using 4x4 question

I have a question about my 94 F150 4x4 manual 5 speed trans. As most here
probably know ford has 2 hi 4 hi N and 4 low on the transfer case. Plus I
also have manual locking hubs. Now I find myself wanting to use low range
now and then but not the 4x4. So I just leave the hubs unlocked for a 2 low
condition. My question is. Can you damage the drive train by running the
transfer in 4x4 and not locking the hubs.

I'm thinking no if you are not moving when you shift to 4x4. But want to
know what you think about it.

My Jeep's owners manual says it's ok for them to do but to be careful
because double the expected torque is being sent to the one axle.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Nobody wrote:
>
> I have a question about my 94 F150 4x4 manual 5 speed trans. As most here
> probably know ford has 2 hi 4 hi N and 4 low on the transfer case. Plus I
> also have manual locking hubs. Now I find myself wanting to use low range
> now and then but not the 4x4. So I just leave the hubs unlocked for a 2 low
> condition. My question is. Can you damage the drive train by running the
> transfer in 4x4 and not locking the hubs.
>
> I'm thinking no if you are not moving when you shift to 4x4. But want to
> know what you think about it.

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:07:28 -0400, "Nobody" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I have a question about my 94 F150 4x4 manual 5 speed trans. As most here
>probably know ford has 2 hi 4 hi N and 4 low on the transfer case. Plus I
>also have manual locking hubs. Now I find myself wanting to use low range
>now and then but not the 4x4. So I just leave the hubs unlocked for a 2 low
>condition. My question is. Can you damage the drive train by running the
>transfer in 4x4 and not locking the hubs.
>
>I'm thinking no if you are not moving when you shift to 4x4. But want to
>know what you think about it.
>
>

Other than overstressing the differential/axels it is not harmful. It
effectively doubles teh power at the wheels so in theory it could
damage something due to excessive power.

In practice however, it is unlikely--you'd have to get some *really*
good traction!

(I used to do it all the time, too.)

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:05:43 -0400, PeterD <[email protected]> wrote:

>Other than overstressing the differential/axels it is not harmful. It
>effectively doubles teh power at the wheels so in theory it could
>damage something due to excessive power.


Not likely unless thee is a heavy load in bed and/or oversize tires.
If it is stock and pretty empty in rear, you will loose traction long
before you come close to hurting anything.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

"Nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I have a question about my 94 F150 4x4 manual 5 speed trans. As most
> here probably know ford has 2 hi 4 hi N and 4 low on the transfer case.
> Plus I also have manual locking hubs. Now I find myself wanting to use
> low range now and then but not the 4x4. So I just leave the hubs
> unlocked for a 2 low condition. My question is. Can you damage the drive
> train by running the transfer in 4x4 and not locking the hubs.
>
> I'm thinking no if you are not moving when you shift to 4x4. But want to
> know what you think about it.
>
>
>

There is only one related warning, for those who do this on a fulltime-4wd,
that has no 2wd mode, to save fuel:

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/hub_2wd.txt

Still not sure whether this is predominantly a mechanical/bearing issue, or a
lubrication issue.

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand

<[email protected]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

"SnoMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:05:43 -0400, PeterD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Other than overstressing the differential/axels it is not harmful. It
>>effectively doubles teh power at the wheels so in theory it could
>>damage something due to excessive power.
>
>
> Not likely unless thee is a heavy load in bed and/or oversize tires.
> If it is stock and pretty empty in rear, you will loose traction long
> before you come close to hurting anything.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

Thank you all for the input. I am a little confused about overstressing the
drive train though. I am thinking you all are referring to all the engines
power being transferred to the rear. In Hi range I don't think it would make
any different. Low range yes. But at the same time I am thinking their would
be more stress on the drive train with all 4 wheels locked and binding on
hard ground then their would be with front wheels disconnected and rolling
freely.

I remember in my high school years one student told another that a kid or
someone locked one hub in and the other was still free and it messed
something up. I was not part of the conversation, just listening in so I
could not hear all the details other then it happened in a store parking
lot. Also their is the possibility that the student had know clue as to what
he was talking about. Plus he could have been doing something stupid like
playing tug of war on hard pavement and busted his hub and did not want
anyone else to know. Back in the mid to early 90 it was a big thing for
students to find a empty parking lot and hook up their jacked up trucks and
see who could pull who. It was fun to watch them break drive shafts and
stuff. Luckily they were smart enough to pick a location close to a auto
parts store.

You don't see much of that any more. I don't know if the kids are getting
smarter or if the police are cracking down. As for me I will put my money
down on the police.

">
> There is only one related warning, for those who do this on a
> fulltime-4wd,
> that has no 2wd mode, to save fuel:
>
> http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/hub_2wd.txt
>
> Still not sure whether this is predominantly a mechanical/bearing issue,
> or a
> lubrication issue.
>

I would think mechanical because with the driveshaft turning the diff
everything would still be getting lube. I don't have much knowledge with the
kit or other 4x4 setups. But I did put in ball joints on my 94 ford. From
what I seen the whole setup was supported by bearings. What I did not like
was the fact that the hub was made of aluminum. I guess they did that so the
hub would break before the plastic gears in the transmission or transfer
case did. Ford claims that the plastic gears are stronger then steel. But I
have my doubts. But I do have 75K miles on it and its still going strong.

I never seen the inside of mine or any other transfer case. But I have
talked to people that say they have seen them. They said all the newer ford
SUVs and pickups has them. Never heard about the compact cars but I am sure
ford puts them in them to. Its a crime what they charge for a new vehicle
when they are building them with more plastic every year. Another ten years
and the engines will be all plastic. They are already using plastic intakes.

Nobody wrote:
>
> "SnoMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:05:43 -0400, PeterD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Other than overstressing the differential/axels it is not harmful. It
> >>effectively doubles teh power at the wheels so in theory it could
> >>damage something due to excessive power.
> >
> >
> > Not likely unless thee is a heavy load in bed and/or oversize tires.
> > If it is stock and pretty empty in rear, you will loose traction long
> > before you come close to hurting anything.
> > -----------------
> > TheSnoMan.com
>
> Thank you all for the input. I am a little confused about overstressing the
> drive train though. I am thinking you all are referring to all the engines
> power being transferred to the rear. In Hi range I don't think it would make
> any different. Low range yes. But at the same time I am thinking their would
> be more stress on the drive train with all 4 wheels locked and binding on
> hard ground then their would be with front wheels disconnected and rolling
> freely.

No. Same engine power going to one axle pots twice the stress on that
axle than that power split between two axles.


> I remember in my high school years one student told another that a kid or
> someone locked one hub in and the other was still free and it messed
> something up.

Probably the differential, particularly if it was a limited slip unit.
Its also possible to damage an open differential with one hub locked
while running in 2WD for a length of time. The locked wheel will spin
the spider gear in the diff since the other axle and input shaft will
remain (more or less) stationary. Since the bushings in the gears aren't
designed for continuous high speed operation (and the ring gear isn't
throwing enough lube around in the housing), they'll wear out.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloody typical, they've gone back to metric without telling us.

Nobody wrote:
>
> "SnoMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:05:43 -0400, PeterD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Other than overstressing the differential/axels it is not harmful. It
> >>effectively doubles teh power at the wheels so in theory it could
> >>damage something due to excessive power.
> >
> >
> > Not likely unless thee is a heavy load in bed and/or oversize tires.
> > If it is stock and pretty empty in rear, you will loose traction long
> > before you come close to hurting anything.
> > -----------------
> > TheSnoMan.com
>
> Thank you all for the input. I am a little confused about overstressing the
> drive train though. I am thinking you all are referring to all the engines
> power being transferred to the rear. In Hi range I don't think it would make
> any different. Low range yes. But at the same time I am thinking their would
> be more stress on the drive train with all 4 wheels locked and binding on
> hard ground then their would be with front wheels disconnected and rolling
> freely.
>
>snip<

It's the amount of power going out. In 4 low gearing, the engine can
stress all 4 wheels to the point of breaking things like u-joints and
axles. They make parts just strong enough for this amount of power.
Then suddenly you have the power meant for 4 wheels and put it to only 2
wheels and things can break easily.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:18:00 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>No. Same engine power going to one axle pots twice the stress on that
>axle than that power split between two axles.


Correct but I guess they should have said too much stress of drive
axle not drive train.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

Thank you all. It seems we are on the same page. I beleave we all agree that
sense I only use 4 low with hubs free just for speed reduction and not for
the extra power I will be ok. This group has been a big help.

Thanks again

Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Nobody wrote:
>>
>> "SnoMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:05:43 -0400, PeterD <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Other than overstressing the differential/axels it is not harmful. It
>> >>effectively doubles teh power at the wheels so in theory it could
>> >>damage something due to excessive power.
>> >
>> >
>> > Not likely unless thee is a heavy load in bed and/or oversize tires.
>> > If it is stock and pretty empty in rear, you will loose traction long
>> > before you come close to hurting anything.
>> > -----------------
>> > TheSnoMan.com
>>
>> Thank you all for the input. I am a little confused about overstressing
>> the drive train though. I am thinking you all are referring to all the
>> engines power being transferred to the rear. In Hi range I don't think
>> it would make any different. Low range yes. But at the same time I am
>> thinking their would be more stress on the drive train with all 4
>> wheels locked and binding on hard ground then their would be with front
>> wheels disconnected and rolling freely.
>>
>>snip<
>
> It's the amount of power going out. In 4 low gearing, the engine can
> stress all 4 wheels to the point of breaking things like u-joints and
> axles. They make parts just strong enough for this amount of power.
> Then suddenly you have the power meant for 4 wheels and put it to only 2
> wheels and things can break easily.

I disagree completely, here what was written a long time ago:




Btw, here a few more notes about an unlocked (free-wheeling) hub not being
supported by bearings, at least with some brands/constructions:

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/hub_lock.txt

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand

<[email protected]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>
> Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Nobody wrote:
> >>
> >> "SnoMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:05:43 -0400, PeterD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Other than overstressing the differential/axels it is not harmful. It
> >> >>effectively doubles teh power at the wheels so in theory it could
> >> >>damage something due to excessive power.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Not likely unless thee is a heavy load in bed and/or oversize tires.
> >> > If it is stock and pretty empty in rear, you will loose traction long
> >> > before you come close to hurting anything.
> >> > -----------------
> >> > TheSnoMan.com
> >>
> >> Thank you all for the input. I am a little confused about overstressing
> >> the drive train though. I am thinking you all are referring to all the
> >> engines power being transferred to the rear. In Hi range I don't think
> >> it would make any different. Low range yes. But at the same time I am
> >> thinking their would be more stress on the drive train with all 4
> >> wheels locked and binding on hard ground then their would be with front
> >> wheels disconnected and rolling freely.
> >>
> >>snip<
> >
> > It's the amount of power going out. In 4 low gearing, the engine can
> > stress all 4 wheels to the point of breaking things like u-joints and
> > axles. They make parts just strong enough for this amount of power.
> > Then suddenly you have the power meant for 4 wheels and put it to only 2
> > wheels and things can break easily.
>
> I disagree completely, here what was written a long time ago:
>
> Btw, here a few more notes about an unlocked (free-wheeling) hub not being
> supported by bearings, at least with some brands/constructions:
>
> http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/hub_lock.txt
>
> --
> Bye,
>
> Willem-Jan Markerink
>

Hey, take it up with Jeep, it's what it says in my owners manual as I
stated earlier in the thread and make perfect sense to me.

We can bend driveshafts into pretzels in 4 low while splitting the power
from front to rear.

I explode the Jeep locking hubs on a regular basis, so far a Warn one is
on one side and the Jeep one on the other to act like a fuse.

4 low has a 'lot' of power.

My axles have bearings though but that has squat to do with using 4 low
in two wheel drive...

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:50:37 -0400, Mike Romain <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Hey, take it up with Jeep, it's what it says in my owners manual as I
>stated earlier in the thread and make perfect sense to me.
>
>We can bend driveshafts into pretzels in 4 low while splitting the power
>from front to rear.
>
>I explode the Jeep locking hubs on a regular basis, so far a Warn one is
>on one side and the Jeep one on the other to act like a fuse.
>
>4 low has a 'lot' of power.


Unless your jeep is very heavily loaded, it will loose traction long
before drive line is over stresses with stock tires and no mechanical
locker (like a Detriot). What raises heck with them is greatly
oversized tires with stock gears and lockers and users working low
range harder to make up for it and it twists off drive shafts or
wrecks tcase if axle shaft does not fail first. Big tires and lockers
are harder on drive axles than low range is alone.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

SnoMan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:50:37 -0400, Mike Romain <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Hey, take it up with Jeep, it's what it says in my owners manual as I
> >stated earlier in the thread and make perfect sense to me.
> >
> >We can bend driveshafts into pretzels in 4 low while splitting the power
> >from front to rear.
> >
> >I explode the Jeep locking hubs on a regular basis, so far a Warn one is
> >on one side and the Jeep one on the other to act like a fuse.
> >
> >4 low has a 'lot' of power.
>
> Unless your jeep is very heavily loaded, it will loose traction long
> before drive line is over stresses with stock tires and no mechanical
> locker (like a Detriot). What raises heck with them is greatly
> oversized tires with stock gears and lockers and users working low
> range harder to make up for it and it twists off drive shafts or
> wrecks tcase if axle shaft does not fail first. Big tires and lockers
> are harder on drive axles than low range is alone.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

I will 'almost' agree about the stock tires. I break things because I
use tires that don't spin which are nice because I don't get stuck easy
even with open diffs.

If the OP has some high traction tires on, he can also snap things in '4
low'.

We are talking about low in '2 wheel' drive though which you snipped for
some strange reason, 'not' 4x4 and even Jeep thinks you can snap things
with stock tires in that situation...

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:35:12 -0400, Mike Romain <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I will 'almost' agree about the stock tires. I break things because I
>use tires that don't spin which are nice because I don't get stuck easy
>even with open diffs.

It is not just the traction, it is the added strain that bigger tires
place on axle to develope the same tractive effort on ground that is
the real killer here. If you go from say a 30 to a 35 you increase
axle torque requirement almost 20% for same road torque/power and then
they is the extra mass as well with loads axle more in shock loads.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

SnoMan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:35:12 -0400, Mike Romain <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I will 'almost' agree about the stock tires. I break things because I
> >use tires that don't spin which are nice because I don't get stuck easy
> >even with open diffs.
>
> It is not just the traction, it is the added strain that bigger tires
> place on axle to develope the same tractive effort on ground that is
> the real killer here. If you go from say a 30 to a 35 you increase
> axle torque requirement almost 20% for same road torque/power and then
> they is the extra mass as well with loads axle more in shock loads.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

Yup, I am well aware of this, (I stayed in the middle with 33's) same
for the frame twisting factor but that still has zip to do with the OP's
question of doing damage by using low range in 2 wheel drive.

I could gear down, but due to damage I acquired by me not driving my
Jeep one day and being a passenger in a car that was t-boned on the
passenger side while I was in it, my 'hardcore' wheeling days are over
so I will spend my money on other things.

As it sits, my 'flying brick' of a CJ7 gets a nice 23 mpg highway and
almost never sees first in 4 low off road. The trails I run use 3rd low
mostly, 2nd sometimes. We don't rock crawl around here much, more mud
and marches.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:54:40 -0400, Mike Romain <[email protected]>
wrote:

>As it sits, my 'flying brick' of a CJ7 gets a nice 23 mpg highway

If it does that well, I would not touch a thing.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com