Thread: electric 4wd through transfer case

Originally Posted by MLD

<snip>

cjc-td5 - your comment was the original of the thought but then i factored in the inconsistency of power from the engine, changing of gears etc which would have to be co-ordinated with the electric motor to avoid them fighting against each other or stripping gears.

.

Easily done & non issue

just need a simple microswitch on clutch pedal to tell electric motor to go into freewheeling mode whilst changing gears on ICE .

the electric motor (HPEVS motors anyway) has hall effect sensor will only feed in the power you need , and is programmable. IE if there is no load on the motor it backs off the power without user input , Which makes them awesome for 4x4ing , one wheel loses traction power comes off , so no useless spinning of wheel if its in mud or in the air & no bang when it regains traction. - clever stuff.

Originally Posted by MLD

John - might be late in the day thus my mind is a bit mush but i didn't follow point 2. The others are minor in the grand scheme of things. Pick 2 identical motors modulated with rpm sensors and ecu. Any uni student in electrical engineering could code a simple program to keep the motors spinning in unison. Venting = hole in case with tube on end. The motors will be mounted to the chassis.

Point 2 - the motor installation needs to provide alignment for the gear, keep oil in the TC and out of the motor, and deal with thrust. This is not a difficult design problem, but it has to be designed.

The others are relatively minor as you say, but they have to be dealt with. You say "the motors will be mounted to the chassis" - but the transfer case is rubber mounted, so the motors need to be too, and in such a way that motors plus TC flex together, deal with the torque reaction from the prop shafts and transmission brake, and do not impose loads on the motor structure that it was not designed to handle.

The question that occurs to me is "why two motors?". I would have thought that a single motor twice the power would have been more cost effective and probably lighter, with less engineering work. Am I missing something?

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Point 2 - the motor installation needs to provide alignment for the gear, keep oil in the TC and out of the motor, and deal with thrust. This is not a difficult design problem, but it has to be designed.

I could have sworn that the input gear on a LT230 TC was firmly mounted between two opposing internal taper roller bearings. The gearbox output shaft into the TC is held stable by the input gear, a motor would be quite happy there. The oil seal would just run on a collar on the input shaft, possibly an adapted auto spud shaft.

Originally Posted by bee utey

I could have sworn that the input gear on a LT230 TC was firmly mounted between two opposing internal taper roller bearings. The gearbox output shaft into the TC is held stable by the input gear, a motor would be quite happy there. The oil seal would just run on a collar on the input shaft, possibly an adapted auto spud shaft.

Correct. I think someone is thinking of an different type transfer to the the LT230

There isnt any more/less problem mounting the motor/transfer combo than any of the plethora of engine swaps that have been done.
With little effort a very simple cradle setup supporting and strengthening the motor/box unit could easily be fabricated and mount up on typical engine mounts to the chassis.
Portable gen sets are an example straight up.
Laziness would even allow the supporting channels/subframe to bolt up to the original chassis mounts.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

You say "the motors will be mounted to the chassis"

you take me too literal, all i meant by that is the motor would be self supported off the chassis not dead weight on the TFC.

[/QUOTE] The question that occurs to me is "why two motors?". I would have thought that a single motor twice the power would have been more cost effective and probably lighter, with less engineering work. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE]

why not, i'm just entertaining my curiosity. Hopefully one day i'll have the money, time and skill to implement my pondering.

Originally Posted by bee utey

I could have sworn that the input gear on a LT230 TC was firmly mounted between two opposing internal taper roller bearings. The gearbox output shaft into the TC is held stable by the input gear, a motor would be quite happy there. The oil seal would just run on a collar on the input shaft, possibly an adapted auto spud shaft.

Correct, this is the same way that the LT230 mounts in a Santana PS10 / Iveco Massif , Divorced from the gearbox with a short coupling , the Electric motor can be bolted up the the LT230 in the same way as the Gearbox does. Ditto putting a Motor on the PTO side with a suitable adaptor plate. That style of mounting is sufficient for the motor in the same way as a VW Electric conversion just bolts the the gearbox side and other side of motor is unsupported. But for practical purposes the motors would be better supported on their own mounts for torque control.

like I have done here.

PS I ordered motor with Auxiliary shaft , that is not required in my LandRover conversion , I thought perhaps I might mount a pulley onto it for power steering pump as I originally intended the motor to go into a PT Cruiser.