Thread: Gear change set for MSA5G LT230 configuration

Don't go the 1.222, even with 33's it was to low. 1.003 will be perfect for your set up, I only found it a tad to tall when fully loaded and towing my camper trailer in the big hills of tassie.
Now I have gone the msa5r and 1.192 case with 33's which gives similar 1st and 5th as the 5g and 1.003 tcase but lower 2nd, 3rd, 4th. I plotted these on a graph somewhere, will see if I can find it.

Thanks Vern.

You provided a comparison g and r box graph in my other thread.

Taking those Tassie hills as an example, was it a case of a lot of 4th/5th changing or rather 3rd/4th changing, allowing you were towing. Without a tow in place what were your impressions? How would you rate your progress against other vehicles of similar nature on the road at the time ie your Toyos and Niss if towing or not.

Did you feel the other vehicles were unfairly disadvantaged (Consider this the 'Parkinson' part of the interview).

And in reality were you able to hit around 1800 rpm and sit 100-110kph on more undulating terrain? Any idea of you fuel consumption around this rpm?

There are fewer of us running the MSA compared to LRover boxes so I guess it's going to be harder to garner comments on what I intend doing. If nothing comes out of left field to say it's a bad idea then I'll get the gear from Ashcroft in the next day or so (watching the pound to dollar exchange).

That combo was great, just not 100% happy with towing. Didn't have the grunt to pull in 4th on big hills, but sat on the governor in 3rd, so wasn't quite right.
3 of us were away, all towing the same campers, 1 100series 1hd fte chipped witg exhaust, 1 gu 3.0 chipped with exhaust. I just couldn't quite catch the 100 series, but could out run the gu. All due to gearing.

Undulating hills it was fine in 5th, but the occasional back shifting was required.
I only took one fuel reading when towing in really strong head winds and lots of hills, 16.4L/100km.
For your set up, i would definitely go the 1.003 transfer case (i kept mine just incase i want to change back), assuming you have one.

I tried flicking back through your Tassie issues but could not find a reference easily. From memory, I believe yours was a dedicated original 1.003 t/case (I'm not familiar with this box), and as such the input gear cannot be extracted via the bearing race access port at the back of the box (bearing recess is too small for the gear itself?)

I'll be using a 1.222 box, changing the internal ratios to a 1.003. Unless I'm wrong, this should mean I can do field repairs straight through the t/c bearing race backing plate port, instead of total removal of t/case. Think I'll shoot another email to Dave Ashcroft to be sure...

I see I omitted in the first post that I was converting a 1.222...my bad...have sneaked in an amendment.

Cases are the same, the issue is you can't get the 1.003 input gear past the other gears when it is on the gearbox output shaft.
Comes out the back of the box perfectly fine otherwise, so issues not the case, issue is the gearsets.
I have a 1.003 apart i can measure if you like, not sure i still have the input gear though.

Sorry i do have the input gear which is the same diameter as the 1.222 input gear i have as well.

Originally Posted by Vern

Cases are the same, the issue is you can't get the 1.003 input gear past the other gears when it is on the gearbox output shaft.
Comes out the back of the box perfectly fine otherwise, so issues not the case, issue is the gearsets.
I have a 1.003 apart i can measure if you like, not sure i still have the input gear though.

What he said.

I am running 1.222 with 33.3s and an LT85. I am happy with the ratios, but would also be happy with 1.1 or 1.003. I am doing a lot more towing and farm work these days so the 1.222 works well.

Dave Ashcroft has just confirmed - says the hole is the same, its that the rear most gear on the intermediate is bigger.

Not much can be done about it then. Still need the 1.003 by the sounds of it.

Vern & Isuzurover, out of curiosity where do you source the 1.19 and 1.1 and do they still present the same extraction problems?