Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: 30 or 49% lower low range ?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    13,786
    Total Downloaded
    0
    I have the 49% with 255/85s, LT85, 4BD1(T).

    Happy so far. My only concern is on soft sand if Reverse high is too high and my only other choice is really low. Have not tried that out yet though...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    5,101
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MLD View Post
    Based on Ashcroft ratio calculator a 30% reduction for a TDI is about 62:1 for first low. A standard Puma is about 64:1 in first low. Can you borrow a puma for a comparison?

    Granted the ratio step up from first to second in the puma is wider than the R380. But you fit reduction gears for the benefit of first low primarily.

    MLD
    I dont know what numbers you are using, but the MD 30% low range, in a 300
    Tdi defender result in approx 56-1, the 49% low range result in appox 65-1

    2nd low 30% = 32.574-1
    2nd low 49% = 37.335-1

    3rd low 30% = 21.341-1
    3rd low 49% = 24.464-1

    4th low 30% = 15.279-1
    4th low 49% = 17.512-1

    5th low 30% = 11.765-1
    5th low 49% = 13.485-1

    1st high = 18.441-1
    2nd high = 10.649-1
    3rd high = 6.978-1

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW far north coast
    Posts
    17,285
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Tony, current low range just doesn't cut it, particularly descending.

    Far too many times I've been riding brakes hard trying to prevent the old girl running away and modulating the pedal to prevent lockup when I'd rather be inching my way downhill utilising engine braking.

    I know, I know, a 4BD1T fixes that, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

    I just had a gut feeling that the 49% lower gearing was going to be a tad too low for what I do, I'm just interested to see if anyone has actually experienced this in use.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    2,182
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rick130 View Post
    Tony, current low range just doesn't cut it, particularly descending.

    Far too many times I've been riding brakes hard trying to prevent the old girl running away and modulating the pedal to prevent lockup when I'd rather be inching my way downhill utilising engine braking.

    I know, I know, a 4BD1T fixes that, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

    I just had a gut feeling that the 49% lower gearing was going to be a tad too low for what I do, I'm just interested to see if anyone has actually experienced this in use.
    Rick,save yourself all the heartache and just buy an Underdrive
    You get the best of both worlds,you retain all your original ratios,and gain a lot of lower ratios,for those times that you need them
    Wayne
    ​VK2VRC
    "LandRover" What the Japanese aspire to be
    Taking the road less travelled
    '01 130 dualcab HCPU locked and loaded
    LowRange 116.76:1

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW far north coast
    Posts
    17,285
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LowRanger View Post


    Rick,save yourself all the heartache and just buy an Underdrive
    You get the best of both worlds,you retain all your original ratios,and gain a lot of lower ratios,for those times that you need them

    In an ideal world Wayne......

    But it's not a rockhopper, it's my work truck and weekend/holiday escape vehicle so is a little hard to justify the expense of the UD.

    And the t/case is about to get a rebuild which is the reason for the Q.
    While it's apart....

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    victoria
    Posts
    270
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rick130 View Post
    Tony, current low range just doesn't cut it, particularly descending.

    Far too many times I've been riding brakes hard trying to prevent the old girl running away and modulating the pedal to prevent lockup when I'd rather be inching my way downhill utilising engine braking.

    I know, I know, a 4BD1T fixes that, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

    I just had a gut feeling that the 49% lower gearing was going to be a tad too low for what I do, I'm just interested to see if anyone has actually experienced this in use.
    if only you were closer i could show you how good they are on the steep stuff

    probably to low for other uses - but you change your driving habit and that becomes safer for the vehicle

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Stanwell Park, NSW
    Posts
    1,668
    Total Downloaded
    666.1 KB
    Quote Originally Posted by uninformed View Post
    I dont know what numbers you are using, but the MD 30% low range, in a 300
    Tdi defender result in approx 56-1, the 49% low range result in appox 65-1
    R380 first 3.692
    LT230 stock 3.321
    LT230 30% reduction (3.321 divided by 0.70) = 4.744
    Diff 3.54

    3.692 x 4.744 x 3.54 = 62.006

    To net up you divide by 0.70 not multiply by 1.3.

    MLD

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    5,101
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MLD View Post
    R380 first 3.692
    LT230 stock 3.321
    LT230 30% reduction (3.321 divided by 0.70) = 4.744
    Diff 3.54

    3.692 x 4.744 x 3.54 = 62.006

    To net up you divide by 0.70 not multiply by 1.3.

    MLD
    Not according to Mal Story.

    Original low gear ratio 19/40 = 2.105 - 1
    30% low gear ratio 20/55 = 2.75 - 1
    49% low gear ratio 23/72 = 3.130 - 1

    Def t/case 26t x 41t = 1.577 primary reduction

    Total t/case low range reduction:

    Original = 3.319585 (say 3.32)
    30% = 4.337
    49% = 4.936

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Stanwell Park, NSW
    Posts
    1,668
    Total Downloaded
    666.1 KB
    Uniformed you may be quoting the correct ratios produced by Mal but your mathematics to call it a 30% reduction as a mathematical equation is incorrect. 4.744 x .70 = 3.32. If your ratio is correct then it's not a 30% reduction.

    MLD

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Stanwell Park, NSW
    Posts
    1,668
    Total Downloaded
    666.1 KB
    Ps it does not change my original point that testing a puma will give you the fair comparison of what a reduction will translate to. It means on your maths a standard puma is near enough to the 49% reduction gears.

    MLD

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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!