View Poll Results: Part time 4wd or full time

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • part time

    5 8.20%
  • full time

    56 91.80%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Full time or part time?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Ferntree Gully VIC
    Posts
    10,362
    Total Downloaded
    0
    well i find the wifes new outlander(Mitsubishi) drives far better in 4wd mode

    it can be driving in both 2wd or 4wd on the road

    then you have 4wd lock for off roading
    130's rule

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Goolwa SA
    Posts
    262
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Some of the above definitions are a bit wacky . 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.

  3. #13
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    29,530
    Total Downloaded
    0
    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
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Yinnar South, Vic
    Posts
    9,943
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post

    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.


    John
    This makes me laugh, everytime I here it, again and again

  5. #15
    mcrover Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rovercare View Post
    This makes me laugh, everytime I here it, again and again
    Me too.....oh yeah I have a Tdi.....

    The 3.5V8's sound good though

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Free Again Thanks Dan
    Posts
    10,150
    Total Downloaded
    0
    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 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}

  7. #17
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    29,530
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rovercare View Post
    This makes me laugh, everytime I here it, again and again
    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.

    John
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Yinnar South, Vic
    Posts
    9,943
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    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.

    John
    What's it got to do with rover alone, just about everything from pomland was stupidly underpowered

    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 he'd never had anything over 1600cc

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Heathcote (in "The Shire")
    Posts
    5,348
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    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.


    John

    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

  10. #20
    mcrover Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rangieman View Post
    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 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}
    I didnt know the Paj used the NV Transfercase.

    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!