My buddies and I have been discussing this recently. With regearing and larger axles what can these engines really turn?

I myself have run 36's on a 4.88 geared 4-banger w/an auto. I'm not claiming it was a powerhouse, but off-road I could spin the tires w/o much trouble. It could also run 70-75 on the highway.

With say 5.13 or lower and either 2.72 (stock) or lower t-case, what tires do you think this little engine could turn.

We're thinking 39.5 TSLs w/ 5.13's and a little lower t-case gearing.

A buddy of mine has a 2.5 w/36s and 5.43 in Ford 9s. Spun them just fine. Also had a SM420 bolted up to it. (yes, thats right a SM420)... He could have easily go up to 38+ and still wheel with'em and that little 2.5 just fine. I guess you'd see the weakness if you really needed the HP to "get it" :rolleyes:

uh i know a guy who wheeled with 5.89 and a 4:1 with 36's he did ok it would only go 55 on the road though. he went 39's and he couldn't wheel for shit now he is doing a 350 swap

AKA...jeeper111?

I'd say 33" ATs is pushing it!! :flipoff2:

Paul

With really low gearing you may want to concider the size of the pinion, escpecially in the D30. Many people don't feel safe using 4.88+ because of easy pinion breaking.

I don't know. I havent ever taken my Jeep anywhere but the mall, but it does quite well with 4.10s and 38 SXs.

With really low gearing you may want to concider the size of the pinion, escpecially in the D30.

First off-

With regearing and larger axles what can these engines really turn?

Secondly-

Many people don't feel safe using 4.88+ because of easy pinion breaking

It would be 4.88 and lower. But there currently isn't a manufacturer who produces a lower gearset for the 30/35 than 4.88. Not that it matters because the question was posed with respect to larger axles where deep gearing is possible.

Thanks for sharing your immense wisdom on this topic :rolleyes:

Navsik- how do you really feel about this?:D If I remember correctly you've looked at this before....

Scott @ Rockstomper runs a Toyota 4-cyl with his 44" tires. He seems extremely pleased with the performance because I hear he is getting ready to put an even smaller 4-cyl engine in out of some rice-burner car. I like 4-cylinders because you can stomp the skinny pedal and never break anything. Of course, there is an exception to every rule. I once saw a guy hammer it so hard with his 4-cyl that he snapped a 14-bolt shaft.

J. J.

I run 38.5x14.5 Swamper SX's on 5.13 gears and do quite well. I have had no major problems other than stalling on really big stuff do to the lack of HP, but that is what the 350 TBI is sitting in the garage is for.

Originally posted by bigdude

We're thinking 39.5 TSLs w/ 5.13's and a little lower t-case gearing.

if you want to be realistic, then go by the book -
you start from the wheel size, and as you said, 39.5".

for that you'll need a beefy axle, not less than D-60 f/r.

for those yo'll need a reasonably strong tranny and a fine
t-case(not a D-300, for God's sake). these DO'NT come
stock with ANY four banger.

add strong enough frame, cage, body etc, and you'll end up
with some HEAVY stuff for any 4banger.

sure, with low enough gearing you will be able to move
anything, but then again why not buy a tractor or better yet
one of those military torquy diesel $hits with 100hp, which
can only hammer downhill....:D :D

for those yo'll need a reasonably strong tranny and a fine t-case(not a D-300, for God's sake). these DO'NT come
stock with ANY four banger.


I agree with you on the axles. The question was posed for a Jeep running a HP60 front and 14 Bolt rear (mine, to be more specific)

Now I agree that a strong tranny and t-case are needed for a strong engine. But, with deep gearing in the diffs, how much of the tire size is actually relayed back to the engine/tranny/t-case.

If your running 5.13 gears the stress dealt to your tranny/t-case from large tires encountering an obstacle is really not that significant (IMO of course). On top of that the engine is simply not capable of too much HP, therefore why do you need a tranny/t-case that can handle high HP?

So frog- why exactly des someone need a tranny/t-case capable of handling high HP when they are running a puny 4-banger? (With respect to the fact that deep diff. gears serve to disconnect the engine from the overall mass of a large tire)

Originally posted by patooyee
[B] I once saw a guy hammer it so hard with his 4-cyl that he snapped a 14-bolt shaft.

[B]


:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
my friend runs a 650 hp motor with 44in boggers and his right foot is made of lead and he has never broke a shaft. I find it hard to believe somebody could do with a weak ass 4 banger. But then again anything is possible.

