To: From: "Clifford Plavin" Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:31:43 -0400 Subject: [Volvo303] TGB20 Information Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Does anyone in the forum own or have access to a TGB20 6X6 ? I am trying to confirm the ZF part number (10 digit code on spec plate) for the S5 18/3 5-speed gearbox used on this vehicle. Is there a separate parts manual for the TGB20 from the TGB11? I don't believe they list this gearbox in the TGB11 manual. I am also looking for part numbers from Volvo for this gearbox as well as the linkage for it. Please contact me if you have any information or can provide parts for this gearbox. Cliff Plavin 212-254-3541 progressivelabs@nyc.rr.com To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:22:34 +0200 Subject: 6x6 5sp gearbox & 7.5:1 diff gears? (was: [Volvo303] Re: C303 manuals (parts/service/operator) update Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 13 Oct 2004 at 16:34, Jim Molloy wrote: > Richard, > I hope to have the final cost from the printer today. Preliminary, > the cost is on the order of $300 USD. The initial plan is to place the > information on the web for all to access. At this point, we are > fronting the cost of a new domain/website and the work being done by > the printer. If people wish to download directly from the website, > that is fine with me. Our plan is not to charge anything for this > access. The cost of a CD-ROM version will be minimal...just enough to > cover the blank CD and postage. We are not doing this as a business > venture. I just want to see the information more readily available to > all. > > I have a favor to ask. I called Sweden this morning to try to=20 > reach the Volvo Group Suppport Publication Store in G=F6teborg.=20 > Unfortuantely, the only number I have is from 1989. The old number is: > 46-31662539. Definitely a wrong number. Would you (or another of our > Swedish list members) mind locating a current phone number/fax for > this branch of Volvo? The 10-1989 edition of the parts manual is p/n > 212324 in paper format and p/n 212325 on fische. I am still interested > in finding/purchasing an even more recent version of the manual if one > is available. Btw, also on behalf of a Dutch friend (who has the complete Swedish manual, but not this detail): Does anyone know the gear ratio's of the 5sp gearbox that came in the 6x6 (both SWB C304/TGB13 and LWB C306/TGB20)? Or: what is different, lower first gear, taller 5th gear, or only splitted more inbetween? Related question: has anyone ever heard about a 3rd diff-ratio, 7.5:1, on top of the 6:1 (4x4) and 7:1 (6x6)? Exclusively for the C306/TGB20? Being 1300kg more heavy (5700kg vs 4400kg for C304-6x6/TGB13, C303/TGB11 is 3300kg), it does make some sense, but it would also mean an even lower topspeed (and they are not listed as such). Willem (I must now also revise my initial thought about the Dakar Volvo, thinking it must have a modern 5sp that came along with the TDi engine) Jan PS: any opinion on the McGreary (OR 'S.T.A.', Special Tires of America) Superlug 9.00x16?....couldn't find much about it through Google (but then again, there is not much about the Michelin's in that size either....not to mention 11.00x16 or 8.25x16)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:59:32 +0200 Subject: [Volvo303] Does TGB13/6x6 have 'observation' roof-panel too? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Noticed recently that the TGB11 has a nice 'observation' (shooting?) roof-panel above the rear-left seat....does TGB13 have one too? PS: still looking for data on the 5sp gearbox that came in both TGB13 and TGB20! (civilian C304 & C306 (the latter firefighters only?) most likely as well of course) Only question remaining is whether the LWB-4x4 C304 (pickup-only?) had a 4sp or 5sp....:)) Willem (Sherlock) Jan -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: From: "Clifford Plavin" Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:40:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Does TGB13/6x6 have 'observation' roof-panel too? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" > Date: 2004/10/14 Thu PM 02:59:32 CDT > > Noticed recently that the TGB11 has a nice 'observation' (shooting?) > roof-panel above the rear-left seat....does TGB13 have one too? > > PS: still looking for data on the 5sp gearbox that came in both TGB13 > and TGB20! > (civilian C304 & C306 (the latter firefighters only?) most likely as > well of course) > Only question remaining is whether the LWB-4x4 C304 (pickup-only?) > had a 4sp or 5sp....:)) > > Willem (Sherlock) Jan The S5 18/3 gearbox is what is used on the six wheel version TGB20. This gearbox is also used in the Maserati Biturbo, The Bedford Van as well as the Alfa Romeo Montreal for starters. The differences in them are the gear ratios used as well as the gearbox case itself. Each of them has a different output case casting as well as all of them using different bell housings for the respective engines which they mate to. The linkages are all considerably different from one another as well. I have the exploded drawings of each of these units from ZF having researched what is involved in the conversion process quite extensively. The best way to go about it is to get a used or military surplus gearbox in Sweden complete with the linkage otherwise the amount of work involved will be considerable in both time, materials, and costs involved. The advantage to using the S5 18/3 are that it offers a true overdrive in fifth gear with a .79 fifth gear which will allow you to reduce the engine speed considerably when cruising on the highway. This will in turn reduce cabin noise, engine wear, and increase fuel mileage which is a great benefit with the way gasoline costs have been sky rocketing recently. Cliff Plavin To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:28:58 +0200 Subject: [Volvo303] Does TGB13/6x6 have 'observation' roof-panel too? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 14 Oct 2004 at 17:40, Clifford Plavin wrote: > > The S5 18/3 gearbox is what is used on the six wheel version TGB20. This > gearbox is also used in the Maserati Biturbo, The Bedford Van as well as > the Alfa Romeo Montreal for starters. Way cool!....:)))) Never thought to see a Maserati and a Bedford in the same= league....:)) And it also gives some faith when more power/torque is involved, either engine-conversion or -tuning. What spec's did this Maserati have? (or was it one of the many notoriously unreliable models, gearbox not excluded?....:)) > The differences in them are the gear=20 > ratios used as well as the gearbox case itself. Each of them has a > different output case casting as well as all of them using different bell > housings for the respective engines which they mate to. The linkages are > all considerably different from one another as well. I have the exploded > drwaings of each of these units from ZF having researched what is involved > in the conversion process quite extensively. Do you think you could swap gear ratio's among those designed for Maserati or Bedford?....:)) (only if significant, and only when you gain something on the low or high end of course) > The best way to go about it is to get a used or military surplus gearbox in > Sweden complete with the linkage otherwise the amount of work involved will > be considerable in both time, materials, and costs involved. The advantage > to using the S5 18/3 are that it offers a true overdrive in fifth gear with > a .79 fifth gear which will allow you to reduce the engine speed > considerably when cruising on the highway. This will in turn reduce cabin > noise, engine wear, and increase fuel mileage which is a great benefit with > the way gasoline costs have been sky rocekting recently. Hmm....although I like the concept of overdrive, I would have preferred that (given an entire different gearbox anyway) they left 5th gear a straight-through 1:1 ratio, left the diff's at 6:1, and only lowered 1st gear (and 2/3/4 appropriately). Highest gear being 1:1 is even better for mileage....the extra set of gears for 5th means about 5% less mileage....*and* it's not the strongest gear then, and since it will see the most kilometers, it will wear out sooner than a 1:1 would have....nor is it recommended for extensive towing or harsh roads (5th gear low range is a common situation too, in particular if 4wd only engages in low range (forgot whether this is the case with the Volvo). -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: From: "Clifford Plavin" Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Volvo303] Does TGB13/6x6 have 'observation' roof-panel too? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com You could swap the gears but it gets rather expensive to assemble the gearboxes from the models that you wish to extract the parts from and then do a complete strip down and re-assembly to get the completed gearbox together. If you wanted to perform this the proper way and replace the synchros and bearings the parts are prohibitively expensive from ZF. The bearings are all reasonably priced however the synchros cost close to $300.00 each making it a pricey rebuild. I have had a few ZF boxes completely reassembled and always had great results with them operating like new as the gears were never worn in any of the boxes that I had rebuild (even close to fifty year old boxes for Maserati 3500 GT's). I guarantee that you will never ever wear out a fifth gear in one of these boxes. The most likely gears to be damaged are first and second as well as having the greatest synchro wear. The first and second gear synchros are basically the only ones that wopulod ever realy need to be replaced in my opinin as virtually nobody has any issues with third or fourth gear while shifting. The first gear is definitley lower in all of the boxes that I have the data sheets on from ZF and once you are in third gear and fourth are about the same as what the S4 18/3 has. fifth then drops down the ratio which I think is great personally for the reasons which I outlined earlier. If you are in overdrive (actually underdrive as you are turning fewere RPM's then if you were at 1:1 you should save fuel versus 1:1 which has a higher engine speed. If you need an y more information on the ZF gearboxes let me know! Cliff To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "c303tgb112003" Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:28:17 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Does TGB13/6x6 have 'observation' roof-panel too? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Clifford Plavin" wrote: > The S5 18/3 gearbox is what is used on the six wheel version TGB20. This > gearbox is also used in the Maserati Biturbo, The Bedford Van as well as > the Alfa Romeo Montreal for starters. The differences in them are the gear > ratios used as well as the gearbox case itself. Each of them has a > different output case casting as well as all of them using different bell > housings for the respective engines which they mate to. The linkages are > all considerably different from one another as well. I have the exploded > drwaings of each of these units from ZF having researched what is involved > in the conversion process quite extensively. > > The best way to go about it is to get a used or military surplus gearbox in > Sweden complete with the linkage otherwise the amount of work involved will > be considerable in both time, materials, and costs involved. The advantage > to using the S5 18/3 are that it offers a true overdrive in fifth gear with > a .79 fifth gear which will allow you to reduce the engine speed=20 > considerably when cruising on the highway. This will in turn reduce cabin > noise, engine wear, and increase fuel mileage which is a great benefit with > the way gasoline costs have been sky rocekting recently. > > Cliff Plavin Hi I think that the data for the ZF S5/18/3 is: 1:an 2:an 3:an 4:an 5:an R High Low 3,92:1 2,47:1 1,76:1 1,27:1 1:1 3,7:1 1:1 2,39:1 or perhaps there exists two different versions of the "same" gearbox, Mil and Civil? I should be very happy if am wrong, I suffer from engine noise after a conversion to a turbo diesel . Christer To: From: "Clifford Plavin" Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:24:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Does TGB13/6x6 have 'observation' roof-panel too? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "c303tgb112003" Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:28 AM > Hi > I think that the data for the ZF S5/18/3 is: > > 1:an 2:an 3:an 4:an 5:an R High Low > 3,92:1 2,47:1 1,76:1 1,27:1 1:1 3,7:1 1:1 2,39:1 > > or perhaps there exists two different versions of the "same" gearbox, Mil and > Civil? I should be very happy if am wrong, I suffer from engine noise after a > conversion to a turbo diesel . > Christer The 1:1 in fifth gear is only provided on the Volvo trucks. The Alfa Romeo, Bedford, and Maserati all have different gear ratios on their boxes. The first gear for the Bedford van since it has a very small engine is even lower than the Volvo. fifth gear for all three vehicles are .79 -.81 Cliff To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:01:46 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Does TGB13/6x6 have 'observation' roof-panel too? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 15 Oct 2004 at 12:24, Clifford Plavin wrote: > The 1:1 in fifth gear is only provided on the Volvo trucks. The Alfa Romeo, > Bedford, and Maserati all have different gear ratios on their boxes. The > first gear for the Bedford van since it has a very small engine is even > lower than the Volvo. fifth gear for all three vehicles are .79 -.81 > > Cliff So no overdrive for the TGB13/20 (6x6), in contrast to your first mail, correct?....;(( And to add to Christer's list: > Hi > I think that the data for the ZF S5/18/3 is: > > 1:an 2:an 3:an 4:an 5:an R High Low > 3,92:1 2,47:1 1,76:1 1,27:1 1:1 3,7:1 1:1 2,39:1 S4/18/3: 1st 3.87 2nd 2.08 3rd 1.39 4th 1.0 R 4.16 H 1.0 L 2.39 Seems the main difference is with 2nd and 3rd gear, a bit more choice after 1st. > or perhaps there exists two different versions of the "same" gearbox, Mil and > Civil? I should be very happy if am wrong, I suffer from engine noise after > a > conversion to a turbo diesel . > Christer Already tried larger tires? 9.00x16 is larger than 8.90x16. You can even get 11.00x16 if you want more....:)) Dutch friends got themselves Superlug 9.00x16, made by both S.T.A. (Special Tires of America) and McGreary (only the latter gives a few hits in Google, but hardly any content). Pretty decent AT thread, much more silent, and probably a much better winter tire too. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand=20 is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:06:44 +0200 Subject: [Volvo303] ZF S5/18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Odd, the second generation of Pinzgauer (turbodiesel 716/718) also uses this gearbox....8-)) http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/4/Steyr/Pinzgauer/ (3rd entry, TurboD-1988) And I *think* it is also one of the components sourced from the Audi 100-series (among other things some brake components). -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: From: "Clifford Plavin" Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:40:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Does TGB13/6x6 have 'observation' roof-panel too? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:01 PM On 15 Oct 2004 at 12:24, Clifford Plavin wrote: > > The 1:1 in fifth gear is only provided on the Volvo trucks. The Alfa Romeo, > > Bedford, and Maserati all have different gear ratios on their boxes. The > > first gear for the Bedford van since it has a very small engine is even > > lower than the Volvo. fifth gear for all three vehicles are .79 -.81 > > > > Cliff > > > So no overdrive for the TGB13/20 (6x6), in contrast to your first > mail, correct?....;(( Yes, I mistakenly called fifth gear overdrive in my original email and then=20 corrected myself in follow up emails on the subject referring to it as=20 underdrive. Cliff To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "extrm303" Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:01:10 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Does TGB13/6x6 have 'observation' roof-panel too? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Cliff, Seems lthat your quite intimate with the ZF family. I have a few questions about sourcing some repair and possible design work on the ZF tanny's. I agree with you about gear wear specifically 2nd synchro wear due to wrong lubricant. If you are interested would you email me off-line for some details. Cheers, P- To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gr=F8nntass?= Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:39:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: 6x6 5sp gearbox & 7.5:1 diff gears? (was: [Volvo303] Re: C303 manuals (parts/service/operator) update Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com > Btw, also on behalf of a Dutch friend (who has the complete Swedish) > manual, but not this detail): > Does anyone know the gear ratio's of the 5sp gearbox that came in the > 6x6 (both SWB C304/TGB13 and LWB C306/TGB20)? > Or: what is different, lower first gear, taller 5th gear, or only > splitted more inbetween? The 5-speed box, which is only on the C306/TGB20, has a little lower first-gear and less difference between the gears. The 5th gear is 1:1, like 4th gear on the C303 and 304. I've heard that the 5-speed box is longer than the 4-speed. Thus it will not fit on C303/304 without serious modification of the frame. > Related question: has anyone ever heard about a 3rd diff-ratio, > 7.5:1, on top of the 6:1 (4x4) and 7:1 (6x6)? > Exclusively for the C306/TGB20? As far as I know, the diff-rate is identical for C304 and 306. Christian Brudevoll Norway Volvo L3314N and C304 radio-box To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:38:54 +0200 Subject: Re: 6x6 5sp gearbox & 7.5:1 diff gears? (was: [Volvo303] Re: C303 manuals (parts/service/operator) update Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 19 Oct 2004 at 22:39, Gr=F8nntass wrote: > > Btw, also on behalf of a Dutch friend (who has the complete Swedish > > manual, but not this detail): > > Does anyone know the gear ratio's of the 5sp gearbox that came in the > > 6x6 (both SWB C304/TGB13 and LWB C306/TGB20)? > > Or: what is different, lower first gear, taller 5th gear, or only > > splitted more inbetween? > > The 5-speed box, which is only on the C306/TGB20, has a little lower first-gear > and less difference between the gears. > The 5th gear is 1:1, like 4th gear on the C303 and 304. > I've heard that the 5-speed box is longer than the 4-speed. > Thus it will not fit on C303/304 without serious modification of the frame. Btw, it then *would* fit also the (quite rare) C304 LWB-4x4, not? Since it has the same 'center' wheelbase as the LWB-6x6, 272cm, so the same room for a 5sp (though probably not factory, hence only relevant for retro-swaps). > > Related question: has anyone ever heard about a 3rd diff-ratio, > > 7.5:1, on top of the 6:1 (4x4) and 7:1 (6x6)? > > Exclusively for the C306/TGB20? > As far as I know, the diff-rate is identical for C304 and 306. Thanx for the confirmation....:)) > Volvo L3314N and C304 radio-box Any more pix of your box-interior?....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gr=F8nntass?= Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:54:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: 6x6 5sp gearbox & 7.5:1 diff gears? (was: [Volvo303] Re: C303 manuals (parts/service/operator) update Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com > > The 5th gear is 1:1, like 4th gear on the C303 and 304. > > I've heard that the 5-speed box is longer than the 4-speed. > > Thus it will not fit on C303/304 without serious modification of the frame. > > Btw, it then *would* fit also the (quite rare) C304 LWB-4x4, not? > Since it has the same 'center' wheelbase as the LWB-6x6, 272cm, so > the same room for a 5sp (though probably not factory, hence only > relevant for retro-swaps). My C304 has 6 wheels, so how the 4-wheel is, I don't know. But on mine there is a traverse (with vacum?) on the frame right behind the gear-box. Putting in a longer gearbox would requiring moving this traverse. Since the models are rather identical, I'm afraid that would be necessary on a 4-wheel C304 as well. > > Volvo L3314N and C304 radio-box > > Any more pix of your box-interior?....;)) I've just started a project converting it to a camper, so the interior is not of much interest. Anyway I've attached a picture showing how it looked like when I bought it. Chris To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Jim Molloy" Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 03:55:48 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] fast C306 firetruck Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Hello to all, Two days ago, I had the opportunity to take a quick look at a very clean 1979 C306 firetruck recently purchased from a new Volvo importer in Oregon. The new owner drove it to one of my places of work an parked it next to my C303. Jeff Lenzner has been successfully importing Unimog for the past several years. Take a look at: http://www.bat-trade.com The C306 truck labelled as SOLD on his Unimog site now lives near the Oregon Coast and hopefully that truck/owner will be attending Northwest MogFest 2005 in August. I did not realize that the fire service C306 trucks were equipped with the faster axles like the C303 trucks. Very nice to have that top speed and the extra room. Jeff's new site for Volvo trucks is: http://www.viking4x4.com I wish Jeff the very best as he moves into Volvo truck sales with the same commitment and enthusiasm he has shown with the Unimogs. I have no doubt he will successful in this new venture. I will be posting some additional photos of the C306 firetruck on the volvo4x4 site and soon as I figure out the directions from our webmaster. It may take me a day or two. (His directions are fine. My brain is rusty.) Take care..one and all. Happy New Year. Jim Molloy Waldersee Farm http://www.northwestmogfest.com http://www.volvo4x4.com To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 23:56:43 +0100 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] fast C306 firetruck Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 1 Jan 2005 at 3:55, Jim Molloy wrote: > Hello to all, > Two days ago, I had the opportunity to take a quick look at a very > clean 1979 C306 firetruck recently purchased from a new Volvo > importer in Oregon. The new owner drove it to one of my places of > work an parked it next to my C303. > > Jeff Lenzner has been successfully importing Unimog for the past > several years. Take a look at: > > http://www.bat-trade.com > > The C306 truck labelled as SOLD on his Unimog site now lives near > the Oregon Coast and hopefully that truck/owner will be attending > Northwest MogFest 2005 in August. I did not realize that the fire > service C306 trucks were equipped with the faster axles like the > C303 trucks. Very nice to have that top speed and the extra room. I pestered Jeff about that detail in the recent past, he even took a picture for me, of the diff ID-tag. I think he describes them as 'fast axles' because they are not, as one might expect, the typical TGB20 diff's, which have the lowest of 3 ratio's, but are the 'middle' ratio, typical for TGB13. 9x33 = 3.67 9x31 = 3.44 11x32 = 2.91 (but OTOH, all that makes sense too in the context of TGB20 having 5sp transmissions, while these C306 firefighters all seem to have a 4sp (my suspicion/explanation being that the engine/tranny hump of the 'wagon' bodies doesn't allow the longer 5sp....only the tall&ongoing floor of the TGB20 probably does)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 02:29:42 +0200 Subject: [Volvo303] ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Something is nagging me....in a past discussion about 5sp and 4sp transmissions, I believe we (I) also concluded that the Pinzgauer basically used the same ZF-gearbox (whatever that might say within the ZF-system....from Bedford to Maserati, they all used that box, but all with different gears of course). http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/volvo_5sp&4sp.txt However, the Pinzgauer box is an interesting one, because it has a quite tall 5th gear, a true overdrive.... (I just can't find the spec's for the current generation, but even the old one had a fairly tall overdrive, 0.7 (and 0.88-1.0/1.92 T- case, 2.864 diff's, 2.266 portal)) http://www.pinzgauerus.com/highspeed5speed.html Not sure which ZF-box the older Pinz used, but I would love to know if either old or new ZF-box would match the Volvo's bellhousing & T- case, or at least just the internal gears. (note that the Pinz has a peculiar layout, with the T-case integrated in the tube-frame, at quite a distance from the engine/gearbox, with a drive-shaft inbetween....so externally it probably wouldn't fit any T-case on the market....but perhaps internally it does? (or: what is the use of ZF using the same code for both boxes, if neither box nor externals are compatible in any way?....8-)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: From: "Clifford Plavin" Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:04:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 8:29 PM > Something is nagging me....in a past discussion about 5sp and 4sp > transmissions, I believe we (I) also concluded that the Pinzgauer > basically used the same ZF-gearbox (whatever that might say within > the ZF-system....from Bedford to Maserati, they all used that box, > but all with different gears of course). > > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/volvo_5sp&4sp.txt > > However, the Pinzgauer box is an interesting one, because it has a > quite tall 5th gear, a true overdrive.... > (I just can't find the spec's for the current generation, but even > the old one had a fairly tall overdrive, 0.7 (and 0.88-1.0/1.92 T- > case, 2.864 diff's, 2.266 portal)) > > http://www.pinzgauerus.com/highspeed5speed.html > > Not sure which ZF-box the older Pinz used, but I would love to know > if either old or new ZF-box would match the Volvo's bellhousing & T- > case, or at least just the internal gears. > (note that the Pinz has a peculiar layout, with the T-case integrated > in the tube-frame, at quite a distance from the engine/gearbox, with > a drive-shaft inbetween....so externally it probably wouldn't fit any > T-case on the market....but perhaps internally it does? > > (or: what is the use of ZF using the same code for both boxes, if > neither box nor externals are compatible in any way?....8-)) The S5/18 3 gearbox from the Maserati Biturbo, alfa Romeo montreal and Bedford truck will not work in the TGB11 or TGB 13 as the front and rear sections of the gearbox housing are entirely different in each application. I believe that the internal components are all very similar other then the gear ratios used for each of them. The only way to install this box is to use the one from the TGB 20 and then change some of the gears internally to provide the ratio you desire. I have the drawings from ZF for each of these boxes and was contemplating performing the change with the correct parts. Even if you can get the components reuired for the swap if you need to get synchros the price is prohibitive from ZF for them. You are looking at a very pricey upgrade to get to the next level of performance. I personally want the .79 fifth gear offered in the Biturbo gearbox if it will interchange to the box used in the TGB 20. Using the gears from the Biturbo if possible along with a 164E injected engine swap should provide plenty of get up and go as well as reduced engine speeds when crusing in fifth gear. The gas milage should also be improved substantially at the same time. Cliff To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:39:13 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 4 Apr 2005 at 22:04, Clifford Plavin wrote: > > The S5/18 3 gearbox from the Maserati Biturbo, alfa Romeo montreal and > Bedford truck will not work in the TGB11 or TGB 13 as the front and rear > sections of the gearbox housing are entirely different in each application. > I believe that the internal components are all very similar other then the > gear ratios used for each of them. The only way to install this box is to > use the one from the TGB 20 and then change some of the gears internally to > provide the ratio you desire. You mean TGB20 box, combined with overdrive gears of the most favorable candidate (I doubt any other does better than the Pinzgauer's 0.7 (assuming they kept it close to that in the later generation)). Btw, any idea whether the ZF 4sp matches with any other application as well? (it gets a bit tricky with only 4 gears, in case of such a tall overdrive, but perhaps one can compensate with a stronger engine) > I have the drawings from ZF for each of > these boxes and was contemplating performing the change with the correct > parts. Probably none of that documentation easy to scan or put online, is it?....;)) > Even if you can get the components reuired for the swap if you need to get > synchros the price is prohibitive from ZF for them. You are looking at a > very pricey upgrade to get to the next level of performance. Can you give us some estimates, or samples? And does that apply in particular to the Maserati, or is that generic to ZF? (or: wouldn't the Pinzgauer gears be a better option, for even more overdrive at possible lower cost?) (will post a question to the Pinz-TD list to hear the exact ratio's, and perhaps even price for most of the internals) > I personally > want the .79 fifth gear offered in the Biturbo gearbox if it will > interchange to the box used in the TGB 20. Btw, any idea about the ease of changing the 4sp for this 5sp? (*if* both boxes were planned simultaneously right from the start, they might have kept external (box) dimensions equal, but I somehow doubt that....and it still leaves you with the problem of changing the gear-linkage) (note that *if* external dimensions of 4sp and 5sp are not identical, then the C306, being a LWB 4sp, must use different parts as well (if only the length of front & rear driveshaft!)) > Using the gears from the Biturbo > if possible along with a 164E injected engine swap should provide plenty of > get up and go as well as reduced engine speeds when crusing in fifth gear. > The gas milage should also be improved substantially at the same time. Btw, is the entire 164E engine different, or would only swapping some parts also work? Btw2: this gearing issue is even more important when considering a diesel swap....with the added problem that a different gearbox will probably cause a nightmare with the shift-linkage, not to mention towards the T-case....and avoiding the linkage problem with an automatic transmission still doesn't solve the T-case adaption.... Oh btw, even in PTO-context this S5/18 is mentioned....:)) http://www.pto-usa.com/frames/main/prodmain.html -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 06:37:21 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Btw, it seems this S5 18/3 is also used in the Iveco Daily (a bit more reassuring than the Opel Kadett's I saw elsewhere, even though that was for rally-use....:)), and below the ratio's for the Alfa Romeo 6: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Newsgroups: alt.autos.alfa-romeo From: chris - Find messages by this author Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 17:35:23 +0200 Local: Sun, Aug 18 2002 8:35 am Subject: Re: Alfa 6 Gearbox Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Peter Farrer wrote: > Can anyone tell me if the Alfa 6 gearbox is actually the ZF S5 18/3 > unit, and if so what are the ratios of the various > gears?......THANKS! > > Peter. Both the manual and automatic boxes are ZF, I can't confirm the type though.. Ratios: First model, petrol engine Manual Automatic I 3,418 2,48 II 1,941 1,48 III 1,389 1,0 IV 1,0 - V 0,795 - R 3,663 2,09 Diff. 11/50 13/47 25% Slip Second model Petrol Diesel ratios uncertain, possibly same a 1st model Diff 11/47 12/46 25% Slip hth, Chris http://www,alfasei.