isnt tough sand driving.....as i said before it was funny how i seemed to be doing it tough on my 235/85r16 big horns and my mate did it easier on his 750r16 mich xzl's... but maybe it was only the top that was soft, it just seemed that mine had to displace more sand around the front of the tyre than his.....was interesting driving though...

i guess no 2 conditions are the same....i wonder if there is a floatation to weight ratio that would be ideal as in running the same tyre on both your 110 and IIa wouldnt be a fair comparison as there is a weight difference...

Serg
It sounds like more to do with your tyre pressures at the time as there isnt much difference in size between the 750r16 to the 235/85/16 but then again the weight could have caused a bit of the probs but then again the V8 verses the deso in the sand is like chalk and cheese were my mates 4bd1 county struggels i glide on through because i have more low down power ...

lokka wrote:

uninformed wrote:

ISUZUROVER wrote:

uninformed wrote: do you put that down to weight?

they both have sals rear correct?

Serg

Big heavy engine... The IIA also has 285/75s. The 110 has double the power and torque, but it doesn't make up for the heavy engine.

Both have Sals rear - IIA is shaved. However I am talking about the ease with which they roll over soft sand, not extraction when down to the axles.

I would happily drive either, but the IIA has an easier time of it.

so you put this down to floatation of the wider tyres??? i havent drivin the type of sand you have, alot of rainbow beach and fraser isl though.... but that isnt tough sand driving.....as i said before it was funny how i seemed to be doing it tough on my 235/85r16 big horns and my mate did it easier on his 750r16 mich xzl's... but maybe it was only the top that was soft, it just seemed that mine had to displace more sand around the front of the tyre than his.....was interesting driving though...

i guess no 2 conditions are the same....i wonder if there is a floatation to weight ratio that would be ideal as in running the same tyre on both your 110 and IIa wouldnt be a fair comparison as there is a weight difference...

Serg
It sounds like more to do with your tyre pressures at the time as there isnt much difference in size between the 750r16 to the 235/85/16 but then again the weight could have caused a bit of the probs but then again the V8 verses the deso in the sand is like chalk and cheese were my mates 4bd1 county struggels i glide on through because i have more low down power ...

both vehicles where running 40psi in all tyres...

my truck has a 2.8 international tdi so does allright down low but not the same as his 3.9 built for torque....

theres about 40mm difference betwen the tyres, not much i know but then again Bens 2 rigs only have about the same difference between them, probably more weight for him than anything...

my mates rig would be better balanced than mine but not a great deal lighter if at all....

its all good though fun is the main thing... im waiting on some SS 9/34 to play with...should help me out a bit....tht plus my front locker goes in soon.

Serg

uninformed wrote:

lokka wrote:

uninformed wrote:

ISUZUROVER wrote:

uninformed wrote: do you put that down to weight?

they both have sals rear correct?

Serg

Big heavy engine... The IIA also has 285/75s. The 110 has double the power and torque, but it doesn't make up for the heavy engine.

Both have Sals rear - IIA is shaved. However I am talking about the ease with which they roll over soft sand, not extraction when down to the axles.

I would happily drive either, but the IIA has an easier time of it.

so you put this down to floatation of the wider tyres??? i havent drivin the type of sand you have, alot of rainbow beach and fraser isl though.... but that isnt tough sand driving.....as i said before it was funny how i seemed to be doing it tough on my 235/85r16 big horns and my mate did it easier on his 750r16 mich xzl's... but maybe it was only the top that was soft, it just seemed that mine had to displace more sand around the front of the tyre than his.....was interesting driving though...

i guess no 2 conditions are the same....i wonder if there is a floatation to weight ratio that would be ideal as in running the same tyre on both your 110 and IIa wouldnt be a fair comparison as there is a weight difference...

Serg
It sounds like more to do with your tyre pressures at the time as there isnt much difference in size between the 750r16 to the 235/85/16 but then again the weight could have caused a bit of the probs but then again the V8 verses the deso in the sand is like chalk and cheese were my mates 4bd1 county struggels i glide on through because i have more low down power ...

both vehicles where running 40psi in all tyres...

my truck has a 2.8 international tdi so does allright down low but not the same as his 3.9 built for torque....

theres about 40mm difference betwen the tyres, not much i know but then again Bens 2 rigs only have about the same difference between them, probably more weight for him than anything...

my mates rig would be better balanced than mine but not a great deal lighter if at all....

its all good though fun is the main thing... im waiting on some SS 9/34 to play with...should help me out a bit....tht plus my front locker goes in soon.

Serg

WTF is SS 9/34 ???

Also the more lockers the beta my front is sitting in the shed

ss 34*9 + super swamper 34x9.

http://www.intercotire.com/tires.php?id=8&g=1



Michael.

Ah yep ok i like these ones also http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/ftopic157975.php

bugger

uninformed wrote:
so you put this down to floatation of the wider tyres??? .

I think it is more the extra 200kg of motor than the tyres. Either way, the worst of WA sand is MUCH worse than the worst of QLD sand I have driven in.

"heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if you run out of bullets you can throw it at someone"

borris the blade

Is this group buy confirmed? Keen to get the project rolling..

cheers Jeff

uninformed wrote:"heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if you run out of bullets you can throw it at someone"

borris the blade

One of my favourite movies ever

Micka wrote:The prices are yet to be confirmed 100% as it will depend on how many sets there are. As for the time line?...Most replies on here are suggesting that a lead in time of a month or more is needed. I personally wont be affording mine til the new year - probably Feb - so maybe we can start making a serious list of purchasers for a Feb group buy?

So that you get an idea, the price will be roughly around $1200, but this depends on the numbers in the group.

Yes this will go ahead but as Micka pointed out the general seems to be in the next month or so as the dollers for most of us around Xmas time.