I find it hard to believe somebody could do with a weak ass 4 banger

I did see a 35 spline D60 rear shaft that was broken by a toyota 4-banger (22RE? or something right). Twisted it right off at the splines.:eek:

Originally posted by smathers



:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
my friend runs a 650 hp motor with 44in boggers and his right foot is made of lead and he has never broke a shaft. I find it hard to believe somebody could do with a weak ass 4 banger. But then again anything is possible.

That's because you live out in the west where you have perfect traction! Out here in the east, where REAL trails are, nothing is bomb-proof!

No, just kidding.

But just to make the story even more amazing, he was only running 35" boggers.

J. J.

Originally posted by bigdude


So frog- why exactly des someone need a tranny/t-case capable of handling high HP when they are running a puny 4-banger? (With respect to the fact that deep diff. gears serve to disconnect the engine from the overall mass of a large tire)

according to your argument, the transmission & t-case strength is determined ONLY by engine's output, with no regard to the axles and wheel size, and especially to WEIGHT. this argument is wrong.

if this was the case, you would'nt have seen those heavy military vehicles with poor engines(4/6 banger with lousy output figures like the M-320 Dodge command car and many others) which have those SM/NP heavy duty trannies and t- cases like NP-205 etc.

the fact is that weight is a key parameter and this is what i posted -"...and you'll end up with some HEAVY stuff for any four banger".

this means that there is more to it than just wheel size and gearing - weight is the key element and this what eventually determines the choise of tranny & t-case.

ofcourse, if you could build a vehicle with big tires and heavy axles that would be also lightweighted, then you would'nt have to use strong tranny & t-case.

to make it even clearer - take for example the 250 and 350 truck models of all the leading makers, and you'll see that although they have small tires(28-29"), they have very stout h/d trannies and t-cases. and why? because of their own weight and the huge loads they have to carry.

to sum it up - if you could build a vehicle with big tires and strong axles that would not weigh more than the stock vehicle out of which you are getting the tranny & t-case, and the gearing would be compatible with the tire size, there is no reaso at all not to
do it.

unfortunately this is very difficult, if not impossible.

here is to you:beer: :beer:

Originally posted by the frog


according to your argument, the transmission & t-case strength is determined ONLY by engine's output, with no regard to the axles and wheel size, and especially to WEIGHT. this argument is wrong.

if this was the case, you would'nt have seen those heavy military vehicles with poor engines(4/6 banger with lousy output figures like the M-320 Dodge command car and many others) which have those SM/NP heavy duty trannies and t- cases like NP-205 etc.

the fact is that weight is a key parameter and this is what i posted -"...and you'll end up with some HEAVY stuff for any four banger".

this means that there is more to it than just wheel size and gearing - weight is the key element and this what eventually determines the choise of tranny & t-case.

ofcourse, if you could build a vehicle with big tires and heavy axles that would be also lightweighted, then you would'nt have to use strong tranny & t-case.

to make it even clearer - take for example the 250 and 350 truck models of all the leading makers, and you'll see that although they have small tires(28-29"), they have very stout h/d trannies and t-cases. and why? because of their own weight and the huge loads they have to carry.

to sum it up - if you could build a vehicle with big tires and strong axles that would not weigh more than the stock vehicle out of which you are getting the tranny & t-case, and the gearing would be compatible with the tire size, there is no reaso at all not to
do it.

unfortunately this is very difficult, if not impossible.

here is to you:beer: :beer:

Not saying that you are wrong but I still don't follow:

Input TQ did not change.
Output le was reduced by diff gearing
(In the case of rockwells by almost 61%)

Are you saying the stuff will break on compression braking?
Or since weight is the big point is it will break just sitting at idle?
Somebody clear this up for me.

The military often used what they had and did some overkill too plus as well all know MIL spec stuff is good stuff, they didn't want alot of failure in the feild.

As you mentioned the critical number is weight, the 4 bangers are going to have to stay as light as possible and 1200 lbs of tire plus another 1500 lbs of axle. The 4 banger would have to overcome the added weight of the tires and running gear plus the extra rolling resistance of the larger tire. Then you have the added drag due to the extra height.

I think if you never plan on using it on the highway you could run 40"+ tires. You would need to expect a top speed of about 50 though which is right inline with the military rigs.

Originally posted by bigdude


I did see a 35 spline D60 rear shaft that was broken by a toyota 4-banger (22RE? or something right). Twisted it right off at the splines.:eek:

That's because Toyota's GET IT ON! Seriously, if your axles are up to it, you can go about as big as you want, just leave your 4.10's (or whatever your Jeep equiv is - that's stock Toy gearing) and slap a doubler under your truck, or some kind of lower t-case gears and you'll be crawlin'. BTW, I was on the hammers this weekend (fri) and just watching Scott's green toy on his 40's or 42's crawl over everything there was amazing. He walked up everything. Maybe it's just a toy thing:flipoff2:

Not trying to argue with you frog I'm just trying to further my education:D

My question was posed for a stripped down Wrangler hauling nothing more than myself and a passenger. I do not take many "on the trail" overnight trips where the Jeep would be extremely loaded. The vehicle also never see's the highway.