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: pinzgauer_td@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:50:18 +0200 Subject: [pinzgauer_td] 5sp gear ratio's & price of gears+syncro's? Reply-To: pinzgauer_td@yahoogroups.com Couldn't find them online: anyone having the TD's 5sp ratio at hand? I can only find the 710/712 ratio's, but the 0.7 overdrive of that one sounds promising.... Also: anyone ever priced the internals, both gears, shafts, bearings & synchro's? Seems the ZF-box is the same as the one in the Volvo TGB/C3-series, at least internally....which is in dire need of a decent overdrive, instead of the current 1:1 (in both 4sp and 5sp). (while most of the Volvo's have a 4sp, the LWB 6x6 TGB20 has a 5sp....not sure yet which other applications the 4sp might match) Btw, this 5sp is also used in the Bedford & Maserati Biturbo....talk about a application-diversification....:)) http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/volvo_5sp&4sp.txt Oh btw, even in PTO-context this S5/18 is mentioned....:)) http://www.pto-usa.com/frames/main/prodmain.html -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: pinzgauer_td@yahoogroups.com Cc: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:57:04 +0200 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Pinz 5sp gear ratio's & price of gears+syncro's? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 4 Apr 2005 at 23:06, David S Dunn wrote: > W-J > These are the ratios for the 2 trannies > http://www.pinzgauerus.com/highspeed5speed.html Ah yes, mixed those two, but I'd swear I also saw a 0.7 ratio listed somewhere....bit liberal rounding down I guess, from 0.749....:)) Shame, not much gain over the Maseratie 0.79 then, but still.... (I also read that the Iveco Daily got this box as well, wonder what ratio's that one got) Hmm....at least some confirmation, but no ratio's given: http://www.ricambigiesse.it/paginduea.uk.htm xxxxxxxxxxxxx 308/358 NEW DAILY S5-18/33 > The internals are different on them.... as 5th in the one used by the > 710/12 is a direct drive with with a lockup of the input and output > shafts ( easy 1:1 ), in the TD, 4th is 1:1 through gears, and 5th > overdrive , of course, through gears also. Odd, I thought every box had either 4th or 5th as a prise- directe/straight-through....if only for fuel-efficiency, a few percent less resistance in gears/bearings (perhaps the last argument for Pinz/TGB, but certainly in smaller vehicles). -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: From: "Clifford Plavin" Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:56:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 11:39 PM > On 4 Apr 2005 at 22:04, Clifford Plavin wrote: > >> >> The S5/18 3 gearbox from the Maserati Biturbo, alfa Romeo montreal and >> Bedford truck will not work in the TGB11 or TGB 13 as the front and rear >> sections of the gearbox housing are entirely different in each application. >> I believe that the internal components are all very similar other then the >> gear ratios used for each of them. The only way to install this box is to >> use the one from the TGB 20 and then change some of the gears internally to >> provide the ratio you desire. > > You mean TGB20 box, combined with overdrive gears of the most > favorable candidate (I doubt any other does better than the > Pinzgauer's 0.7 (assuming they kept it close to that in the later > generation)). > > Btw, any idea whether the ZF 4sp matches with any other application > as well? > (it gets a bit tricky with only 4 gears, in case of such a tall > overdrive, but perhaps one can compensate with a stronger engine) > >> I have the drawings from ZF for each of >> these boxes and was contemplating performing the change with the correct >> parts. > > Probably none of that documentation easy to scan or put online, is > it?....;)) > >> Even if you can get the components reuired for the swap if you need to get >> synchros the price is prohibitive from ZF for them. You are looking at a >> very pricey upgrade to get to the next level of performance. > > Can you give us some estimates, or samples? > And does that apply in particular to the Maserati, or is that generic > to ZF? > (or: wouldn't the Pinzgauer gears be a better option, for even more > overdrive at possible lower cost?) > (will post a question to the Pinz-TD list to hear the exact ratio's, > and perhaps even price for most of the internals) > >> I personally >> want the .79 fifth gear offered in the Biturbo gearbox if it will >> interchange to the box used in the TGB 20. > > Btw, any idea about the ease of changing the 4sp for this 5sp? > (*if* both boxes were planned simultaneously right from the start, > they might have kept external (box) dimensions equal, but I somehow > doubt that....and it still leaves you with the problem of changing > the gear-linkage) > (note that *if* external dimensions of 4sp and 5sp are not identical, > then the C306, being a LWB 4sp, must use different parts as well (if > only the length of front & rear driveshaft!)) > >> Using the gears from the Biturbo >> if possible along with a 164E injected engine swap should provide plenty of >> get up and go as well as reduced engine speeds when crusing in fifth gear. >> The gas milage should also be improved substantially at the same time. > > Btw, is the entire 164E engine different, or would only swapping some > parts also work? > > Btw2: this gearing issue is even more important when considering a > diesel swap....with the added problem that a different gearbox will > probably cause a nightmare with the shift-linkage, not to mention > towards the T-case....and avoiding the linkage problem with an > automatic transmission still doesn't solve the T-case adaption.... > > > Oh btw, even in PTO-context this S5/18 is mentioned....:)) > > http://www.pto-usa.com/frames/main/prodmain.html > The price for the parts for the gearbox are all similar from ZF regardlessof which manufacturer it is ultimately going to. The synchros will cost you between $400.00- $500.00 USD each with the bearings being nothing special generally speaking from ym previous experience in rebuilding a few ZF boxes. I doubt that buying a Pinz box will help you at all and the linkages for all of these items are completely different from each other as they are made for the gearbox to the ultimate manufacturers specifications. A Masserati linkage is simple compared to the Volvo's. I have someone checking for me in Sweden on the size of the TGB20 gearbox realtive to the S4 18/3 to see if it will be an easy swap out. I am hoping that since the entire drivetrain is the saem that the gearbox simply will drop in and the driveshaft length is different and I will have that dimension cut and rebalanced which is simple to do. I somehow think that there will be a snag somewhere as nothing in life with a truck of this type could be this simple. I hope I prove myself wrong and its a piece of cake! The engine needs to use the block from the TGB rather than the 164 which you simply graft the injected cylinder head and all of its associated components on to. You would also use the higher compression pistons from the 164e and possibly add the "K" cam for even more power. I spoke to someone that has already doen this and advised that the most important thing is to get a good donor car that is all there and running especially need to have a good wiring harness for the injection system as new ones are supposedly not available. I would think that you could use alsmost any other inline six cylinder D-Jetronic wiring harness as they all use the same ECU, injectors (different spray patterns), etc. so a BMW 3.0 SI, a number of Mercedes from the early '70s etc might be ok for wiring in a pinch. Cliff To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "c303tgb112003" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:59:07 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Clifford Plavin" wrote: > The price for the parts for the gearbox are all similar from ZF regardlessof > which manufacturer it is ultimately going to. The synchros will cost you > between $400.00- $500.00 USD each with the bearings being nothing special > generally speaking from ym previous experience in rebuilding a few ZF boxes. > I doubt that buying a Pinz box will help you at all and the linkages for all > of these items are completely different from each other as they are made for > the gearbox to the ultimate manufacturers specifications. A Masserati > linkage is simple compared to the Volvo's. > > I have someone checking for me in Sweden on the size of the TGB20 gearbox > realtive to the S4 18/3 to see if it will be an easy swap out. I am hoping > that since the entire drivetrain is the saem that the gearbox simply will > drop in and the driveshaft length is different and I will have that > dimension cut and rebalanced which is simple to do. I somehow think that > there will be a snag somewhere as nothing in life with a truck of this type > could be this simple. I hope I prove myself wrong and its a piece of cake! > > The engine needs to use the block from the TGB rather than the 164 which you > simply graft the injected cylinder head and all of its associated components > on to. You would also use the higher compression pistons from the 164e and > possibly add the "K" cam for even more power. I spoke to someone that has > already doen this and advised that the most important thing is to get a good > donor car that is all there and running especially need to have a good > wiring harness for the injection system as new ones are supposedly not > available. I would think that you could use alsmost any other inline six > cylinder D-Jetronic wiring harness as they all use the same ECU, injectors > (different spray patterns), etc. so a BMW 3.0 SI, a number of Mercedes from > the early '70s etc might be ok for wiring in a pinch. > > > Cliff This is great news! So perhaps after all there is a smart solution of the over drive problem. The gear case s5-18/3 is a bit longer than the s4-18/3, I think is around 40 mm. (I have one on the garage floor, but I am abroad for the moment) It will unfortunately not be possibly just drop in the gear case, because of the gear case mounts is on the transfer case. So either you move the engine forward or the transfer case backward. The shifting mechanism is positioned at the split of the outer and inner housing (the outer housing same size - forward postion), so position is fixed compared to the engine, so this facts indicates a move backwards. (limited of space to the parking break drum, so perhaps not that great) But on the other hand if you move it forward you don't have to modify the prop shafts. The final solution is perhaps to move engine slightly forward , say 20 mm and the gear case the same, then save the adjustment of prop shafts. Now some questions, the s5-18/3 was used in the mid 70-ties to mid 80-ties, e.g. Alfa -6 (same as Romeo Montreal?), Maserati Biturbo, Opel kadett 1900LS, Bedford truck, and Iveco Daily 35.8. This last example is very interesting due the fact it was produced in the beginning of 80-ties and gearboxes is easily to obtain. I have only seen gear ratio for the alfa-6 (3.418/1.941/1.389/1.00/0.795) and Opel kadett (2.99/1.76/1.305/1.00/0.874) but this is from a Rally car so it could have been modified. Anyone with gear raito for Iveco Daily 35.8? As mentioned above, easy to find. Unfortunately I have not the work shop manual for the TGB-20 with me but I studied the digitalized spare parts catalogue on Sorins-web page, part 43. I conclude that the gears for gear 1, 2 and reverse is fixed on the counter shaft, actually machined from one part, and therefore is a "set". If the parts are inter-changeable between the different s5-18/3 gear boxes is just to choose a one which fit best with your engine. But how about the input axel with its gear and the counter part of the counter axel, are these two gears of a standard size? The input axel is one unit and the gear can't be changed. If you assume input gears and all axels are of the same size the easiest should be just to droop in the counter- and output shaft from an Alfa-6 into a TGB-20 box, change output-gear, and everything would just fit. Just dreaming…. But this open up total new possibilities and we have just to find out some more facts. If anyone have some sketches or drawing of the other zf s5-18/3 gear boxes, can you see if they look the same as in the TGB spare parts catalogue (43)? (internal parts) Perhaps possibly to do a scan? /Christer To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Andrea Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:18:18 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com c303tgb112003 wrote: > > This is great news! > So perhaps after all there is a smart solution of the over drive > problem. > The gear case s5-18/3 is a bit longer than the s4-18/3, I think is > around 40 mm. (I have one on the garage floor, but I am abroad for > the moment) It will unfortunately not be possibly just drop in the > gear case, because of the gear case mounts is on the transfer case. > So either you move the engine forward or the transfer case backward. > The shifting mechanism is positioned at the split of the outer and > inner housing (the outer housing same size - forward postion), so > position is fixed compared to the engine, so this facts indicates a > move backwards. (limited of space to the parking break drum, so > perhaps not that great) But on the other hand if you move it forward > you don't have to modify the prop shafts. The final solution is > perhaps to move engine slightly forward , say 20 mm and the gear > case the same, then save the adjustment of prop shafts. > > Now some questions, the s5-18/3 was used in the mid 70-ties to mid > 80-ties, e.g. Alfa -6 (same as Romeo Montreal?), Maserati Biturbo, > Opel kadett 1900LS, Bedford truck, and Iveco Daily 35.8. This last > example is very interesting due the fact it was produced in the > beginning of 80-ties and gearboxes is easily to obtain. > I have only seen gear ratio for the alfa-6 > (3.418/1.941/1.389/1.00/0.795) and Opel kadett > (2.99/1.76/1.305/1.00/0.874) but this is from a Rally car so it > could have been modified. > Anyone with gear raito for Iveco Daily 35.8? As mentioned above, > easy to find. > Unfortunately I have not the work shop manual for the TGB-20 