well did some light wheeling barely qualifys no problems came up...... then after im chillin with some friends and tried to show up a friend and his shitty ricer fart can civic 1-2 shift 4200 rpm..... bang 3.30 gears and 31s


http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5972/shittydanaig7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


edit also killed the output shaft

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9301/outputtt2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

My rear 44 in my 1100 went out with me even trying to pull anything stupid. Just driving down the highway, minding my own damn bidness.:homer:

yeah, i learned. not fun leaning the window and seeing your tire, wheel and knuckle laying on top of the snow thats about even with your head lights.
then getting to replace ball joints while laying in and on said snow.

good times.:D
there's a KP 60 in there now.:laughing:

Was that with the turbo motor?

Was that with the turbo motor?


ya and the tf 727 has a shift kit

There's your problem, too much tractor power!

I'm sure it has nothing to do with your gearset being 34 years old too:shaking: If you had the proper tire size to gear ratio, that wouldnt have happened.

If you had the proper tire size to gear ratio, that wouldnt have happened.

really?


i have 2 sets of 3.73s i was going to use then move up to 33s





on a side note the 3.30s id say are *perfect* highway gears for a 345 with 31s 65mph is right on the lower half of the power band and gives you lots left to play with

If you had the proper tire size to gear ratio, that wouldnt have happened.

There's nothing wrong with that gear ratio/tire size.

Gears are levers. You put too much strain at the end of that lever, somethings gonna give. With that ratio, the pinion is only touching a few ring gear teeth.

Assuming that your scout came with 29" tall tires factory it should go like this;
29"=3.30, 30"=3.54, 31"=3.73, 32"=3.92, 33"=4.10, 34"=4.27, 35"=4.56, etc...

As far as the sweet spot argument, why does a scout need to go faster than 70mph?anything over that and your just a hazzard on the road:flipoff2:

And really, what did you expect to happen? 5200lb rig, wound way high up, extra hard shift, powerlock, and your an idiot. I guess this thread should have been titiled 'I asked way too much of my 34 year old junk and it broke, how dare it!'

Upgrade to an axle that can handle you.

hahahaha well guys are still running around in 30 yo hemis camaros and mustangs :flipoff2:


well i found that 70 mph is a real sweet spot acceptable millage and it doesn't take 2 days to get where your going. plus it pulls 11 or 12 hg of vacuum anything under 10 it starts binge drinking

hahahaha well guys are still running around in 30 yo hemis camaros and mustangs :flipoff2:



Really? I didn't know they made those cars with D44's, 3.30 gears and 31" tires. :rolleyes:

Like I said, your an idiot. You had a poorly set up axle come apart while doing something stupid. Boo hoo.

Move this thread to the gen forum if you wanna try and brag about being an axle killing bad ass.

Gears are levers. You put too much strain at the end of that lever, somethings gonna give. With that ratio, the pinion is only touching a few ring gear teeth.

I hate to touch this, but I think you are backwards in your theory.

Since the ring gear diameter is close to constant od at 8.5", the pressure applied on the gears for different ratios will be a function of the torque the tires are seeing. If you are accelerating at the same rate with 2.73 gears vs. 4.56 gears, they will both be seeing the same force on the ring gear at a distance from the carrier/axle shaft centerline.

Because the ring gear is the same for all ratios, with numerically higher (i.e. 3.31) gears, the pinion gear must be larger, increasing contact area between the two gears.

quick recap of why numerically higher gears are stronger than deep ones.
1) larger pinion diameter reduces the amount of stress placed on the surface of the teeth
2) Larger contact surface area reduces pressure on teeth which can
3) be made larger, therefore stronger.

hahahaha well guys are still running around in 30 yo hemis camaros and mustangs :flipoff2:


well i found that 70 mph is a real sweet spot acceptable millage and it doesn't take 2 days to get where your going. plus it pulls 11 or 12 hg of vacuum anything under 10 it starts binge drinking

For which engine?

I feel like my 345 starts making it's best power at about 50mph. i've got 3.31's and 31's and a t-19. It feels like it would run 70 at the rpm it's at at 50. could use an OD or 2.76 gears, which I may do.

Really? I didn't know they made those cars with D44's, 3.30 gears and 31" tires. :rolleyes:

Like I said, your an idiot. You had a poorly set up axle come apart while doing something stupid. Boo hoo.

Move this thread to the gen forum if you wanna try and brag about being an axle killing bad ass.

to see the idiot in this thread try a mirror.
I had no idea binder motors liked high rpm.
4.56s with no OD and only 35" tires would suck
my ford had 3.73s and 35s, worked nice
my chev I had 4.10s then 4.88s and back to 4.10s with 38s. 4.10s were much nicer on the road then the 4.88s and the 3000+ rpm to stay with traffic on the highways here

See below to see the difference in RPM's as you follow binderbounds tire/gear progression...


Tire size Ratio Speed RPM
28 3.07 65 2395
29 3.3 65 2485
30 3.54 65 2577
31 3.73 65 2628
32 3.92 65 2675
33 4.1 65 2713
34 4.27 65 2743
35 4.56 65 2845


I also second the opinion that as you go to a lower gear ratio the pinion diameter decreases and the resulting pinion to ring contact area is decreased - resulting in a 'weaker' gear setup as you lower the ratio. The problem is we have a fixed ring gear diameter (hence one of the reasons ring gear diameter increases as you go to stronger and stronger axles).

In theory the piece of crap 2.72 ratio is going to be way stronger than the tough guy 5.13 ratio - factoring the pinion to ring contact as the only factor.

For which engine?

