Pirate 4x4 banner

21 - 40 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
Wow you guys rock. Usually when I post some crazy stuff like this it takes weeks to get nearly this many responses with 1/8 this amount of information. You have given me allot of stuff to go research more before I can really respond very well.

But I will say in general I think the mud dragster setup looks to be the closest to what I was I wanting and if you guys are still interested in helping me out I am really looking for specific info on those suspensions and driveline setups, the Lingerfelter setups as well. I would really like to keep this old school but I am more focused on function over form, so if something works better then it gets the pick even if it looks too new or trick.

I want this to be old and ratty with lots of steel and iron with a big truck axle suicide out front like the mud dragster, to lull the unknowing modern tech fiends and their flashy bs $ parts so I may roast them when this monster actually performs like a raw beast from hell. Basically something you would need to coerce your girlfriend into climbing in, and that your mother would never get into, and your grandmother would probably not even recognize as a car. Granted you personally may have very different relatives than most, but you get the idea I am going for here.


Not that I want the truck parts for looks really, but my main priorities are
#1 strength and durability
#2 availability
#3 size and weight

I really think the live axles might work really well and can give a ton more anti-squat/pro-lift. I don’t want to use a modern independent awd system. I would like it if the pieces are smaller or lighter or have better ground clearance so I can get the car low, but none of this matters if I can’t find the part or if it is going to break when I launch the car with 800 ft/lbs with a manual and 4 sticky tires.

Also someone said something about a part time case and narrow hard tires, I am building this to really work. And hard narrow tires don’t really work well and I think grippy wide tires will eat a locked part time case alive when trying to turn all the time with no differential. No offense, I appreciate the idea and it would help a ton if I could use a np205 or similar part time case but this is just not the route I really want to go with it.

I also would really like to use a manual if at all possible. I can build a c6 for the application if I need to but I really want a manual. Also I would use a full manual valve body with a transbrake in the c6 so I don’t think the juicebox is gonna be any easier on driveline parts setup in that fashion.

The astro/bravada/typhoon transfer case looks promising if it has been proven to 700hp. Is there any way of possibly divorcing it or mating it to a ford tanny?

I build stuff to abuse the hell out of it and I wouldn’t build an engine this strong if I wasn’t going to use it, and I wouldn’t build an awd system unless I needed it. This is why I build stuff overkill too, I don’t know if it will really make quite 800 but it should be at least over 700hp and torque so I would like to leave a bit of headroom. This is why I am interested in the hardcore truck parts.

Also for the 2000lbs I meant the base foundation when it was a rear drive dragster type build. I can’t really guess how much the awd parts like the heavy ass front axle and big transfer case are going to add yet because I don’t know which ones I am going to need to use. I am hoping to keep the extra awd parts under 1000lbs? With the heaviest hardcore parts I might need to use to reliably handle heavy abuse with this engine, is staying under 3000 lbs reasonable?

That is still a serious power/weight ratio and that much power will be 100 percent more usable 90 percent of the time turning 4 wheels vs the rear drive setup I believe. And of course it always might even weigh in substantially lighter, but I am not disillusioned about the weight penalty of this concept.

I am very encouraged by the response so far here and I really think this might work. I don’t mean to ask all this and not reply thoroughly but like I said I need to go research more and I will get back to you with more specific responses, I really do appreciate the input greatly.

Also are there any specific thoughts on the whole front live axle/ pro-lift idea?

I am not forgetting you Tim, I will look into the mud dragster 5 link you mentioned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
Also for the jeep tranny, how will that connect to a big block ford? I doubt there is a bell housing for this.

The wagon np 229 or amc np129 transfer case sound cool but how strong are they and where the hell would I find them?

I have read a bit more on the 229, part-time/full-time? How is this designed exactly? Does it have a differential? That would be really cool if I could have a full time 4 wheel drive transfer case with a differential and the ability to shift into 2 wheel rear drive. This also has a viscous coupling? Is this coupling used AS the differential or is it used as an lsd IN the actual differential? If the later are there any other lsds available for it anyone knows of?

