Thread: part time 4wd

About $800 for the Santana kit.

What you get is poorer road holding and increased risk of diff breakage, particularly if you have a Disco 2, P38a or later Defender.

Diana

I think that its a furphy.

I just did a quick search to confirm.
Cars Australia - Used cars Australia - New car Australia - Car reviews Australia | carsguide.com.au

You will notice that the LC100 DX is a 4,2 manual diesel with Part time 4WD uses 13l/100km in town. The LC100 GXL 4.2 manual which is full time 4WD uses the same amount of fuel.

I tend to think that spinning a propshaft, front diff and 2 half shafts is fairly insignificant in a 2.4T vehicle.

I also dont believe it reduces wear. My experiences are that wear in race engines goes up exponentially with an increase in revs. Assuming exponential wear in diffs, then you will probably find that the wear rates are not only reduced because they are shared, but with the lighter loads passing through them, that you will get significantly less wear again.

If you are right into heavy 4WDing, then you wouldn't run a front auto locker anyway.

As others have said - if anything it will be detrimental rather than beneficial.

I know plenty of LC owners who have needed to rebuild their front end because of PT 4x4/FWH (usually water ingress rusting the upper half of the crownwheel).

I removed the FWHs on my (PT) IIA and fitted solid drive flanges. It made 0 difference to fuel consumption.


However, there are a few kits around to do the conversion.

The possible savings in fuel consumption will not warrant the initial cost of a conversion, in addition to all the detrimental effects named above.
Just my 2c

Cheers

you could do it.....

but theres no point.

the handling characteristics of the vehicle would get screwed up especially for gravel road condition and hard pack stuff with something loose on the top where you dont usually run the CDL locked.

For what its worth many years ago I had a series 11a SWB fitted with FWHs - i did several trips with them locked and then the same trips with them unlocked - fuel consumption was slightly better with them locked! (same load, same roads, driven the same way). i have also noted over the years that the quickest way to wreck front tailshafts and front diffs etc is to fit FWHs - the shaft sits in the same position and the sliding joint wears in the one position, and the diff tends to pick up moisture which then condenses on the top part of the crown wheel as noted by Isuzurover.

I have also found that operating coil sprung landrover product in two wheel drive (after removing a tailshaft and locking the centre diff - usually when diagnosing vibrations etc) upsets the handling and makes them unpleaseant to drive.

Full time FWD has many safety benefits and any slight increase in fuel consumption is irelevant (IMO) when compared to the tangible benfits of full time FWD

Christopher

i think it would be detrimerntal to the centre diff big time, if you are going to stop the front diff turning, just putting freewheeling hubs on ain't gunna work.

however, i can see legal complications with reducing the vehicles handling and traction - who is going to approve engineering reverse safety?
and will your insurance company buy it?
as said above, it will make little or no difference to the fuel economy
it's a furphy that the other makes without full time 4wd are better,
if they were, why are they all going to full time 4wd.

that'll be a resounding "don't bother" then

thanks for all the responses all the reasons you have given make good sense

i'm not the most mechanically knowledgeable person out there but generally get it if someone points me in he right direction