well i find the wifes new outlander(Mitsubishi) drives far better in 4wd mode :D
it can be driving in both 2wd or 4wd on the road ;)
then you have 4wd lock for off roading:angel:
Printable View
well i find the wifes new outlander(Mitsubishi) drives far better in 4wd mode :D
it can be driving in both 2wd or 4wd on the road ;)
then you have 4wd lock for off roading:angel:
Some of the above definitions are a bit wacky :confused:. A 4WD is either full-time (all wheels driven all the time via a centre diff/viscous coupling - modern LR) or part-time (2WD normally, front and rear axles locked together in 4WD - Patrol, old LR).
Stephen.
Rover introduced full time four wheel drive in 1948 apparently as an improvement on the Jeep system, presumably on the basis that the vehicle would be mostly used offroad, although usable on road. A couple of years later they changed to selectable four wheel drive, and although it is probably impossible to find out for sure after nearly sixty years the reason for this, my guess is either reliability of the free wheel unit or the realisation that they were spending a lot more time on the road than expected.
There is no doubt as top the reason for their re-introducing full time four wheel drive with the Landrover - its documented! It was simply because Rover did not make a differential and rear axle assembly that would stand the torque of the 3.5 V8 through the necessarily low first gear for off road use - they could not risk drivers using full throttle in first when there was good grip with the torque going to only one axle.
Having to adopt full time four wheel drive they found that there were advantages to it, apparently sufficient to adopt it for the 110 (although the axle used there would have stood the torque). But it is interesting to note that selectable four wheel drive, although available on the four cylinder 110s (and a little later the 90) was rarely requested, so that it was phased out after a few years. This suggests that real advantages showed up, or perhaps the customers just wanted to be more like the upmarket Rangerovers.
John
This makes me laugh, everytime I here it, again and again:DQuote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Me too.....oh yeah I have a Tdi.....:(Quote:
Originally Posted by rovercare
The 3.5V8's sound good though :D
Well i prefer permanant 4wd
After driving a few rangies with a tail shaft removed for one reason or another , The result being they drive crap on one axle :eek: so im sticking with the way they come standard
Oh mcrover what about the pajero transfer they can also be used like the creep {jeep} :Rolling:
What needs to be remembered is that Rover was a very small, independent car manufacturer at the time the Rangerover was being designed. And that differential looks suspiciously similar to their prewar ones - when the most powerful engine in their lineup was about 60 BHP.Quote:
Originally Posted by rovercare
John
What's it got to do with rover alone, just about everything from pomland was stupidly underpoweredQuote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
My old man told me about a pom, who came out with the SEC years ago, telling him about, planning on buying a HQ new, sprooking about how powerful the 3.3litre motor will be:D:D:D he'd never had anything over 1600cc:eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
And as far as I remember the earlier Range Rovers had a warning plate about NOT using full throttle in 1st/2nd while in low range.
Martyn
I didnt know the Paj used the NV Transfercase.Quote:
Originally Posted by rangieman
The worst thing about one of the Creeps (as you put it) was that I had to remove the front shaft because the VC locked.