I also found a replacement drive chain and it is 1.75” wide, the np203 is 3” wide so that is a big difference for possibly the weakest part of the driveline.

What are your opinions on the chain drive strength? Allot of people locally are telling me the chain drive is weak and that is part of the reason most switch to an all gear np205. But other places I have read say the chain only breaks from misuse and neglect, and if taken care of with proper oil it is nearly bulletproof. What is the deal here?

Oh and sorry about any confusion before on the 385 thing, I didn’t even realize that I only wrote big block and not specifically big block FORD. It is a 460 base engine. I think I want to stay nearly stock displacement but there is a chance I might stroke it which would mean even more torque over a broader range. Basically without going into too much detail the plan is a 460 with a tunnel ram manifold and probably zoomies ( I never had the freedom of an open engine bay before) with a HUGE cam, 7000 rpm.
 

·
Dinkerdoodledoo
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
They're mentioning the Jeep trans because it uses a Ford bell housing bolt pattern and will mount any of the t-cases mentioned with stock parts. Might take a bit of mixing and matching, but not really tough to do.
 

·
Apple
Joined
·
11,704 Posts
Also are there any specific thoughts on the whole front live axle/ pro-lift idea?
The first thing that comes to mind is Supercars, one of the issues with AWD platforms is the inertia created by the additional drivetrain and the power robbed by it. AWD is slower off the line than a properly set up RWD because of this. If I were setting up an AWD platform like yours I would still try to keep as typical an AS number on the rear as possible for launch and then rely on the awd for control. I wouldn't want the front to come of the ground, but I would want most of the power to go to the rear wheels. That may be one more thing to look at, can you control the torque split F/R?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
I use to have an old book that covered swapping a V8 into an S10 that had a feature on an older S15 that Lingenfelter built to put Cyclones in there place. We modeled the same exact truck in the shop I worked in part time in high school. I can't find the book any more... but with a little searching I see that he built a new version... interesting read if nothing else.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/527910
http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/83863_chevrolet_stealth_s15_drag_racer/index.html
http://www.cbrperformance.com/gallery.php

I know your working with a Ford motor... still good info though. I like the RAWNESS of what your proposing:D

-Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,812 Posts
With the new information / clarification from the OP, I gotta say, do a D44 up front, wishbones (hairpins) and concentrate less on getting significantly larger amounts of 'hook' up front. This will keep the chain alive. A chain driven T-case (at least of a 'normal' modern type) is most likely to break (at least the 'chain' portion) when you are diggin hard when only the front tires have traction.

The 'rear' output stuff is straight-thru and as strong as anything else you could possibly run. With the light weight target, plus the fact that the harder you are hitting this thing, the less load the front would see (at least in -for example- the 60 foot area). Once you get the thing out of the gate, a little weight settles back on the front end and it will do a fine job of keeping you hustling in a straight line. Really would not be much shock load up there.

As far as the T-176 bolting to a Ford bellhousing. The front of the T-176 is the same bolt pattern as a car toploader. My concern is gear ratios, which is why I kinda think C-6, with an advance adapters mainshaft and t-case mount.

Most NP203's are gonna be GM or Dodge, and then you are locked into a pass-drop front axle, which means WIDE track, OR big bling dollars. -EDIT - OR (DUH) - 1979 AND EARLIER FULL SIZE JEEP WAGONEERS AND NARROW-TRACK CHEROKEES - I MUST HAVE HAD A CRACK RELAPSE FOR A SECOND Although, if you COULD find a ford NP203, you would have plenty of beef, and could use a narrower D44 driver drop from a waggy (as mentioned)

regarding the NP229 and 129 availablility, they are everywhere. and they are the 'big' case (like an NP208 -mostly- which is at minimum half-ton -3/4 ton stuff - the 229 and 129 are at least cousins to it) The NP207 and 231 are a much smaller case size (and chain and sprocket size) than those old full-size pieces. - though niether of those 2 are AWD cases, simply used as a size comparison - and people are hanging cherokees, wranglers, and S-10's (usually with an NP231 - or at least they started with one) off their front tires every weekend.

A nine-inch can obviously be built to withstand the force this machine will generate at launch, I would concentrate on the front axle after the 60 foot mark, in the interest of keeping parts alive as much as anything - as well as keeping the machine driveable. If you set up the front suspension to REALLY plant the front tires hard, all strength issues aside, I think you might have yourself a real handfull to keep straight - especially if you plant the right side tire harder than the left.

And for the 'raw' look, a dime-store chrome cover on a D44 front axle, yeah, that would do it. Very anti-tech.

peace
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
They're mentioning the Jeep trans because it uses a Ford bell housing bolt pattern and will mount any of the t-cases mentioned with stock parts. Might take a bit of mixing and matching, but not really tough to do.
Well damn, that is huge. That makes allot more sense now and I really need to look into that, thanks. I honestly have mostly messed with autos before, sorry for my ignorance, but that is why I am here, to learn.

The first thing that comes to mind is Supercars, one of the issues with AWD platforms is the inertia created by the additional drivetrain and the power robbed by it. AWD is slower off the line than a properly set up RWD because of this. If I were setting up an AWD platform like yours I would still try to keep as typical an AS number on the rear as possible for launch and then rely on the awd for control. I wouldn't want the front to come of the ground, but I would want most of the power to go to the rear wheels. That may be one more thing to look at, can you control the torque split F/R?
I will have to look that up, thanks for the tip. Well I should have a good bit of power to rob, except on a well prepped drag strip running slicks rwd that much power isn’t very useful so I may as well waste some of it accelerating drivetrain inertia if it is going to help it hookup in the end.

I was planning on keeping the rear mostly similar to the rwd steup as far as suspension and antisquat. I will play with it and test to see the differences once it is all together though.

I also agree with you on launch, the weight quickly transfers to the rear on a good launch and the hardest launching cars do so on 2 wheels. I think the Lingenfelter s10 proves that it can be done on awd systems as well. If the rear can hook I don’t see why this roadster shouldn’t do the exact same thing.

The torque split is also a major thing. With the 203 I think you can lock the front and rear for offroad use correct? I don’t know about the others but without some major lsd on the differential if you can’t lock it enough torque isn’t going to be going to to the rear wheels to pull the front end and it certainly won’t keep it there for long with the front axle spinning both tires in the air. If it is locked though it will act as a spool would and 100 percent of the drive torque should transfer to the rear as the front end comes off the ground. Nice.

But for unlocked non drag racing I would like something like a rear biased torsen lsd in the center differential like they use on the skylines and new Quattros and have available aftermarket for evos and wrxs. Well the skyline is computer controlled not torsen but the torque IS still rear biased. This makes it less understeer happy like a straight 50/50 split and you can power on oversteer which is fun. Not a major necessity but it sure would be fun to have. I highly doubt I am going to magically find something like this for a np transfer case though.

The front end suspension reaction bite I am asking about would mainly be for, gulp, street use, or corner exit on a road course where it really needs to maximize all 4 wheels. You can exit corners faster with more rear antisquat because you are using engine torque to artificial raise tire loading and grip more than vehicle weight transfer alone, so why not try and also do this with the front axle as well? I think this is part of the reasoning behind the better cornering of a certain kit for the wrx which introduces pro-lift in the front end.

Effect of Whiteline Anti-Lift Kit PDF

I know your working with a Ford motor... still good info though. I like the RAWNESS of what your proposing:D

-Tim
Yes that is an excellent resource. I knew I would find a good bit on the Lingenfelter stuff , I just had not got to it yet. Those pictures of that guy doing the wheelstand then crashing the truck are a bit scary. I never thought about the combination of trying to control landing back down out of a wheelstand AND possible front torque steer as the torque also jumps back to the front wheels while they land when you are still on the accelerator. I don't think there are many vehicles or drivers that have to contend with this.

It also says the tcase is from a yukon, is this the same typhoon tcase?

I'm glad that you appreciate my unique style on this, 99 percent of people don't get me 99 percent of the time it feels like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
Hey Dave I just saw your post. I gotta goto bed but you got allot of stuff there I will respond to tommorro if I can.

You really think the D44 is strong enough and the chain is the weak link? Is this a major consensus because a stronger front axle with more grip will be a waste if it is just gonna break the tcase chain.

Also I have just been thinking about the building and dynamics of the thing, I hadn't really thought about actually needing to control it all that much. That crashed s10 is making me think now though, you really might have a point on that part as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,613 Posts
Also someone said something about a part time case and narrow hard tires, I am building this to really work. And hard narrow tires don’t really work well and I think grippy wide tires will eat a locked part time case alive when trying to turn all the time with no differential. No offense, I appreciate the idea and it would help a ton if I could use a np205 or similar part time case but this is just not the route I really want to go with it.
That was this guy saying that. :laughing: If it's not the route you want to go with that is perfectly understandable. Like I said in my post...you would want to leave it in 2wd most of the time and lock it in to 4wd when you wanted to go fast which I figured would most likely be a straight line. That may or may not be the case. Either way...you're most likely going to break something else before you break a 205.

The case I listed at the top of my post is an all wheel drive case used in the H1. There is some argument over the name as to whether or not it should be an NVG242HDAMG or if NV242AMG gets the point across sufficiently. Either way it is based on an NV241HD which is a surprisingly strong case. The input torque rating on it is not all that high, but it is rated for a substantially higher GVWR than you would see on most other cases. I liken it to an Allison AT545 tranmission. It's only rated for in the neighborhood of 450 ft lbs in input torque, but it's rated to do that at a 30,000 lbs GVWR. As such I doubt a 3500 lbs race car with 1000 ft lbs of torque is going to hurt it.
 

·
Addicted to Gear Oil
Joined
·
10,028 Posts
Tim, sounds like a cool project, got pics?

Edit: Generally you want the same gear ratos and tires size all the way around, but to keep the hot rod look, with proper gear ratio calculations, you could run smaller tires up front and some big fatties in the back.

This is Ferris McCollum’s pink '30 Ford Hotrod (TTC 2001),and from 4WOR rag

http://www.4wheeloffroad.com/featuredvehicles/off_roading_dream_truck/index.html
p180550_large+1930_Ford_Model_A+Driver_Side.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
Not much else to add here, but you might want to take a look at Novak's site while you're in the research mode. Their online 'knowledge base' is a good starting point.

Looks like the T176 was available with (at least) three different gear ratios depending on application.

http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge/t176.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #35
Firstly let me ask if anyone has any links or info for the mud dragsters, because I can’t find anything technical on them anywhere so far. This is really something close to my design ideas and I really wish I could find more specific information about them.

Ok I’ve done a bit more research on the transmissions and transfer cases.

Firstly most of the jeep and even np435 type truck transmissions don’t seem like they are going to work all that well. The gear ratios are just too wide and low I think to use for a light car meant to go fast. The granny first in most of the stronger ones will be useless and even the non granny ones are not very optimal. Most second gears are even lower than first on a car tranny. Secondly I think they will probably break.
The RUG type 10 bolt top cover car ford toploaders, not the t18/t19 or np435 toploaders used in ford trucks, are allot stronger than these truck trannys and I am exceeding even the rated capacity for quality rebuild recommendations on those. Also how do they shift? I want to shift this thing fast, and I hear truck trannys are not really the ticket for this.

Like I said in my post...you would want to leave it in 2wd most of the time and lock it in to 4wd when you wanted to go fast which I figured would most likely be a straight line. That may or may not be the case. Either way...you're most likely going to break something else before you break a 205.
As for the transfer cases the 242 seems like a very interesting case, optional 2wd and full differential action in 4wd for true full time operation. I do appreciate the use in the military hummers and the 30,000 lbs GVWR. But my main concern is the strength of it. It weighs 85lb vs the np203 at like 170lbs. That is one hell of a difference and the chain is nearly 2x the size. Some people are still thinking the chain will break on the 203 too so how is this 242 suppose to hold up? And I really want to have full time all wheel drive for street and road race type driving so the part time cases aren’t going to work. I certainly can’t be driving with a part time case locked in 4wd with 4 big sticky tires trying to turn with no differentiation, especially turning while racing. Like you said even if the np205 isn’t gonna break it’s gonna break something else eventually, not to mention it would handle like crap and wear the hell out of the tires.

I also would like the front driveshaft to be along the passenger side for space reasons. I would like to get it low and I think the clutch linkage and steering might interfere with a driver side front shaft. Also I would like to use a passenger side regular style dana 60 pinion input because I would also like to try and use a front transverse leaf spring and the high reverse cut style pinion will definitely interfere with that in addition to being driver side. As far as I know all np242 implementations are driver side front output right?

Here are 2 pictures I found of the np242 and np203 internals.

np242

np203


Tell me the difference isn't huge there, all ratings aside that chain and the aluminum vs cast iron housing make a world of difference.

If you can remove the gear reduction section of the np203 for use separately in a doubler setup would it be possible to use the remaining tcase without the gear reduction section? If it is used divorced it basically just needs a simple cover and a modified yoke end for the remaining input shaft right? How much weight and length would this cut off the np203?

But I figure if I gotta have the big 203 or something similar with gear reduction, even the 242 has this, do you think it would be possible to use the gear reduction as a gear splitter?

If I choose the lowest ring and pinion ratios I can find for the front and back differentials, would it be possible to make a full 1/4 mile run in low range on the transfer case? Then use the high range for street and highway cruising? I wondered about the abuse the driveshafts would see with the normal torque loads doubled but you guys run crazy granny lows in first and then use the transfer case gear reduction on top of that and your driveshafts live. Do you guys really ever get on the throttle hard when you’re using that much gear though? Does anyone know where to get gears under 3:1 for a 9” and dana 60 dif?

How harsh is shifting between ranges on a np203 on the fly with full clutch disengagement? I can’t tell if it is synchronized at all. That would be crazy to set the 203 up dual stick and have the tcase differential locked like a spool front to back with the one stick for a drag run and launch in low range and shift into high range with the other stick and downshift the tranny after 4th gear is topped out and run it like a 5 or 6 speed. Haha, I imagine that would take some time to learn to shift that way in a reasonably quick manner.

Hell, it would just be crazy having it geared for drag racing then geared to run 250 mph with one shift.

Ferris McCollum’s ride is awesome. That is very much what I am thinking, just lower with slightly different big tires on all 4.
That reminds me for those who were asking I do plan on using equal tire size and gearing on the front and rear axles.

How wide is a d60 knuckle and disc brake setup all together? Like what size rim would be needed to fit that stuff in there with some good wheel backspacing? I am thinking one of the major advantages of a straight axle is that the camber never changes. If I can get the wheel over the disc brakes and knuckle far enough I should be able to get pretty much constant zero scrub radius to control those big tires and severe torque steer.

If I can work around the driver side front driveshaft who thinks a lighter np242 with a dana 44 would work the best?

Who thinks that stuff will break and I should build a np203 with a dana 60 the first time?
 

·
Rolling Mod
04 Wrangler Unlimited, 67 F100
Joined
·
41,554 Posts
If I can work around the driver side front driveshaft who thinks a lighter np242 with a dana 44 would work the best?

Who thinks that stuff will break and I should build a np203 with a dana 60 the first time?
I think for what you are trying to do a 44 or 9" with 44 outers would be the way to go. The knuckles on a 60 are huge and I doubt you will be loading the front end that hard (unless to show off you do a front burn) I wonder if a WJ knuckle assembly and cv would be better as you are wanting to have power to the front all the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,812 Posts
If you are up for the fab work (not impossible, just slightly new territory) I vote for the divorced, range-box-less 203.

Except for the fact that -

Plant the rear tires hard, lift the fronts just enough to spin, and you are smoking the fronts due to the open diff in the 203 - Unless of course you are going to do the drag work with the case locked.

peace
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
I think for what you are trying to do a 44 or 9" with 44 outers would be the way to go. The knuckles on a 60 are huge and I doubt you will be loading the front end that hard (unless to show off you do a front burn) I wonder if a WJ knuckle assembly and cv would be better as you are wanting to have power to the front all the time.
Why a 9" with dana 44 ends? Aren't the outer knuckles usually the weak link on the dana 44? Why put the strongest differential with the weakest ends? If anything wouldn't it better to use d60 outers on the 9" to save weight over the d60 housing? I might do that depending on how much the dana 60 weighs over a 9". It just seems silly to get a whole d60 just for the outers and cut it up and still need custom axles when I could just use the whole thing.

Also I saw that Longfield had CV joints for a d60 like you were talking about with the WJ. They are expensive but I think you are right about the importance of constant velocity with a full time front end. I also think the turning radius capability would be greatly improved. I don't see that they have one for a d44 though. If I did this then going with the 9" would make more sense since I am changing the axles anyways.

Thompson Coupling This would be really sick though. It looks a bit big to fit nicely between a kingpin setup though.

I would like to experiment with allot of pro-lift on the front suspension and see how it works, so I do plan to load the front pretty hard.
Plant the rear tires hard, lift the fronts just enough to spin, and you are smoking the fronts due to the open diff in the 203 - Unless of course you are going to do the drag work with the case locked.
I figure I will have to lock the center differential for drag racing just because there is no possibility of any type of limited slip for it.

I would love it if I could get a torsen for it. The way the differential is driven makes that difficult though. It is driven by the input shaft from the range box which passes through the hollow output shaft that turns the chain that drives the front axle and connects through a splined circle in the center via a cross between the spider gears which turns the entire carrier without directly driving either the front or rear output shafts, accept through the spider gears differential action.

It's at the bottom part of the picture, the upper output shaft is a 2wd conversion peice that eliminates the differential entirely.


This is crazy and unique, it took me a while to figure out because I have never seen or heard of it before, but that area in the center of the carrier is where most limited slip devices live.

But then I found this picture of and audi transfer case and it is setup in a similar but reverse fashion with the input shaft turning the carrier directly but having the front and rear outputs from the differential passing over one another still running through the center. but it still retains a torsen limited slip around the outside of the carrier with the shafts occupying the center. So it is possible but really complex and there is probably little market for it in a np203 transfer case.


A torsen needs input torque from one side to function so like the hummer it must be brake modulated if one wheel comes off the ground. That would probably make it less desirable vs a locker or other limited slip for most off road applications for this tcase, and I think those types of lsd are not possible because of the setup I described. Not to mention you can already lock it with the stock shifter, and unlock it if you get bound up, so you basically got a mechanical arb in it to start with, so there is nearly zero demand for the limited slip carrier that I would really like to have.

I don't think I'm gonna find any transfer case applications that are strong enough that have one either unless I actually steal one out of an audi. Which would be expensive and hard to find and probably not nearly as strong as a 203 and that would also be greatly deviating from the build concept I had going of using old hardcore stuff.

I vote for the divorced, range-box-less 203.
Has anyone ever done this before that you know of?

I don't know allot about the range doubler mod, do you need the 203 input shaft for the 205 doubler setup? Or could I get a 203 and sell the range box off keeping the input shaft if I go this route?

Also any opinions on keeping the range box and using it as a gear splitter? The more I thought about that the cooler it seems actually.
 
21 - 40 of 60 Posts
Top