Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Is their any logical reason why ARB have designed their system so that you cannot engage either the front or rear by itself? You must select one and then you can select the other.

For instance, to engage the front locker you must have the rear one already engaged. But of course you can turn the rear one on by itself.

Just wanted to know if there are any legal reasons such as ADR's or Standards that it needs to be this way.

I will most likely mod the wiring to suit being able to turn on either locker anyway, im just curious.

Thanks!

you can make it so that you need to engage the front lokka first if you want. I think its a good system if you cant get up lock the rear still cant gat up lock the front aswell still cant get up return your car to toyota and buy a nissan ha ha.

My understanding is that you use the rear locker before you use the front. The front locker is used only when needed and when switched the way your talking about you can turn both off by switching just the rear switch. This set up works well for me.

In what situation dou you use the front locker and not use the rear?

When you dont have a rear in which case put the the front locker switch on the rear locker wiring on the loom and when / if you get a rear swap it over ie put the rear on the rear and the front on the fron.

I have mine wired up with the rear must be on first as in comps the rear stats on and I can turn the rear off and it disengage both in one hit or just disengage the front, works well for me.

musta being talking gammy when you picked it up

From memory, you connect the two yellow wires (from each switch), then you can operate the front or rear first.

Liam wrote:From memory, you connect the two yellow wires (from each switch), then you can operate the front or rear first.

sounds about right, or just bypass the loop, all you need to do is have power at the switch from the ignition, some also go direct from the battery so it doesnt dissengage when the ignition gets restarted in a stall

And back to the question, anyone? I've been curious about this too.

Being able to turn off both with one switch doesn't really cut it... why not just use two fingers?

CanberraMav wrote:
In what situation dou you use the front locker and not use the rear?

Wet logs can some times be a pain in the ass when fully locked up. Have front off when front is going over, then as it hits the ground lock it and unlock the rear. I have had to do this a number of times because when it was fully locked up the log keeped wanting to push the rig along it.

i was told its done for a safety issue, so if ur hanging on a weird angle , you cant engage just the front which may grab and tip the truck over backwards

dont know how true it is thou

CanberraMav wrote:In what situation dou you use the front locker and not use the rear?

You would be suprised just how often in my buggy I use the front without the rear.

Offcamber ledges are a good example. If you use both the rear will slide down the slope. With it off it will allow the front to cimb up and once its up you hit the rear and drive it up.
If you get bound up you turn the end off that is bound up and it will drive out of that bind real easy.
Doing Front Diggs to make a tighter turn.

bilby wrote:i was told its done for a safety issue, so if ur hanging on a weird angle , you cant engage just the front which may grab and tip the truck over backwards

dont know how true it is thou

It was done because of the streeses put on CV joints in the front. They dont want people being able to lock the front on its own and then break something. Your less likely to break something in the front with the locker on if the rear is allready engaged.

The TJM Pro locker is wired exactly the same.

RUFF wrote:It was done because of the streeses put on CV joints in the front. They dont want people being able to lock the front on its own and then break something. Your less likely to break something in the front with the locker on if the rear is allready engaged.

The TJM Pro locker is wired exactly the same.

Thanks dude, thats the answer i was looking for.