I feel like my 345 starts making it's best power at about 50mph. i've got 3.31's and 31's and a t-19. It feels like it would run 70 at the rpm it's at at 50. could use an OD or 2.76 gears, which I may do.


hmmm interesting at around 50 id say its about 2600 rpm and its seems like its just under the power band maybe its the propane and the setup but say 60 -70 (right below and above 3000 rpm) is where it seems to be the strongest and happiest and pulls good vacuum it has lots of power left after 70 but it starts reading about 5-2 HG of vacuum and millage is down the drain and anything after is WOT and then its boost witch is a different ball game

Really? I didn't know they made those cars with D44's, 3.30 gears and 31" tires. :rolleyes:
blah blah blah yack yack yack


.

what ever mac i was just pointing out 44s suck and they still do! dont get you panties in a bunch :shaking::crybaby2::crybaby:

First off, those look like some pinion pieces mixed in with ring gear pieces in the bottom of that diff, but I'm not positive.

Second, yes a larger pinion means more tooth contact 'but' you have less ring gear teath to contact so the contact area is questionable. contact.:p

Thats how the leverage thing comes into play. asking a big pinion gear to turn a less # of toothed ring gear, puts a lot of stress on it. Just like your 10 speed bikes. Put the chain on the big front sprocket and the small rear sprocket, the fucker is hard to pedal.(yes, I know the rear sprocket is 'smaller' but it has less teeth, just like your ring gear. Same diameter but less teeth) And vise-versa, small front sprocket and large rear sprocket makes it really easy to pedal. So again leverage, the harder to turn ratio of 3.30 killed the output shaft as well. If it had been a lower ratio(# higher) it would have just spun out or broken a shaft. Thats why guys who wheel with 44" tsl's and 4.10 gears are always twisting off drive shafts, where as the guys with a more correct ratio break shafts and hubs.

Sooooooo, a more correct ratio for 31" tires probably would have prevented this, I believe.

But what do I know? I'm not nearly as smart, experienced, or as good looking as Chief, Larboc, or MJ:shaking::flipoff2:

I hate to touch this, but I think you are backwards in your theory.

Since the ring gear diameter is close to constant od at 8.5", the pressure applied on the gears for different ratios will be a function of the torque the tires are seeing. If you are accelerating at the same rate with 2.73 gears vs. 4.56 gears, they will both be seeing the same force on the ring gear at a distance from the carrier/axle shaft centerline.

Because the ring gear is the same for all ratios, with numerically higher (i.e. 3.31) gears, the pinion gear must be larger, increasing contact area between the two gears.

quick recap of why numerically higher gears are stronger than deep ones.
1) larger pinion diameter reduces the amount of stress placed on the surface of the teeth
2) Larger contact surface area reduces pressure on teeth which can
3) be made larger, therefore stronger.

Your forgetting that there are less ring gear teath as the pinion gets bigger.

I almost wonder if its just an old wives tale about tall gears being stronger just because the size of the pinion? Sure the pinion gets huge but the ring gear teeth get fewer. Arent you just transfering strength from one gear to the other?

But what do I know? I'm not nearly as smart, experienced, or as good looking as Chief, Larboc, or MJ:shaking::flipoff2:


well you got one part correct at least
your gear ratio theories are out to lunch
post the tooth counts

First off, those look like some pinion pieces mixed in with ring gear pieces in the bottom of that diff, but I'm not positive.

Second, yes a larger pinion means more tooth contact 'but' you have less ring gear teath to contact so the contact area is questionable. contact.:p
:


Not so fast:
Ring gear/Pinion Gear Ratio
43-14 3.07
43-13 3.30
46-13 3.54
41-11 3.73
45-11 4.09
50-11 4.56
44-09 4.89
41-08 5.13

It looks as if it is not a fact that the lower the ratio the greater # of ring gear teeth. It alos looks like from the above the 3.54 might be the "strength/contact area" champ... :flipoff2:

Not so fast:
Ring gear/Pinion Gear Ratio
43-14 3.07
46-13 3.54
41-11 3.73
45-11 4.09
50-11 4.56
44-09 4.89
41-08 5.13

It looks as if it is not a fact that the lower the ratio the greater # of ring gear teeth. It alos looks like from the above the 3.54 might be the "strength/contact area" champ... :flipoff2:

Well then, I stand corrected. Whats the 3.30 tooth count? It all looks good on paper but I dont always believe the #'s.

I still belive in the leverage of the gears though. A deeper gear would have prevented his breakage. 3.30's and his set up arent the best IMO. Sure, for playing boy racer on the free way its fine. But for launching off the line and street racing, its not.

I guess I'm just basing my argument on real world experience. The trophy ranger has 5.38's in the rear end and it runs 40 spline axles to handle the torque. It also has a 700hp 351 and will do 130 across baja. Same with the F150, it has the identical rear end set up. Other racers and Chrisman told us that taller gears wouldnt hold up to the power and shock loads. I believe it all comes back to leverage. I ruined more drive shafts in my red scout with 3.73's and 34" tsl's. I switched to 4.10's and never broke another driveshaft. I started breaking axle shafts:rolleyes:

Like i said before, I stand corrected.

it was just the pinion that that teeth were striped off.

3.30 in the scout was 43:13

it was just the pinion that that teeth were striped off.

3.30 in the scout was 43:13

Why did you edit out the part about the J20 gears?


So if it was all pinion teeth that broke off, that kind of shoots everybodys idea that larger pinions are stronger. At least in this one instance.

Why did you edit out the part about the J20 gears?


So if it was all pinion teeth that broke off, that kind of shoots everybodys idea that larger pinions are stronger. At least in this one instance.

ah caus i did my math wrong and thought they were 3.33 but they were 3.07s


ya who knows maybe they were screwed from the beginning and that was the straw that broke the camels back