with me > but I studied the digitalized spare parts catalogue on Sorins-web > page, part 43. I conclude that the gears for gear 1, 2 and reverse > is fixed on the counter shaft, actually machined from one part, and > therefore is a "set". If the parts are inter-changeable between the > different s5-18/3 gear boxes is just to choose a one which fit best > with your engine. But how about the input axel with its gear and the > counter part of the counter axel, are these two gears of a standard > size? The input axel is one unit and the gear can't be changed. If > you assume input gears and all axels are of the same size the > easiest should be just to droop in the counter- and output shaft > from an Alfa-6 into a TGB-20 box, change output-gear, and > everything would just fit. Just dreaming.... > But this open up total new possibilities and we have just to find > out some more facts. > If anyone have some sketches or drawing of the other zf s5-18/3 gear > boxes, can you see if they look the same as in the TGB spare parts > catalogue (43)? (internal parts) Perhaps possibly to do a scan? > /Christer > Iveco Daily is no good First is 6.5:1 and five is 1:1 To: From: "Clifford Plavin" Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:39:26 -0400 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "c303tgb112003" Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 9:59 AM > > This is great news! > So perhaps after all there is a smart solution of the over drive > problem. > The gear case s5-18/3 is a bit longer than the s4-18/3, I think is > around 40 mm. (I have one on the garage floor, but I am abroad for the > moment) It will unfortunately not be possibly just drop in the gear > case, because of the gear case mounts is on the transfer case. So > either you move the engine forward or the transfer case backward. The > shifting mechanism is positioned at the split of the outer and inner > housing (the outer housing same size - forward postion), so position > is fixed compared to the engine, so this facts indicates a move > backwards. (limited of space to the parking break drum, so perhaps not > that great) But on the other hand if you move it forward you don't > have to modify the prop shafts. The final solution is perhaps to move > engine slightly forward , say 20 mm and the gear case the same, then > save the adjustment of prop shafts. > > Now some questions, the s5-18/3 was used in the mid 70-ties to mid > 80-ties, e.g. Alfa -6 (same as Romeo Montreal?), Maserati Biturbo, > Opel kadett 1900LS, Bedford truck, and Iveco Daily 35.8. This last > example is very interesting due the fact it was produced in the > beginning of 80-ties and gearboxes is easily to obtain. I have only > seen gear ratio for the alfa-6 (3.418/1.941/1.389/1.00/0.795) and Opel > kadett (2.99/1.76/1.305/1.00/0.874) but this is from a Rally car so it > could have been modified. Anyone with gear raito for Iveco Daily 35.8? > As mentioned above, easy to find. Unfortunately I have not the work > shop manual for the TGB-20 with me but I studied the digitalized spare > parts catalogue on Sorins-web page, part 43. I conclude that the gears > for gear 1, 2 and reverse is fixed on the counter shaft, actually > machined from one part, and therefore is a "set". If the parts are > inter-changeable between the different s5-18/3 gear boxes is just to > choose a one which fit best with your engine. But how about the input > axel with its gear and the counter part of the counter axel, are these > two gears of a standard size? The input axel is one unit and the gear > can't be changed. If you assume input gears and all axels are of the > same size the easiest should be just to droop in the counter- and > output shaft from an Alfa-6 into a TGB-20 box, change output-gear, > and everything would just fit. Just dreaming.. But this open up total > new possibilities and we have just to find out some more facts. If > anyone have some sketches or drawing of the other zf s5-18/3 gear > boxes, can you see if they look the same as in the TGB spare parts > catalogue (43)? (internal parts) Perhaps possibly to do a scan? > /Christer Input shaft splines are not necessarily the same on each version of the gearbox as they may be speciifed by the customer for their particular application. You may therefore run into a minor problem. The easiest way to remedy this is to use a clutch assembly from the other vehicle if the disc is the same size you are all set. You may alternately decide to have the splined center section of the clutch disc swapped by a specialist to fit the Volvo input shaft. It has not yet been confirmed that the internal parts are in fact interchangable between the various S5 18/3 gearboxes. Once this has been confirmed the project becomes infinitely easier. My contact here in the USA from ZF is no longer available for assistance therefore all inquiries need to go directly through the German ZF headquarters. I have a number of S5 18/3 drwaings of different build numbers so I will see what I can find out regarding the interchange of parts. Trying to find the individual patient enough to assist us with this project is no small task either. ZF are interested in selling large quantities of components to vehicle manufacturers and do not generally deal with hobbyists such as ourselves. Cliff To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:10:53 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 6 Apr 2005 at 16:18, Andrea wrote: > Iveco Daily is no good First is 6.5:1 and five is 1:1 Any idea about the other 3 ratio's? Might become relevant, if a mix&match *is* possible....if only to see how large the ratio-gap with 4th and/or 5th might become with a 0.749 5th gear. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Jim Molloy" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:11:02 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp Iveco Daily ratios Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, Andrea wrote: > Iveco Daily is no good First is 6.5:1 and five is 1:1 Andrea, Do you have the second, third and fourth ratios for the Iveco Daily five speed? It may be no good for those looking for an easy overdirive but it could be a phenomenal bonus for C303 owners looking to further improve the low speed offroad performance of their trucks. First of 6.5:1 is a far cry from 3.85:1 for the standard C303 four speed box. Personally, I find 60+ mph in my C303 more than fast enough given the twisty mountain roads I drive on a near daily basis. Having a very low first gear for rare occasion use would be a real asset. Take care. Jim Molloy Waldersee Farm http://www.northwestmogdfest.com http://www.volvo4x4.com To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Cc: pinzgauer@yahoogroups.com, pinzgauer_td@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:13:34 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 6 Apr 2005 at 16:18, Andrea wrote: > Iveco Daily is no good First is 6.5:1 and five is 1:1 I'd say for *some* this 1st gear is magic....like the rock crawler aficionado's in the USA....:)) Also, *if* the casing is identical internally (read: position of the gearshafts), would it really be 100% impossible to mix & match this 1st gear? (possibly plus the 2nd and 3rd gear, if they are indeed machined onto the shaft (is that common btw?) That would at least leave 4th and 5th open for the 0.749 overdrive option (even if that would come with a relatively large ratio-gap). I do wonder though if different gear(sets) would keep the shifter system intact....could get interesting if shifter position '5th' on the Volvo suddenly becomes reverse....;)) Willem (who wouldn't mind having a 6.5:1 1st gear either, if only for nice slow hill descends, when fully loaded, or towing a trailer....it's still a poorly-engine-braking gasoline after all....;)) Jan CC to Pinzgauer list....at least the 1st generation Pinzi's had to live with a 1:1 5th gear anyway, so for them this 1st gear would be pure gain.... (and for anyone doing research or experiments in this context, please CC back to me, so I can keep this file updated: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/volvo_5sp&4sp.txt (remember, your place in Offroad Nirvana is not destined by what you took from the Net, but what you gave to it....so please share!....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Andrea Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:21:45 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: > On 6 Apr 2005 at 16:18, Andrea wrote: > > > Iveco Daily is no good First is 6.5:1 and five is 1:1 > > I'd say for *some* this 1st gear is magic....like the rock crawler > aficionado's in the USA....:)) > > Also, *if* the casing is identical internally (read: position of the > gearshafts), would it really be 100% impossible to mix & match this > 1st gear? > (possibly plus the 2nd and 3rd gear, if they are indeed machined onto > the shaft (is that common btw?) > That would at least leave 4th and 5th open for the 0.749 overdrive > option (even if that would come with a relatively large ratio-gap). > > I do wonder though if different gear(sets) would keep the shifter > system intact....could get interesting if shifter position '5th' on > the Volvo suddenly becomes reverse....;)) > > Willem > (who wouldn't mind having a 6.5:1 1st gear either, if only for nice > slow hill descends, when fully loaded, or towing a trailer....it's > still a poorly-engine-braking gasoline after all....;)) > Jan > > CC to Pinzgauer list....at least the 1st generation Pinzi's had to > live with a 1:1 5th gear anyway, so for them this 1st gear would be > pure gain.... > (and for anyone doing research or experiments in this context, please > CC back to me, so I can keep this file updated: > > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/volvo_5sp&4sp.txt > > > (remember, your place in Offroad Nirvana is not destined by what you > took from the Net, but what you gave to it....so please share!....;)) I have in Italy , in my House , 3 or 4 gearbox Daily interest ? To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Andrea Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:08:18 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com In this moment I don't remember other ratio's to Daily, but a very good gearbox is the NP 4500 have the 1st 6.5:1 and the 5th 0,85:1 To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:35:57 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 6 Apr 2005 at 18:08, Andrea wrote: > In this moment I don't remember other ratio's to Daily, but a > very goog gearbox is the NP 4500 > have the 1st 6.5:1 and the 5th 0,85:1 Sure, there are much better/stronger gearboxes out there, but probably none of those will easily fit into a Volvo, if only because of the required shift-linkage. (actually, despite my aversion with automatic transmissions[*], it would be by far the easiest solution....much less hassle with the shifter linkage) [*] unless really tricked out, with full manual control (preventing any non-wanted action in both up- *and* downshifts!) and stronger lockup in all gears (but that will still leave you with a relatively long 1st gear, hence still not perfect for hill descends) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "extrm303" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:10:01 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Engine Braking Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Willem-Jan Markerink" wrote: > Willem > (who wouldn't mind having a 6.5:1 1st gear either, if only for nice > slow hill descends, when fully loaded, or towing a trailer....it's > still a poorly-engine-braking gasoline after all....;)) > Jan I disagree! My assumption is that your opinion is from direct C3-series experience. If so, in contrast to that, I've had a substantial amount of time with these vehicles and have on numerous times used only engine braking to descend steep 45+ degree slopes in testing and normal operation. Also, I have had C3 vehicles weighted to their max GVW and even towed other C3's and other vehicles behind C3's. Demonstrating, I believe, superior engine braking performance. Of course it is not the "perfect" engine/exhaust brake of a massive diesel. The only negative, if that, are the puffs of blue smoke emanating from the exhaust as the vacuum and valve mechanisms adjust to the engine braking; engine braking, having personal and real experience with, I know to be more than ample and comforting to have under the loads and loading that I've tested the vehicle against. To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "extrm303" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:11:30 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Linjkage Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Willem-Jan Markerink" wrote: > On 6 Apr 2005 at 18:08, Andrea wrote: > Sure, there are much better/stronger gearboxes out there, but > probably none of those will easily fit into a Volvo, if only because > of the required shift-linkage. > (actually, despite my aversion with automatic transmissions[*], it > would be by far the easiest solution....much less hassle with the > shifter linkage) > > [*] unless really tricked out, with full manual control (preventing > any non-wanted action in both up- *and* downshifts!) and stronger > lockup in all gears (but that will still leave you with a relatively > long 1st gear, hence still not perfect for hill descends) I disagree! If you took the time to open up and analyze your ZF4 and ZF manufactured shift assembly you'll see it is a "three rail with center lock out mechanism " common in design with some more available and popular heavy-duty truck manual transmissions. Adapting linkage is straightforward but requires an investment in engineering, design, fabrication, testing and evaluation of a prototype opening up more transmission implants possibilities then you so authoritatively posit. To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Greg David Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Engine Braking Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com > --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Willem-Jan Markerink" wrote: > > > Willem > > (who wouldn't mind having a 6.5:1 1st gear either, if only for nice > > slow hill descends, when fully loaded, or towing a trailer....it's > > still a poorly-engine-braking gasoline after all....;)) > > Jan > > I disagree! My assumption is that your opinion is from direct C3-series experience. If so, > in contrast to that, I've had a substantial amount of time with these vehicles and have on > numerous times used only engine braking to descend steep 45+ degree slopes in testing > and normal operation. Also, I have had C3 vehicles weighted to their max GVW and even > towed other C3's and other vehicles behind C3's. Demonstrating, I believe, superior > engine braking performance. Of course it is not the "perfect" engine/exhaust brake of a > massive diesel. The only negative, if that, are the puffs of blue smoke emanating from the > exhaust as the vacuum and valve mechanisms adjust to the engine braking; engine > braking, having personal and real experience with, I know to be more than ample and > comforting to have under the loads and loading that I've tested the vehicle against. So, the blue oil smoke is normal when engine braking? I was concerned about this while driving my TGB1111 off road. I was doing some long steep decents in the lowest gear and it was emitting noticeable amounts of smoke. Greg extrm303 wrote: To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "extrm303" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:30:19 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Engine Braking Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, Greg David wrote: > So, the blue oil smoke is normal when engine braking? I was concerned about this while > driving my TGB1111 off road. I was doing some long steep decents in the lowest gear and > it was emitting noticeable amounts of smoke. > > Greg > From my experience of the vehicles I'm aware of, this is quite normal. It's not excessive and only happens on moderate to steep downhills when you are placing a "dieseling" load on the vacuum and valve mechanisms. For example; you can expect to see this when going downhill on the Fremontia trail @ Hollister with a sustained momentum and consistent tractive effort. However above it, on either the north or south routes of the unofficial White Rock trail you might not see or experience the smoke due to more wheel hop, varying speeds and personally, for me, not enough bandwidth to monitor the tail pipe whilst attempting to navigate down hill. To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Greg David Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Engine Braking Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com extrm303 wrote: --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, Greg David wrote: > > So, the blue oil smoke is normal when engine braking? I was concerned about this while > > driving my TGB1111 off road. I was doing some long steep decents in the lowest gear and > > it was emitting noticeable amounts of smoke. > > > > Greg > > > > From my experience of the vehicles I'm aware of, this is quite normal. It's not excessive > and only happens on moderate to steep downhills when you are placing a "dieseling" load > on the vacuum and valve mechanisms. For example; you can expect to see this when > going downhill on the Fremontia trail @ Hollister with a sustained momentum and > consistent tractive effort. However above it, on either the north or south routes of the > unofficial White Rock trail you might not see or experience the smoke due to more wheel > hop, varying speeds and personally, for me, not enough bandwidth to monitor the tail pipe > whilst attempting to navigate down hill. Thanks for info. It's really funny how you mention those Holister trails, because it was on Fremontia Drive where I noticed the smoke. On the white rock trail, I didn't notice much smoke, but was also bust navigating the trail. I had to back up on the narrow point midway where I put the roll cage into the rock wall. I take it you've seen my Hollister pics? The pic with the rear wheel in the air is entering the white rock trail high up on the hill. http://www.iltis.us/TGB1111hollister.htm Where are you located? Greg To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "G.R.Baker" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:46:38 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Engine Braking/Smoke Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com This is common with higher compression engines, when the engine is turning higher RPMs due to engine braking it produces suction through the rings. With no air volume coming through the carb it pulls vacuum from the weakest seal (rings, burnt valves, seats). On long grades mine does it also. This is also why the diesel engines brake so good, high compression. G.R.Baker To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "extrm303" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:49:33 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Engine Braking Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, Greg David wrote: > Thanks for info. > > It's really funny how you mention those Holister trails, because it was on Fremontia > Drive where I noticed the smoke. On the white rock trail, I didn't notice much smoke, but > was also bust navigating the trail. I had to back up on the narrow point midway where I put > the roll cage into the rock wall. > > I take it you've seen my Hollister pics? The pic with the rear wheel in the air is entering > the white rock trail high up on the hill. > http://www.iltis.us/TGB1111hollister.htm "Been there done it" too many times! Thanks for the posts of your pictures. I mentioned those specific routes because I saw your pictures and thought it would relate directly to your post and your experience. I applaud your gumption in taking on the route. Wouldn't be the first time Hollister has levied its "carnage tax" on a Volvo. > Where are you located? Volvo for Dummies. > Greg To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "extrm303" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:55:36 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Engine Braking/Smoke Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "G.R.Baker" wrote: > > This is common with higher compression engines, when the engine is > turning higher RPMs due to engine braking it produces suction through > the rings. With no air volume coming through the carb it pulls vacuum > from the weakest seal (rings, burnt valves, seats). On long grades > mine does it also. This is also why the diesel engines brake so good, > high compression. > > G.R.Baker Couldn't have said it better! Thank you. Thanks for one more data point also. To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:07:12 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Engine Braking Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 6 Apr 2005 at 11:55, Greg David wrote: > So, the blue oil smoke is normal when engine braking? I was concerned > about this while driving my TGB1111 off road. I was doing some long > steep decents in the lowest gear and it was emitting noticeable > amounts of smoke. You ought to see the immense black cloud of a Cruiser TDi, when *very* suddenly letting go of the gas pedal, after hours of continuous pedal-to-the-metal....:)) Still not sure where all that soot comes from, or what goes wrong inside the engine/valve-train, but I nearly got a heart-attack when I first experienced this....:)) Willem (but boy does it do a nice job of engine braking....it's like throwing a anchor at high speed....with tailgaters as the most preferred prey....;)) Jan -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:15:50 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Engine Braking Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 6 Apr 2005 at 18:10, extrm303 wrote: > --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Willem-Jan Markerink" > wrote: > > > Willem > > (who wouldn't mind having a 6.5:1 1st gear either, if only for nice > > slow hill descends, when fully loaded, or towing a trailer....it's > > still a poorly-engine-braking gasoline after all....;)) Jan > > I disagree! My assumption is that your opinion is from direct > C3-series experience. If so, in contrast to that, I've had a > substantial amount of time with these vehicles and have on numerous > times used only engine braking to descend steep 45+ degree slopes in > testing and normal operation. Also, I have had C3 vehicles weighted to > their max GVW and even towed other C3's and other vehicles behind > C3's. Demonstrating, I believe, superior engine braking performance. > Of course it is not the "perfect" engine/exhaust brake of a massive > diesel. The only negative, if that, are the puffs of blue smoke > emanating from the exhaust as the vacuum and valve mechanisms adjust > to the engine braking; engine braking, having personal and real > experience with, I know to be more than ample and comforting to have > under the loads and loading that I've tested the vehicle against. Note that I meant the combination of hill descend *and* max- weight....plus perhaps the added factor of significantly larger tires. Also, nothing beats the comfort of manoeuvering a trailer backwards with a very low gearing. (this also raises the question about the reverse gear ratio of the Iveco Daily btw!) Willem (who wouldn't object to more engine-braking even with diesel Land Cruisers....fully loaded downhill is still a bit hairy....and the larger C3's are significantly more heavy, so the almost twice as low gearing of a C3 is already very much needed for the gasoline....lower definitely wouldn't hurt) Jan PS: backwards descends pose a different problem, given the drum brakes: these are significantly/notoriously less effective in the opposite direction! (for some this is just as much a reason to convert to disk brakes as the ease of maintenance is) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:28:01 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Linjkage Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 6 Apr 2005 at 18:11, extrm303 wrote: > --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Willem-Jan Markerink" > wrote: > On 6 Apr 2005 at 18:08, Andrea wrote: > > > Sure, there are much better/stronger gearboxes out there, but > > probably none of those will easily fit into a Volvo, if only because > > of the required shift-linkage. (actually, despite my aversion with > > automatic transmissions[*], it would be by far the easiest > > solution....much less hassle with the shifter linkage) > > > > [*] unless really tricked out, with full manual control (preventing > > any non-wanted action in both up- *and* downshifts!) and stronger > > lockup in all gears (but that will still leave you with a relatively > > long 1st gear, hence still not perfect for hill descends) > > > I disagree! If you took the time to open up and analyze your ZF4 and > ZF manufactured shift assembly you'll see it is a "three rail with > center lock out mechanism " common in design with some more available > and popular heavy-duty truck manual transmissions. Adapting linkage is > straightforward but requires an investment in engineering, design, > fabrication, testing and evaluation of a prototype opening up more > transmission implants possibilities then you so authoritatively posit. But I don't want to adapt/test/evaluate....:)) (in particular not because unless I perform the same high-mileage tests as a manufacturer, to the point of failure, I would never be sure of the long-term quality of the linkage, under all conditions (engine-twisting, up- & downhill!), far away from civilisation....;)) And I never doubted that the shift-gate of the box itself would be rather straightforward....but I certainly don't like to reinvent the wheel by messing with the linkage.... Also, even changing from 4sp to 5sp within the Volvo system will already pose a challenge in linkage I guess....:)) OTOH, I believe it is quite easy to shift directly at the gearbox itself, when the cover is removed, not?....so you would at least have an emergency option, to ride home? Willem (and I am not authority either, I only write a lot....;)) Jan -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "extrm303" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 23:10:14 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Clifford Plavin" wrote: > My contact here in the USA from ZF is no longer available for assistance > therefore all inquiries need to go directly through the German ZF > headquarters. I have a number of S5 18/3 drwaings of different build numbers > so I will see what I can find out regarding the interchange of parts. Trying > to find the individual patient enough to assist us with this project is no > small task either. ZF are interested in selling large quantities of > components to vehicle manufacturers and do not generally deal with hobbyists > such as ourselves. > > > Cliff "Engaging the Transmission…. or are we in first yet???" Some points to consider regarding the ZF S4 or S5 family of transmissions in the Volvo. This of course harkens back to earlier discussions (with this group) covering original "design criteria and operational envelope" regarding changes of the C3- series in toto and the sub-systems individually and the benefits of bringing analysis and critical thinking tools to bear. Staying with the ZFS4/18 or ZF S5/18 (Volvo variant and C3 specific truck model) is perhaps a prudent decision as a solution to transmission problems assuming you intend to keep the original power plant and have access to spare and mechanically viable replacements. However, as Cliff quite accurately intimates ZF U.S. corporate (IL) has lost its S4/5 advocate-person of knowledge and has adopted a "we do not service/support that model transmission" position. Even prior to articulating this policy it took months to get any type of response, voice, email, snail mail from them regarding synchronizers and other parts. Today, one is forced to work with individuals who may or may not be sympathetic to your individual plight for one transmission or a handful of parts. This is assuming you call into the right person to contact on a transmission that is no longer in manufacture and know what dark corner of ZF Germany to call into. I'm a strong believer in the C3 as a complete vehicle and would not suggest easily having any one re-engineer any component. However I believe it will take one with the patience of Job to plumb the depths and decipher the inconsistencies of ZF "same family" transmissions and identical nomenclatures having a wide variety of dissimilarities. Even ZF experts at ZF remain puzzled. Given the above, I applaud the tenacious few that proactively pursue this path I wish them "Bon Chance"! For those who have domain expertise in drive trains I think this may be an opportunity to cost-effectively synthesize some mutant between the siblings of this dysfunctional family. For the rest, staying OE, delivers us into the hands of experts who we get to pay for time/material in hybridizing /prototyping or we Ebay our way into our own private stock of tranny parts. This picture potentially changes in two ways. The first being a complete foreign/alien transmission swap and the second being implications of staying" tranny OE" when increasing torque from the power plant. Let's start with the latter When comparing similar GVW loads and similar vehicle types one notices that in hp/ torque/drivetrain considerations the C3-sereis is lacking. I do not mean this pejoratively but comparatively. Volvo engineers, by using portal axles (or one could consider them as torque multipliers), accomplished a few objectives they reduced physical dimensions (size, weight) and financial costs in the same instant. With the employment of portals it allows smaller drive components not only in dimensions but also in actual component strength…. less unsprung mass etc. etc ….a shrewd strategy in the original design criteria. When raising the torque ceiling on a Volvo one needs to be attentive to the "design criteria and operational envelope" …component-wise. Meaning, if you analyze the OE drive train components one by one to establish the individual capacities and the "weakest link" contributor, you will see engineering safety margins (engineering comfort and safety cushions to accommodate "what if" situations). Part of any change should be an assessment that must include some gear analysis to bound the problem specifically…. and generally what to do if you fall off of that cushion. This is not for the faint-hearted involving esoteric sciences and skills such as tribology, materials sciences, mechanical engineering, stress analysis, and is performed today with the aid of computational analyses such as FEA (finite element methodologies). However as a "first order ballpark look-see" we can do a few things as a sanity check. We can use two possible approaches in our analysis…. empirical and mathematical. Lets start with the latter first. For this we return to our old friend "surface area". It's amazing how he's everywhere in this Volvo from cooling to, tractive effort, braking etc, it really has to do with the ability to transfer energy in various forms. For drive trains and specifically transmission gearing, we need to understand forces of friction, stress, cyclability, and material composition as some of the many variables in our example. Staying with the weakest link approach we should perhaps investigate specifically the smallest (dimension and strength) gear in our ZF transmission positioned on the lower counter shaft. Again folks, I advise doing all of the measurements and math for yourself leaving you individually invested, involved and enlightened about your position. The S4 and S5 Volvo transmissions are fully synchronized except reverse (including the nifty transfer case hence shift on the fly L/H) and all gears are of the helical type. There are pros and cons of different gear types regarding strength and efficiencies etc. It's generally acknowledged that helix gears are stronger for tooth size/area and quieter in running. Quietness can be interpreted as also being a positive, in a not so obvious fashion, in that, energy is being smoothly (less friction/stress) transferred, driver to driven gear and not being lost as noise. Unfortunately for us laymen (and trust me this "gear physics" is "black magic", I applaud the masters of this art) it makes our calculations a bit more complex. The helix nature of our ZF gears introduces a third physical and mathematical dimension and a series of new variables into the mix. Trying to keep this short, using a common "equivalent spur gear equation" you can oversimplify the helix geometry into an idealized "virtual spur gear tooth count". Armed with this, your calipers and measurements of the smallest or smaller ZF helix gears you can use gear pitch, number of teeth and pick off torque/tooth values from a coarse gear load chart or masochistically dive into equations used to generate the tables arriving at the result yourself. The empirical approach bases our assessment on "size" (yes, manly men of Volvo land, we have found our "Excalibur" …it is size)….or surface area. Briefly, sneaking back into the boring paragraph above we will borrow a little mathematical concept to illuminate this issue. Depending on what nuanced set of equations for gearing you use, there is agreement that strength of a gear component is the square or cube of certain mathematical functions. Meaning that a little bit goes a long way (a relatively small increase in dimensional strength yields dramatically higher loading and performance abilities) Bigger is Better!! So when one compares our little "engine that could, 10 inches long, ZF transmission" with it's much stouter NP, NV, Muncie and Borg/Warner cousins for the same 3/4 to 1 ton load, utility vehicles, one must wonder "whatzzzzuuppp"? Actually nothing, it's not a shell game, Volvo, using portals, dialed in drive train components including our smaller ZF cousin, to fit nicely into a 120/130 hp & 140/160 ft/lbs torque operational envelope. Whether you use a mathematical/physics based methodology or an empirical approach it becomes clear that should you tinker with torque you'll need to be tickling all of the downstream components. My calculations confirm that you will start seeing substantive engineering margin erosion about 220 ft. lbs of torque. I've had transmission/drive train experts corroborate my diagnosis; their comfort level is 160-175 ft/lbs of torque and 135-145 hp. Of course this is America and we should be able to do whatever we want. OK, that being so, we still are not able to re-write the laws of physics to our advantage. Nothing states that a ZF S4 or S5 (whatever gear cluster configuration you lusting after) cannot or will not work, however, be aware that anything else other than a nominal boost in torque will increase unit-loading force (surface area of gear teeth and shafts) and also compromise redundant strength, substantially effecting cyclability and longevity of ZF components. I believe our little exercise above will have demonstrated that. Finally back to the beginning about Volvo transmission possibilities should you choose not to stay OE. I personally believe there are many possibilities and I'm constantly amazed at the ingenuity and creativity of like-minded Volvo enthusiasts who actually wrench and work on these intriguing vehicles. A few things to keep in mind; because of the smaller size of the tranny there is not a lot of tinkering room. I'm not sure which is first, the cart or the horse…design or result? But with a truck scale and jack you can compute the Center of Gravity (CG) of your Volvo. Empty you'll find something revealing (back to "design criteria and operational envelope") on an xy axis the cg is almost perfectly balanced 50/50 forward aft and 50/50 side to side ( as a side note; in the Z axis, better cg than a H1). The optimum in vehicle balance for an off road vehicle…. sharing load carrying between the 4 surface patches increases tractability, maneuverability and over all dynamic response. Wiley Volvo engineers! Any power plant drive train changes will affect that balance. Short of staying with the OE configuration, drivelines will be changed dimensionally. The rear one, in my opinion is a bit too short, shortening it further pushes the emergency brake into the rear brace/vacuum reservoir, (not something easily relocated) and has a deleterious effect on universal joints off axis loading. Moving everything forward gets you into geometric complications with vacuum boosters, fan shafts and actual maintenance accessibility. Oh the challenges! In summary whatever the component or system change it should percolate through the view of it's original "raison d'ettre" within the framework of "design criteria and operational envelope". From there, and with some critical thinking, a little analysis and some common sense, inevitable changes will evolve keeping this vehicle viable and operational for years to come. A small post mortem for what I had hoped would be a much briefer posting, for this I apologize. I tend to exude a bit too much enthusiasm for things I'm passionate about. As individual readers and personalities I entreat each and every one of you to do your homework, do the math and do the sanity check. Please take these ramblings as only that and do not confuse bbn posting frequency and opinions with factual veracity. Cheers and good luck. To: From: "Clifford Plavin" Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:16:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Very nice points made in this response. I would just like to add from personal experience having owned a Maserati 228 which uses the S5 18/3 and has 230 hp and also a friend which has substantially upgraded his Biturbo engine to output close to 350 hp with the same transmission with no problems of any kind. I believe that the original design parameter for this gearbox was for use with applications of no more than 220 hp or so as it also quite similar to the gearbox supplied in the Fiat/Dino Ferrari coupe and spyder (not the Ferrari Dino) which is a transverse design gearbox. I would have to say that with the additional load placed on the gearbox by a 350 hp twin turbo charged engine that if it can handle the shock/torque load from the Maserati it will certainly be up to the job from anything that a C-303/TGB11 can dish out even if the engine is upgraded to a B30 from a 164E injected automobile. I certianly think that the effort is well worth the investigation which I have done thus far and feel that I am in the "final stretch" in detemining if the internal components will indeed be able to be "swapped" allowing for a straightforward transplant. If it is considerably more involved then changing compoents then i will eleave to the more daring individuals that have their own engineering staff and shop on hand to supply the time/labor/skill required to tackle this job. Cliff To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "extrm303" Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:07:48 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Clifford Plavin" wrote: > Very nice points made in this repsonse. I would just like to add from > personal experience having owned a Maserati 228 which uses the S5 18/3 and > has 230 hp and also a friend which has substantially upgraded his Biturbo > engine to output close to 350 hp with the same transmission with no problems > of any kind. I believe that the original design parameter for this gearbox > was for use with applications of no more than 220 hp or so as it also quite > similar to the gearbox supplied in the Fiat/Dino Ferrari coupe and spyder > (not the Ferrari Dino) which is a transverse design gearbox. > > I would have to say that with the additional load placed on the gearbox by a > 350 hp twin turbo charged engine that if it can handle the shock/torque load > from the Maserati it will certainly be up to the job from anything that a > C-303/TGB11 can dish out even if the engine is upgraded to a B30 from a 164E > injected automobile. I certianly think that the effort is well worth the > investigation which I have done thus far and feel that I am in the "final > stretch" in detemining if the internal components will indeed be able to be > "swapped" allowing for a straightforward transplant. > > If it is considerably more involved then changing compoents then i will > eleave to the more daring individuals that have their own engineering staff > and shop on hand to supply the time/labor/skill required to tackle this job. > > > Cliff Cliff, Thanks for your feedback and also your research efforts. I personally know that you have done your own analysis over this and in fact, our efforts at times have been parallel and have intersected once or twice. I respect your conclusions and your drive to solve the challenge. By no means are my suggested approaches the only ones; I welcome a different set of eyes on the challenge. Regarding the feeding of 350 hp through the ZF, do you feel that it has the ability to handle that load over time and what are your thoughts on the phrase that torque kills transmissions??? To: From: "Clifford Plavin" Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:16:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "extrm303" Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:07 PM > Cliff, > > Thanks for your feedback and also your research efforts. I personally know > that you have > done your own analysis over this and in fact, our efforts at times have > been parallel and > have intersected once or twice. I respect your conclusions and your drive > to solve the > challenge. > > By no means are my suggested approaches the only ones; I welcome a > different set of eyes > on the challenge. Regarding the feeding of 350 hp through the ZF, do you > feel that it has > the ability to handle that load over time and what are your thoughts on > the phrase that > torque kills transmissions??? > My close friend that owns the 350 hp Biturbo has approximately 50,000 miles on the car with the original gearbox only having replaced a few bearings several years ago. The problem which might arise which I have not investigated is how well the portal axle reduction units will handle the increased load. I don't think that the idea of using a 180 hp -200 hp 164E engine with its increased torque will provide levels of stress that the gearbox, and portal axles can not manage. I have no idea why anyone would really need to have 350 hp to go out four-wheeling in the woods ! The fastest I would want to ever go in a truck this size (on the highway) would not be more then 70 mph. I am also concerned with being able to stop more quickly then I can accelerate which I doubt this vehicle can do given its size, weight, and drum brakes. Performance is not measured only in straight line acceleration. To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "c303tgb112003" Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:28:29 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com I found a web-page about the Alfa Romeo Montreal with a quite good description about the ZF S5-18/3gear case, see http://www.alfamontreal.info/ under "Gearbox". I have also seen that one sketch in the C303 part catalogue is bad copy-paste product, chap. 43. The overview sketch of the S5-18/3 is not correct (16:2), the shifting mechanism, reverse gear and the counter axel is just a copy from the sketch of the S4-18/3 box. The correct design, see detail sketches, 16:3 and 16:4. The TGB-20 was a late edition to the C303 program and someone cut some corners. Christer To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "G.R.Baker" Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:46:13 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Cliff wrote: > "I am also concerned with being able to stop more quickly then I can > accelerate which I doubt this vehicle can do given its size, weight, > and drum brakes. Performance is not measured only in straight line > acceleration." I don't know about the C303 but my C304 has a dual brake system, each front brake has two wheel cylinders each on independent circuts with each circut having one of the rear axles on it. I would assume the C303 is the same other than having two rear axles. I recently had to do a panic stop(at 45mph) after a small car pulled out in front of me, the truck stopped almost immediately. I was very suprised, considering how the brakes feel under normal driving conditions. G.R.Baker To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Jens" Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:44:03 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Newer TDI Engine Swap? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Hi John, many ways gos to Rome ... (old german saying) If you want to use the genuine manual gearbox, you can get a conversion-kit by www.smt.nu a 5-cyl-TDI-engine could be installed by this. You can use all TDI with rotation injection-pump, I would suggest the Audi 1T or AAT- engine (88 btw. 85 kw). This engine uses a normal flywheel with a traditional clutch. The rated speed of these engines are 4200 btw. 4100 rpm, therefor only for C303 due to max. speed. I toy with the idea to change the gearbox to a better type. I prefer the automatic transmission ZF 4HP22, a mechanic/hydaulic box without any electronic. I have to check, if the ZF 4HP22 is to fit to the volvo tranferbox but I believe it do. The ZF 4HP22 is used by BMW, Land Rover and Volvo up to 1995. The gearratio of the 4th gear ZF 4HP22 is 0,73 => very good for C304/C306 By using the 4HP22 you have a very big choice for engines: all 6-cyl.-BMW Diesel-engines up to the middle of the nineties all 5-cyl.