Here's a run down of what is going on

The axles themselves are adding around 700lb over my previous set (d30 & ford 8.8- 656lb).

I am switching from 5- 36x12.5 SX's to something in the 37-39 range. With the loss of a fullsize spare I'm guessing not much weight added.

I lost approximately 125-150lb in spare parts which I no longer need to carry (2 full sets d30 shafts, 2 spare d30 hubs, more front joints and shafts)

I lost a back seat, say 30 lb

Roof (soft top), say 50 lb

Doors, say 50 lb

BIG ASS tool box (no not me:flipoff2: ), 130 lb

That is ~400 lbs in savings ovr it's previous stature

So figuring all else is the same the net weight gain is around 200-300lb. I've never had engine/tranny/t-case problems with my Jeep before while carring an extra passenger (read as 200 lbs easy) so I don't see it being more probable now. The weight I previously ran is heavier than stock, however in 4 years of wheeling I never had a problem.

Like you said-
if you could build a vehicle with big tires and strong axles that would not weigh more than the stock vehicle out of which you are getting the tranny & t-case, and the gearing would be compatible with the tire size, there is no reason at all not to
do it.


I'm pretty much going from one stage to the next w/o too much weight gain and with diff/t-case gearing to offset tire size. I'm just looking for opinions on what people have seen in the past or used themselves before I order up my tires this week:D

hello Bigdude,

in light of what you described, you will be fine , but you will have to accept two new realities:

1) the lower(numerically high) the gears are , the weaker
the pinion is.
that might cause breakage in certain situations. it's much easier
to replace axleshafts/hubs/u-joints on the trail, than a
ring & pinion gearsets.

2) you will not be able to go fast and you will not have "bursting power", even in those situations in which you would prefer to hammer it down. how serious that would be, depends ofcourse on your 4banger's output and the tire size you choose.

good luck on your "tractor quest" :D:D

frog

Originally posted by patooyee
Scott @ Rockstomper runs a Toyota 4-cyl with his 44" tires. He seems extremely pleased with the performance because I hear he is getting ready to put an even smaller 4-cyl engine in out of some rice-burner car. I like 4-cylinders because you can stomp the skinny pedal and never break anything. Of course, there is an exception to every rule. I once saw a guy hammer it so hard with his 4-cyl that he snapped a 14-bolt shaft.

J. J.

Scott has 200or so:1 low range. He doesn't do too much freeway flying with his rig either.
Cordhttp://www.rockstomper.com/images/products/custom/shopjunk/hybrid/disk8/Mvc-004f.jpg

1) the lower(numerically high) the gears are , the weaker
the pinion is.

I understand that, but with a HP60 and 14 bolt, I'm not too worried about R&P strength in the 5.13 range (as low as you can go in a 14 bolt). Frankly I don't think I'd be worried about it even if I had a larger engine. I mean what is stronger (besides Rockwells sp?)?


2) you will not be able to go fast and you will not have "bursting power", even in those situations in which you would prefer to hammer it down

If you've ever had a 4-banger YJ then you'll know that bursting power was never an option, even with 27" tires from the factory:D

I guess I've seen so many Toyota guys running 4-bangers with deep gearing in the diff/t-case that I thought maybe I'd try it in my Jeep.

Again-

I'm just looking for opinions on what people have seen in the past or used themselves before I order up my tires this week

Originally posted by bigdude

If you've ever had a 4-banger YJ then you'll know that bursting power was never an option, even with 27" tires from the factory:D


:D :D :D

the only one i had was a 4.0 l inline 6.

well, i guess you've got it all settled.

let me know how it comes out:beer:

Originally posted by cord318


Scott has 200or so:1 low range. He doesn't do too much freeway flying with his rig either.
Cordhttp://www.rockstomper.com/images/products/custom/shopjunk/hybrid/disk8/Mvc-004f.jpg

I don't know how often he takes it on the freeway, but I do know that he has. I do know that it's his DD though.

I'd go for it...had a buddy in high school that had a yj with 2.5 and 4.56 gears with 33's, then he got dana 44's for it and put 5.38 gears in and ran 38's and had more power than with the 33's, I think if you run 5.13's with 39's you'll be ok, but you might want to go with some lower tcase gears. Well, thats my $.02 anyway.

Good luck,
Justin


p.s. it was his daily driver and he even drove it from East TN, down to Florida when he went off to college.

Alright it's down to the wire, I want to order in the next few hours.

37" MT/Rs are cheap, light, and work well.

Swampers are larger, work well, are heavier, and cost some more

Help!!!!!!

I just ordered ranco 44044 spring for the F&R:D , along with an optima and Warn9500hsi, on top of high-impact beadlocks:D

Mastercard loves me

Originally posted by bigdude

I just ordered ranco 44044 spring for the F&R:D , along with an optima and Warn9500hsi, on top of high-impact beadlocks:D

Mastercard loves me

$$$hit man, you are LOADED :flipoff2: :rasta: :rasta:

may i borrow your plastic?!;)

You can borrow my plastic once it stops smokin':D

Actually I just got $2500 back from taxes last week so that's paying for most of the junk.

What do you think frog-

swampers in the 38.5-39.5 range or stick with 37" MT/Rs because they are light enough for my little motor:question:

Originally posted by bigdude
You can borrow my plastic once it stops smokin':D

Actually I just got $2500 back from taxes last week so that's paying for most of the junk.

What do you think frog-

swampers in the 38.5-39.5 range or stick with 37" MT/Rs because they are light enough for my little motor:question:

...38's.....38's.....38's.....38's.....38's.....38 's.....38's.....38's.....38's.....38's.....38's... ..38's.....38's.....38's.......:D :D

Originally posted by bigdude
You can borrow my plastic once it stops smokin':D

What do you think frog-

swampers in the 38.5-39.5 range or stick with 37" MT/Rs because they are light enough for my little motor:question:

tell you what - no way you're going to go for those Boggers:

a) they are too big even for the fantacies you have:D :D
and
b) seriously now - they have so much more traction so it will
make it harder for the little motor, AND i'll bet you now that
they'll chew your tranny/t-case.

besides, those MTRs are so fashionable nowadays, so why not be a fashionable guy?;)

Wasn't talking about boggers, I was talking about TSL's or SX's

I was joking about anything in the 39 range just to get you fired up:flipoff2:

Mainly I'm debating 38x12.5 (TSL or SX), 38.5x14.5, or 37x12.5 MT/R

(yes I know there was just a poll/thread about this, I was just wondering if I could make these work with my motor.

I guess the answer is yes, so really I just need to consult that thread for tire opinions.

Also I don't think a Bogger gets that much better (if any at all) traction than the other tires I've listed (except in thick mud of course where boggers rule)

Originally posted by bigdude
Wasn't talking about boggers, I was talking about TSL's or SX's


Mainly I'm debating 38x12.5 (TSL or SX), 38.5x14.5, or 37x12.5 MT/R
Also I don't think a Bogger gets that much better (if any at all) traction than the other tires I've listed (except in thick mud of course where boggers rule)

definitely 38.5x14 SXs. just love'm. i wish they'd
make them in 44"s.
and your'e right about the Boggers - simply incredible
for mud but NO GOOD for rocks.

can we have some pics to see what it's all about
or is it just talk talk talk with you :rasta: :flipoff2: :rasta:

just to get you all fire you up;)

can we have some pics to see what it's all about
or is it just talk talk talk with you

:flipoff2:

Spent all the money on the Jeep, no digi-cam. I'll steal the one from work for a night and get some pics next week after I get the 44044's strapped to the axles and the winch mounted up:D

I just didn't want to be one of those guys posting up the "look at my half done sh!t" pic's. But since you asked so nicely;)

Unfortunately my wheels, tires, and feul cell wont' be here for another week or two. I keep getting the run-around from Allied about 8-lug beadlocks and production problems.

I think 38.5x14.5 might even be pushing it a little. I'm thinking 38x12.5 TSLs because they stand a little taller than the 38x12.50 SXs and are a little lighter (plus a little cheaper). I'm still torn so I've decided to sleep on it.

It just sounds so good to say 38's instead of 37's:D

Any further input guys, the order gets placed 1st thing in the morning

Why don't you wait until you get your axles on and see how it runs with the 36s you've already got? That should give you a pretty good idea.

I would definitely go with the 12.5s if you are going to get the 38s. My buddy in waco ran 39.5s with a 4to1, 5.89s, and a 4 cyl. From what I hear, it worked a lot better w/ the 36s he had before. Didn't take long for him to pull the four out. Anyway, let me know what ya decide. Lata.

Already sold the 36's so that's a no go. Besides I think 36's with a 60/14bolt(shaved) combo would be pushing it a little.

Simple math tells me that going from 4.88 to 5.13 will afford the same feel with a 38 vs. a 36. Now if I got TSLs instead of SXs I'm geting a lighter weigh tire which will help.

Anyway, where are you at in FL Chico? I'm in Brandon just east of Tampa