Umm, I understand the torque on the MSA output bearing is 226 Nm. What was the torque on the zf - I can't find any reference in my BMW workshop manual.
Umm, I understand the torque on the MSA output bearing is 226 Nm. What was the torque on the zf - I can't find any reference in my BMW workshop manual.
1995 Mercedes 1222A 4x4
1969 (Now know! Thanks Diana!!) Ser 2 Tdi SWB
1991 VW Citi Golf Cti (soon to be Tdi)
'When there's smoke, there's plenty of poke!!'
'The more the smoke, the more the poke!!'
1995 Mercedes 1222A 4x4
1969 (Now know! Thanks Diana!!) Ser 2 Tdi SWB
1991 VW Citi Golf Cti (soon to be Tdi)
'When there's smoke, there's plenty of poke!!'
'The more the smoke, the more the poke!!'
Ahh i get ya! As i said, my conversion is done, it just got a broken bit. Which hopefully will be fixed in a couple of weeks one i can find someone localish to cut me a 10 spline
226 torque applied to the flange nut.
My train of thought is:
- the 4BD1t is hard on LRover boxes, and my guess is the boxes often fail (bearings etc) before the SAE10 will.
- the 4BD1t with MSA box is good, but now the SAE10 may fail often as not, and generally along with the adaptor case cracking. No proof yet but the Outcast SAE10 may also succumb in the long run. On this point I could be entirely wrong and Sheldon stuff has the design OK just not the treatment process and as others have said the SAE10 has a long history of reliability when lubed. But has any of that SAE10 history been behind engines like the 4BD1t/MSA combo - for example is the SAE10 of our diameters commonly used in the US for its reliability? Yourself has said you were tired of broken small splines.
- have no argument with your approach. Yours may be the long term solution if SAE10 does not in the long run prove strong enough. But how different are the nut torque values between the zf gearbox and the MSA. If very different then this could be the achilles heal in adapting your approach for the MSA or at least something that needs more consideration. On the other hand if your nose draw bolt can easily cope with 226Nm then great!
I'm not asserting as truth that the SAE10 will break period, but am considering the train of evidence of damage with this engine application and extrapolating to see if there are potential issues.
The long term choice maybe the Sitec method and never need see the inside of your t/c again or carry spare zf extension that are easily field fixable for the occasional inconvenient break.
If people read this and say its trash then I will delete so it is not choking the thread.
Cheers......Brian
1985 110 V8 County
1998 110 Perentie GS Cargo 6X6 ARN 202516 (Brutus)
Because 28 spline is common in stuff brian
I guess, and not a lot of good s/h LT85 mainshafts. Most of them were fairly worn on the splines from no lubrication.
Cheers......Brian
1985 110 V8 County
1998 110 Perentie GS Cargo 6X6 ARN 202516 (Brutus)
At the fear of being called a blind leading the blind wanna be here is another diagram.
Common fare for people like Sitec but for the ease of illustration to others.
My guess is it is easier with the MSA to get around the draw bar issue than with zf.
Back to back flanges take care of loading the MSA bearing.
Sitecs idea at the other end takes care of making the input gear robust. Thinking big pipe reduced to press fit into gear as well as welded.
Field serviceable if you ever manage to break it, at the cost of one input gear $100 and a piece of spline pipe $?? Getting over the cost of manufacturing the flange of course.
IMGP3267.jpg
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks