Return-Path: Delivered-To: wjmarkerink@mail1.a1.nl Received: from localhost (chatserver.a3.nl [213.171.64.213]) by mail1.a1.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10287D50066 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:08:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail1.a1.nl ([213.171.64.3]) by localhost (backup [213.171.64.213]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 06887-05 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:08:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from flap.boswell-online.nl (flap.boswell-online.nl [213.171.64.13]) by mail1.a1.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BCF3D4FF2A for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:08:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.bronco.com (unknown [62.49.254.229]) by flap.boswell-online.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3E920000B6 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:10:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from helios.net (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bronco.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with SMTP id hATN6nhO013262; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:06:50 GMT Received: from mx2.uniserve.ca (mx2.uniserve.ca [216.113.192.43]) by mail.bronco.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id hATN6ShO024370 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:06:30 GMT Received: from fatwire-201-245.uniserve.ca ([216.113.201.246] helo=bowie) by mx2.uniserve.ca with smtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AQEAP-0004JO-SI for dtlc@helios.net; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:06:21 -0800 From: gbowie@uniserve.com To: Subject: [DTLC] A440-T Case-ATF Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:06:41 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000101c3a96f$1e1989c0$eff0e8d8@yourn06ucsnpof> X-Scanner: OK. Scanned. Precedence: bulk Sender: dtlc-owner@helios.net Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net X-Virus-Scanned: by Spamscan at A1 de internet provider uit Twente B.V. A while back there was discussion on running ATF in the T-Case of the A440's in FJ/HJ60's. I have searched the archives, and it seems at the end of the day that in Australia and Japan this is spec, and it seems to be spec in N/A to run 90W gear lube. There was some mention of bearings playing a roll in which lube should be run, however I saw nothing saying if Toyota supplied different bearings for the N/A auto t-case's. The conversation just sorta petered out, with no real closure. If the N/A A440's will be happy with ATF, that seems to me to be a better way to go, in case the seal between the tranny and t-case go. Has anyone discovered anything new to add to this discussion? Thanks gb Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:41:16 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: "Jeff Zepp" Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] A440-T Case-ATF Greg Bowie wrote: >A while back there was discussion on running ATF in the T-Case of the A440's >in FJ/HJ60's. I have searched the archives, and it seems at the end of the >day that in Australia and Japan this is spec, and it seems to be spec in N/A >to run 90W gear lube. > >There was some mention of bearings playing a roll in which lube should be >run, however I saw nothing saying if Toyota supplied different bearings for >the N/A auto t-case's. > >The conversation just sorta petered out, with no real closure. > >If the N/A A440's will be happy with ATF, that seems to me to be a better >way to go, in case the seal between the tranny and t-case go. > >Has anyone discovered anything new to add to this discussion? Sorry, while I do not have personal experience with the A440F, I can add to the discussion that my daughter's auto-tranny 1985 4Runner does indeed use ATF in the t-case, and this is as the factory intended it. In fact, there is no seal between the tranny and t-case, filling the tranny also fills the t-case. Jeff Zepp From: gbowie@uniserve.com To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] A440-T Case-ATF Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:03:51 -0800 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net >A while back there was discussion on running ATF in the T-Case of the A440's >in FJ/HJ60's. I have searched the archives, and it seems at the end of the >day that in Australia and Japan this is spec, and it seems to be spec in N/A >to run 90W gear lube. > >There was some mention of bearings playing a roll in which lube should be >run, however I saw nothing saying if Toyota supplied different bearings for >the N/A auto t-case's. > >The conversation just sorta petered out, with no real closure. > >If the N/A A440's will be happy with ATF, that seems to me to be a better >way to go, in case the seal between the tranny and t-case go. > >Has anyone discovered anything new to add to this discussion? Ran three part numbers to see applications and years: Needle Roller Bearing Transfer Output Shaft 90364-17010 used in multiple applications from 1980 to 1999. Idler Bearings 90364-38012 used in T-cases from 1985-1999 various applications Bearing, Transfer High Speed Output Gear 90364-40001 used in applications from 1984 to 1999. Some of the newer applications for the output shaft needle bearing is HDJ/FZJ/HZJ 80's, HJ61, FJ70/73/HZJ73, HZJ100's. Does anyone running one of these later model LC's have a manual handy to see what is recommended in t-case of the auto versions, and could you post it please? I suppose that does not definitively answer the question, however Ian B's research in 2002 helps. " "Asked a servicing guru in Oz.... " ...Not all autos got it, and I can't say why, but can guess. Remember the old problem (pre O ring in input gear) with the oil pumping between the gearbox and transfer case? Well...I think there was an attempt by Toyota (putting in roller bearings and ATF) to alleviate a major problem that could be caused by gear oil getting into autos. So; it's not the oil, or type of oil in the transfer that is potentially dangerous. It's the wrong type of oil getting in the auto that is the concern. Gear oil will do quick damage to an auto. The transfer is quite happy to run on either gear oil or ATF. " I guess then since the oil type in the T/C is of no great import, I'd be running the same oil in the T/C as the gearbox/tranny." "