Frank, any news from Mark, re ratio & costs yet????

Post by **Ian Sharpe** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:13 pm

thanks

Post by **Bitsamissin** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:11 am

Sorry Ian I haven't heard anything yet.
Don't worry I've harrassed the hell out of him and left heaps of messages, I'm as keen to find out as you are.

Frank.

Post by **Grantw** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:30 am

Hey i am keen too.... :lol:

Post by **Ian Sharpe** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:58 pm

ok mate thanks,

the suspense is killing us ...............

Post by **Bitsamissin** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:03 pm

Here's the reply I got today from Mark, not as good as we first thought.

G'day Frank,
Here is some info you could put on the web and give to Barry.

Original Gears:
Input 19 teeth o.d. 87.8mm (Root dia.70.6)
Idler 25/18 teeth o.d. 110.9mm/84mm
Output 26 teeth o.d. 114.8

Possible Ratio Change:
Input 24 teeth o.d. 82.15mm (Root dia.68.65)
Idler 34/20 teeth o.d. 113.88mm/69.46mm
Output 38 teeth o.d. 126.57
Ratio 2.6916

The major problem with changing the ratio is the input gear
has to be smaller. The drive dog still has to be assembled to
the gear and we need a land big enough to do this. If the
root diameter of the gear is too small it takes away the land
for the dog. Its a bit of a catch 22.

I will check this ratio but it may be a possibility;

Possible Ratio Change:
Input 24 teeth o.d. 82.15mm
Idler 34/18 teeth o.d. 113.88mm/69.46mm
Output 40 teeth o.d. 126.57

Ratio 3.1481

Cheers,
Mark

Post by **Ian Sharpe** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 6:48 am

Thats a bit of a bummer!@.

I'm not sure what mark says here.

one one hand he says only 2.69 is possible but then he goes on to say 3.14 may be possible???

anyway 2.69 is still a 41% increase but 3.14 would be better (65% inc)

what do others think

Post by **PAJMAN** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:32 am

Not quite as low as I was hoping for, but any change will be better than standard. 3.14 (or lower) would certainly be preferred.

John

Post by **Grantw** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 1:30 pm

2.69 is better than a kick in the teeth but surely 3.14 would be a far better option. Ill keep my fingers crossed for the 3.14 version. If 3.14 is possible i would not be so keen on 2.69.

Post by **Adomw** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:20 pm

Lads,

The way I look at it is:

With Transfer Case (TC) @ 1:1.9,
1st low is lower the 1st High
2nd low is only 10% lower than 1st high

With TC @ 1:2.69,
1st low is lower than 1st high
2nd low is 90% Lower than 1st High
3rd Low is slightly higher than 1st high

With TC @ 1:3.14,
1st, 2nd & 3rd low are lower that 1st high
4th low is 10% lower than 1st high

So I'd be happy with 1:2.68 and exstatic with 3.14

Ado

Post by **Bitsamissin** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:05 pm

Yep 3.15 is the go

Barry went to see Mark today as he just needed to make sure there was enough room in the t/case and there is.
So thats a 60% reduction overall

Post by **Grantw** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:43 pm

woohooo

Post by **Bitsamissin** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 6:41 pm

Ok standard 1st gear low range reduction is :-
3.5 V6 5sp = 3.952 x 1.90 x 4.636 = 34.8:1
3.5 V6 auto = 2.804 x 1.90 x 4.636 = 24.7:1
2.8 TDI 5sp = 3.952 x 1.90 x 4.90 = 36.8:1

With 3.15 t/case gears 1st gear low range reduction is :-
3.5 V6 5sp = 3.952 x 3.15 x 4.636 = 57.7:1
3.5 V6 auto = 2.804 x 3.15 x 4.636 = 40.9:1
2.8 TDI 5sp = 3.952 x 3.15 x 4.90 = 61:1

For Ian who has done the 4.90 diff conversion :-
2.804 x 3.15 x 4.90 = 43.3:1

Not too shabby for a Paj mine is at 55:1 (3.0 V6 5sp) now with the 2.85's and this makes a massive difference offroad in crawlability soon it will be 60:1 with the 5.29 diffs

Post by **Adomw** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:14 pm

Schweet

Let me know as soon as they are ready!!

Ado

Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Frank, any news from Mark, re ratio & costs yet????

Frank, any news from Mark, re ratio & costs yet????

re

re

Who is online