-VW TDI=B4s with rotation injection-pump Volvo D24TD (not TDI) and Volvo 5-cyl-TDI (delivered by Audi) Landrover 300TDI and TD5 (I am not sure about TD6) If are any difficulties about the connection 4HP22 => Volvo FD51 you are able to use the Landrover LT230 transferbox. With the LT230 you have all possibilities of the Landrover market !!! gear-ratios forr high/low what ever you want :-) OK, in this case your C30x is not longer a real Volvo but you could get an ultimative gig ! greetings Jens To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Greg David Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com "G.R.Baker" wrote: > I don't know about the C303 but my C304 has a dual brake system, each > front brake has two wheel cylinders each on independent circuts with > each circut having one of the rear axles on it. I would assume the > C303 is the same other than having two rear axles. I recently had to > do a panic stop(at 45mph) after a small car pulled out in front of me, > the truck stopped almost immediately. I was very suprised, considering > how the brakes feel under normal driving conditions. > > G.R.Baker The C303 has the "dual split triangle" brake circuits where each front has two slave cylinders and each of the two circuits acts on one rear wheel. This is a safety concept that Volvo took directly from their passenger cars. Most passenger cars utilized split systems, but had simple front/rear split. The dual split triangle system was standard on all Volvos until the late eighties when ABS became standard in most cars. At that point, I guess they figured ABS was more important than the dual split system and it was not practical to keep it because it would require at least a six channel ABS unit. Early Volvo ABS was three channel, ie. both rears would pulse together, even if only one wheel sensed lockup. Having had a partial master cylinder failure in a 240 series car, I can attest to the high level of braking ability maintained, even with one circuit dead. I actually drove the car for a couple days until I could get a new master cylinder installed. When I pulled the old one apart, there was one seal that was completely blown out. I was stopping just fine with one set of pistons on each front wheel and the right rear wheel (240s had four piston calipers!). It was actually kind of fun toying with the car in this condition. If you did a really hard stop, it would lock up the right rear with a lot of smoke and noise. Back to the world of the TGB, in the few hard stops I have tried I have been extremely impressed by the trucks ability to stop quickly. The fact that it goes into 4WD when braking hard is really neat trick to keep the rears from locking. When sitting at a light, I actually enjoying pressing the brakes until I hear the vacuum servo engage..... psssshh..... click. I think my brakes might be working at their optimum level as well. When I had my axle apart for installing new boots, I discovered to my delight that all of my slave cylinders and front pads were NEW. Thanks Swedish Army! Cheers! Greg To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:08:19 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 7 Apr 2005 at 12:46, G.R.Baker wrote: > Cliff wrote: >> "I am also concerned with being able to stop more quickly then I can >> accelerate which I doubt this vehicle can do given its size, weight, >> and drum brakes. Performance is not measured only in straight line >> acceleration." > > > I don't know about the C303 but my C304 has a dual brake system, each > front brake has two wheel cylinders each on independent circuts with > each circut having one of the rear axles on it. I would assume the > C303 is the same other than having two rear axles. I recently had to > do a panic stop(at 45mph) after a small car pulled out in front of me, > the truck stopped almost immediately. I was very suprised, considering > how the brakes feel under normal driving conditions. For analysis, you might want to override the 4wd lock-in under hard braking, and see what it does without it. (analysis is of course skewed by the fact that the vehicle might not have the most ideal front/rear brake distribution to begin with (and probably not a LSPV either (load sensing proportioning valve)). A lot of potential brake-energy can be wasted by 'fear' of rear- lockup, from an engineer's point of view....but that scenario applies more to wet/icy roads than to dry/grippy situations.... Btw, have pondered about this before, but never mentioned it I think: The fact that the Volvo can 'redistribute' brake-force in this 4wd- lock under hard braking tells us also a bit about the forces the 'lower' part of the drivetrain *can* withstand....it's not a force in terms of wear or heat build up, but definitely 'force-sec'. (plus the generic 4x4 thesis/analysis that a (lower) drive-train that can withstand full power/torque in low-range, has quite some margin in high range (although more in terms of torque than power/heat/wear, since the latter is also rpm-related)) (actually, some manufacturers take this quite literally, by electronically limiting throttle in 1st/low....Land Cruiser 100- series TDi are set up this way....:)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "extrm303" Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:08:37 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Cliff, I'm pleased that the Biturbo experience buttresses your assessment of the strengths of the ZF. I'm also surprised that it is able to handle that amount of HP. I am curious though what overall operational profile a high performance "Racing Maserati" has in common with a rugged light/medium weight military utility vehicle? I suspect that the Maseratti is substantially lighter in GVW and kerb weight than the 7.5 and 5.3 tons respectively of the Volvo. I'm no expert in either of these vehicles but I'm thinking that size, weight and eventually rotating mass of drive-trains are also substantively different….. all of these contributing to fundamentally different torque load profiles ….. and eventually transmission functionality and longevity. My understanding is that reducing torque loads increases lifetime. I'm speaking in particular to a worst-case torque loads, not necessarily a quiescent mode of a drive train system. I think you'll agree there are not too many Maseratis out there that you'll see rock hoping on Moabs "Metal Masher" carrying a 1.5 + ton load. Personally, for me, I think these considerations need to be included in that "Empirical side" of the analysis process. Lastly for me, as I don't want to take any more of your, or the groups, time on what must be somewhat of a dull subject, I strongly advocate the assessment of all components of the drive train and do urge you to seriously look at the portals. Again, as suggested earlier, there are two approaches that may work for you; of course this does not preclude any other methodology. On the mathematical side of the sheet the actual gearing equations get easier, using somewhat straightforward calculations using spur gears instead of the helical transmission gears. However and unfortunately, it does get substantively more complex in that instead of drive input shafts and counter/reverse shafts being held captive on axis with an in inline housing assembly, the drop nature of the portal creates particular challenges for the designer, specifically how much to trade off in gearing resiliency/softness to absorb torque /stress loads and how much to harden them passing those same loads on to the driven shafts and shaft housings? Empirically the answer in one aspect becomes obvious after testing and experience. From another aspect there may be some other anecdotal evidence that may come to bear. I'm speculating here, but for a "like-kind" similarity in functionality, operability HP and Torque general capacities the Unimog portals are noticeably larger and stouter. Recall my previous email where I alluded to the "size does matter argument". One must wonder why that is? Staying empirical for the last time (I promise I'll bore you no further after this post) and acknowledging that within the "design criteria and operational envelope" I suggested we frame all of our upgrades within; I can say that the original portals perform within that window and were never designed for environments operation and testing that I've been involved with. Meaning if you stray much beyond an imaginary curve of torque vs. load of a stock C303 you will be disappointed. There is evidence personal and otherwise along with some numerical validation that suggest greater torque loads than originally designed will cause failure. Of course catastrophic failure is inevitable in any of the most robust of these type systems when you unexpectedly shock load the system introducing transient torques and resultant stress spikes, orders of magnitude beyond and yield stress, and original design parameters. Rock crawling a C303 at off camber angles and steep gradients capturing a wheel between two rocks effectively routing all torque through one wheel is not a great idea, and could represent part of that extreme. However defining that as one end of the continuum there is evidence that operating an averagely configured C3-series with more torque and or loading in moderate to advanced expedition demands will result in portal damage. To get to the root cause would require some sophisticated finite element analysis (FEA) and associated high costs, leaving me to comment on my personal observation and knowledge of these types of failures. I believe that the lower/dropped inner side of the portals is weak in their original casting. Upon heavy load/stock torque or light load/ increase torque or worst-case heavy load/increase torque the hardened portal gears do not absorb the torque shock and transfers it to the stub shaft, which by mathematical and empirical analysis is very capable of handling the load. However the outside wall cannot handle the added load it deflects causing the portal stub shaft bearing flange to displace resulting in upper and lower portal gear interference and eventually failure. Cliff, of course if you have other insights or results that buoy your supposition about the ZF's and portals then I think you should move forward. Personally, with analysis, experience, blown portals, compromised transmissions etc. etc. that I've been involved with, it's not a path I would cheerily go without trepidation. However I earnestly wish you luck in your endeavours. To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:19:17 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Newer TDI Engine Swap? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 7 Apr 2005 at 15:44, Jens wrote: > Hi John, > > many ways gos to Rome ... (old german saying) > > If you want to use the genuine manual gearbox, you can get a > conversion-kit by www.smt.nu > a 5-cyl-TDI-engine could be installed by this. You can use all TDI > with rotation injection-pump, I would suggest the Audi 1T or AAT- > engine (88 btw. 85 kw). This engine uses a normal flywheel with a > traditional clutch. Btw, I wonder whether the Pinzgauer uses a heavier flywheel than those cars? > The rated speed of these engines are 4200 btw. 4100 rpm, therefor > only for C303 due to max. speed. > > I toy with the idea to change the gearbox to a better type. I prefer > the automatic transmission ZF 4HP22, a mechanic/hydaulic box without > any electronic. That is also the one in the Pinzgauer nowadays. (they once spoke about a 5sp slushbox, but that never materialized) (they *do* claim however 100% lockup in all gears, for best-possible engine-braking (which is odd, since *very* few slushboxes *can* lock up in 1st gear (for risk of stalling the engine!)) > I have to check, if the ZF 4HP22 is to fit to the > volvo tranferbox but I believe it do. The ZF 4HP22 is used by BMW, > Land Rover and Volvo up to 1995. The gearratio of the 4th gear ZF > 4HP22 is 0,73 => very good for C304/C306 > By using the 4HP22 you have a very big choice for engines: > all 6-cyl.-BMW Diesel-engines up to the middle of the nineties > all 5-cyl.-VW TDI´s with rotation injection-pump > Volvo D24TD (not TDI) and Volvo 5-cyl-TDI (delivered by Audi) > Landrover 300TDI and TD5 (I am not sure about TD6) Would all those have the same bolt-pattern on the T-case side, or would the casing be just as varied as the ZF manual box, in various applications? > If are any difficulties about the connection 4HP22 = Volvo FD51 you > are able to use the Landrover LT230 transferbox. The Volvo FD51 is the T-case, correct? Is that *really* something unique to the TGB's, or would it match a more common case? (given the fact that it already shares some LR drive-train components (brakes, main axle(?....or/and Dana?) (sans portals)....any more?) > With the LT230 you have all possibilities of the Landrover market !!! > gear-ratios für high/low what ever you want :-) Also fulltime 4wd I assume? Even assymetric fulltime?....:)) (that would at least theoretically beneficial to a 6x6, torque distribution 1/3 front, 2/3 rear....;)) (and preferably Torsen as well, of course, or even Quaife....:)) > OK, in this case your C30x is not longer a real Volvo but you could > get an ultimative gig ! Added problem when changing the T-case is that you would then have an even higher chance of loosing the proper linkage of the shifter. (which now nicely combines high- and low-range in a continous pattern)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "G.R.Baker" Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:38:15 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com I like the "Santity Check" disclaimer...remember guys these trucks were designed to be extreme offroad vehicles and were put through extensive testing. It seems to me that it is an almost perfectly matched powertrain so get them out and use them! I'm having a ball out of mine, actually I need to quit offroading so much so I can finish the thing. G.R.Baker Crawling and Climbing over everything. To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "extrm303" Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:49:26 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com > I like the "Santity Check" disclaimer...remember guys these trucks > were designed to be extreme offroad vehicles and were put through > extensive testing. It seems to me that it is an almost perfectly > matched powertrain so get them out and use them! I'm having a ball > out of mine, actually I need to quit offroading so much so I can > finish the thing. > > G.R.Baker > Crawling and Climbing over everything. Succinctly put!! My Volvos have given me much joy and constantly amaze me in performance, capability and original design. "I guess it really comes down to two things: Get busy jabbering and writing or get busy wheelin' Thanks for the groups patience enough said. Volvos are waiting!!" To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: jim brown Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Newer TDI Engine Swap? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: On 7 Apr 2005 at 15:44, Jens wrote: >> I toy with the idea to change the gearbox to a better type. I prefer >> the automatic transmission ZF 4HP22, a mechanic/hydaulic box without >> any electronic. > > That is alsot he one in the Pinzgauer nowadays. > (they once spoke about a 5sp slushbox, but that never materialized) > (they *do* claim however 100% lockup in all gears, for best-possible > engine-braking (which is odd, since *very* few slushboxes *can* lock > up in 1st gear (for risk of stalling the engine!)) I've had alot of experience with the AW4 auto in my [cough] Jeep [cough]. A common trick we've adopted is to bypass the computer and switch the solenoids manually. This allows 100% lockup in 1st gear, and yes it will stall but only if the TC is locked up at the same time. -jb To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:39:28 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: ZF gearbox, 5sp vs 4sp, Volvo vs Pinzgauer Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 7 Apr 2005 at 12:28, c303tgb112003 wrote: > I found a web-page about the Alfa Romeo Montreal with a quite good > description about the ZF S5-18/3gear case, see > http://www.alfamontreal.info/ under "Gearbox". http://www.alfamontreal.info/Mmain.html#Gearbox ;)) > I have also seen that > one sketch in the C303 part catalogue is bad copy-paste product, chap. > 43. The overview sketch of the S5-18/3 is not correct (16:2), the > shifting mechanism, reverse gear and the counter axel is just a copy > from the sketch of the S4-18/3 box. The correct design, see detail > sketches, 16:3 and 16:4. The TGB-20 was a late edition to the C303 > program and someone cut some corners. Christer Btw, two of the previous messages in this thread confirmed more or less my theory that the 5sp could only work in the TGB20, both box and wheelbase being longer, and drive-shaft(angle)s already a bit marginal on all other (short wheelbase) TGB's. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Jens" Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:26:59 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Newer TDI Engine Swap? Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Hi Jan > Btw, I wonder whether the Pinzgauer uses a heavier flywheel than > those cars? it´s a misunderstanding. Later engines uses a dual-weighted flywheel in case of manual gearbox. This kind of flywheel is not a good choice for off-road-vehicles. I must chance the dual-weighted flywheel from my 1,9TDI AFN to a normal flywheel in my syncro because it was broken down due to extensive off-roading. > (they *do* claim however 100% lockup in all gears, for best-possible > engine-braking (which is odd, since *very* few slushboxes *can* lock > up in 1st gear (for risk of stalling the engine!)) The ZF 4HP22 can locked in 1th gear ! Please remember, it was used in another off-road-cars, Landrover Discovery and Range Rover. It can not locked in 2th or 3th gear, that´s right but I mean I don´t need this feature. > Would all those have the same bolt-pattern on the T-case side, or > would the casing be just as varied as the ZF manual box, in > various applications? I don´t know, if Landrover use the same bolt-pattern on T-case-side as Volvo. ZF has offered their own T-cases in the past for the 4HP22. The end of the 4HP22 is variable to connect to many cases. I want to check it during the next months. > The Volvo FD51 is the T-case, correct? I mean the T-case of C30x > Also fulltime 4wd I assume? Yes ! The LR 230-T-case is very stable (in opposite to LR-axles ...) > Even assymetric fulltime?....:)) No > (and preferably Torsen as well, of course, or even Quaife....:)) your dream ? > Added problem when changing the T-case is that you would then have an > even higher chance of loosing the proper linkage of the shifter. ??? you have to build in the shifter from LR, if you use the LT230 The Volvo-shifter have to kick to the moon ;-) > (which now nicely combines high- and low-range in a continous > pattern)) I don´t think that is a nice feature of Volvo C30x cu Jens http://www.viermalvier.de/forum_php/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=iveco&Number=231301&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Jens" Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:27:21 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] infomations about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com I have got some new informations about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 as a summary the known gear-ratios of all cars a S5-18/3 is used: (sorry for this few german words: Gang =3D gear, R =3D reverse gear) Alfa Romeo Montreal 1. Gang 3,418 2. Gang 1,941 3. Gang 1,389 4. Gang 1,000 5. Gang 0,795 R-Gang 3,663 Iveco Daily 30.8 and 35.8 1. Gang 6,000 2. Gang 3,650 3. Gang 2,040 4. Gang 1,300 5. Gang 1,000 R-Gang 5,470 Volvo C306 [note WJ: TGB20-only] 1. Gang 3,920 2. Gang 2,470 3. Gang 1,760 4. Gang 1,270 5. Gang 1,000 R-Gang 3,700 Pinzgauer TurboDiesel (new model since 1985) 1. Gang 4,250 2. Gang 2,510 3. Gang 1,480 4. Gang 1,000 5. Gang 0,747 R-Gang 4,030 Pinzgauer petrol-engine (old model up to 1985) 1. Gang 5,330 2. Gang 3,240 3. Gang 2,050 4. Gang 1,300 5. Gang 1,000 R-Gang 5,470 Opel Kadett 1900 LS 1. Gang 2,990 2. Gang 1,760 3. Gang 1,305 4. Gang 1,000 5. Gang 0,874 R-Gang ? a little view to drawings about the Iveco-version http://www.viermalvier.de/forum_php/upload//231452-Zwischenablage02.jpg http://www.viermalvier.de/forum_php/upload//231814-L%E4ngsschnitt%20ZF_S5_1.JPG The ZF S5-18/3-gearbox is fitted with toothed wheels for 4 gears and the reverse-gear. The 5th gear is made by directly connecting the in- and output-shaft. Therefore one the gear-ratio must be 1:1, it could be the 4th or the 5th gear and it depends on the sequence of the gear-shifting. The gearboxes with the 5th gear 1:1 has another gear-shifting than the gearboxes with the 4th gear 1:1. I don't know wether it is possible to change this two different gear-shiftings. If you want to use an overdrive-5th-gear in the Volvo-C306-gearbox, the changing is categorical required. All the different gearboxes use another gear- shifting-mechanism. These in additional to Cliff's postings. greetings Jens To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Teppo Rapo Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:13:43 +0300 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] infomations about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Thank you! Now I know what I need! Iveco gearbox. Search is already began! hmm...does the Iveco box fit with just bolt-on?? loks like a bit different to me. Little bit longer..? That may cause need for modifications for mounting maybe but drive shafts for sure. If it does not fit, one option woul be to fit TGB20 gearbox and use gearing from Iveco?? -teppo To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Jens" Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 14:04:46 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: infomations about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, Teppo Rapo wrote: > Thank you! Now I know what I need! Iveco gearbox. > Search is already began! > > hmm...does the Iveco box fit with just bolt-on?? loks like a bit > different to me. Little bit longer..? > That may cause need for modifications for mounting maybe but drive > shafts for sure. > If it does not fit, one option woul be to fit TGB20 gearbox and use > gearing from Iveco?? > -teppo Hi Teppo, I believe the Iveco-gearbox does not fit. You need a gearbox from TGB20 and have to change all the shafts. Cliff means it should be possible, I don=B4t know if he right. The S5-18/3 is a little longer, you have to replace the engine (in my mind the best way) or the T-case (and modify the kardans :-() In case to get an Iveco-gearbox you should swap the engine too ;-) Iveco-TD-engines are very strong and the clutch-housing from the Iveco-gearbox fits on the volvo-gearbox. unfortunately the ZF-gearbox by Iveco comes only with non-turbo- engines, sorry. The TD-engines fits well but you need another engine from Daily 35.10 etc. cu Jens To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Teppo Rapo Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:30:54 +0300 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: infomations about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Jens kirjoitti: >Hi teppo, > >I believe the Iveco-gearbox does not fit. >You need a gearbox from TGB20 and have to change all the shafts. >Cliff means it should be possible, I don=B4t know if he right. >The S5-18/3 is a little longer, you have to replace the engine (in >my mind the best way) or the T-case (and modify the kardans :-() >In case to get an Iveco-gearbox you should swap the engine too ;-) >Iveco-TD-engines are very strong and the clutch-housing from the >Iveco-gearbox fits on the volvo-gearbox. > I don't wanto have Volvo's gear box, I want Iveco gearbox. :) OK, So I need to find out if Iveco's shafts, gearing etc. stuff fits to TGB20 gearbox. Anyone?? To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:20:40 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: infomations about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 19 May 2005 at 14:04, Jens wrote: > Hi teppo, > > I believe the Iveco-gearbox does not fit. > You need a gearbox from TGB20 and have to change all the shafts. > Cliff means it should be possible, I don=B4t know if he right. > The S5-18/3 is a little longer, you have to replace the engine (in > my mind the best way) or the T-case (and modify the kardans :-() Rear drive-shaft (angle) is critical on the SWB models, apparently. (11/1111/13/13xx).... Which explains why only the TGB20 (=3DLWB) got the 5sp. (but it does not explain why the C306 firefighters did *not* get the 5sp (but they also did not get the lowest/TGB20 diff-ratio either, even though max weight is similar (5500kg vs 5700kg of the TGB20)) (my guess is that it might be related to the PTO- configuration/location, typical for a firefighter (but they all were custom-build, so this is not a very strong argument)) (I also wondered whether not at least those firefighters got a stronger version of the B30 engine....custom body, custom engine?) > In case to get an Iveco-gearbox you should swap the engine too ;-) > Iveco-TD-engines are very strong and the clutch-housing from the > Iveco-gearbox fits on the volvo-gearbox. But Iveco TD's don't rev much above 3000rpm IIRC....;(( (pray for the existence of that overdrive!....;)) > unfortunately the ZF-gearbox by Iveco comes only with non-turbo- > engines, sorry. The TD-engines fits well but you need another engine > from Daily 35.10 etc. What was the HP/torque rating of the non-TD's btw? TD was 125hp max I believe, but it can be tweaked to 200hp (sample in an Italian SCAM 4x4 4500kg rally vehicle). -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:29:52 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] infomations about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 19 May 2005 at 16:13, Teppo Rapo wrote: > Thank you! Now I know what I need! Iveco gearbox. > Seach is already began! Previous discussion, which lead Jens to this Iveco box, is here: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/volvo_5sp&4sp.txt > hmm...does the Iveco box fit with just bolt-on?? loks like a bit > different to me. Little bit longer..? > That may cause need for modifications for mounting maybe but drive > shafts for sure. > If it does not fit, one option woul be to fit TGB20 gearbox and use > gearing from Iveco?? > -teppo Yup, that was the plan/theory, in the risky assumption that *only* the internal gears were different....thereby also trying to maintain the shift mechanism & linkage, if possible. But if the in- and output shafts are already different, then it becomes much more problematic. (wasn't one of the shafts solid with the gears? (gears cut/machined *on* the shaft, from a large solid piece of steel?)) Btw, for those interested in a wild PTO-concept (actually PTI, Power Take IN....:)) http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/PTO_hydro-reversal-crawler.txt -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Jens" Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 07:26:37 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: infomations about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Hi W-J, > Rear drive-shaft (angle) is critical on the SWB models, apparently. > (11/1111/13/13xx).... > Which explains why only the TGB20 (=LWB) got the 5sp. Are you sure ? I mean it would be no problem to move the engine forward because it's a lot of space between engine and cooler. In this case the T-case are in the same position. > But Iveco TD's don't rev much above 3000rpm IIRC....;(( > (pray for the existence of that overdrive!....;)) The typical engine-speed for Iveco TD is 3600 rpm. You are right, by using an Iveco Diesel an overdrive is required > What was the HP/torque rating of the non-TD's btw? 72 or 82 PS/ torque don't know but less than 200 Nm I believe > TD was 125hp max I believe, but it can be tweaked to 200hp (sample > in an Italian SCAM 4x4 4500kg rally vehicle). The older TD has 103 hp, the one with 125hp is a modern CR-Diesel ! I hate CR-Diesel because I like to burn vegetable oil in the engine ;-) The most suitable diesel for vegetable oil are ones with inline-injection-pump like mercedes or nissan (OM 617, OM602, OM 605, SD33T). greetings Jens To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "c303tgb112003" Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:54:25 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: infomations about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Hi, all I am quite sure that the change of 4 to 5 speed gearbox has nothing to do with the drive-shaft angels. Because two facts, first the 20- bil is heavier than the 11/13 and it is suitable to have a more closely spaced gear ratios, the same engine=85. Secondly, the 20-bil was produced after the complete line of 11/13 -bil was manufactured, actually the car was produced in a different factory some years after, so a slightly re-design of the frame doesn't interfere with overall production efficiency. The latter imply also that a more freely choice of gear box could be applied. (And you do not need the fifth gear in 11/13 bil, maximum speed in the swedish army is 80 km/h=85.) I agree completed with Jens that a longitudinal shift of the engine of approx. 50 mm is easily accomplished, there is plenty of space and the marginal shift of centre of gravity could be neglected. You should keep in mind that an empty 11-bil is very forward heavy, compared to heavy loaded 11-bil. During test an empty 11-bil easily could overturn the front axel, that's why the shifted positing of the spare tire (to a mandatory rear position, in early stage on the roof above the driver) and also the introduction of the "anti- locking" break system. I am very interested in the progress of the capability studied of the Z4 Opel/Alfa compared to the C303 Z4. I have one Z4-5speed just waiting to get some new gears=85.. Jens, I can recommend a OM603, much better than the reputation.... Best regards Christer To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 20:43:16 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: infomations about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 20 May 2005 at 7:26, Jens wrote: > Hi W-J, > > > Rear drive-shaft (angle) is critical on the SWB models, apparently. > > (11/1111/13/13xx).... > > Which explains why only the TGB20 (=LWB) got the 5sp. > > Are you sure ? I mean it would be no problem to move the engine > forward because it=B4s a lot of space between engine and cooler. In > this case the T-case are in the same position. I mean 'critical' in not much room/angle left to move T-case rearwards (with engine at same position). Moving engine forward might indeed be the best solution. > > But Iveco TD's don't rev much above 3000rpm IIRC....;(( > > (pray for the existence of that overdrive!....;)) > > the typical engine-speed for Iveco TD is 3600 rpm. Yes, checked that later....but my HJ60 Land Cruiser has max-HP at the same rpm, and it does not like getting there at all....;(( > You are right, by using an Iveco Diesel an overdrive is required > > > What was the HP/torque rating of the non-TD's btw? > > 72 or 82 PS/ torque don=B4t know but less than 200 Nm I believe > > > TD was 125hp max I believe, but it can be tweaked to 200hp (sample > > in an Italian SCAM 4x4 4500kg rally vehicle). > > The older TD has 103 hp, the one with 125hp is a modern CR-Diesel ! > I hate CR-Diesel because I like to burn vegetable oil in the > engine ;-) The most suitable diesel for vegetable oil are ones with > inline-injection-pump like mercedes or nissan (OM 617, OM602, OM > 605, SD33T). Get a 12H-T (line-6/4.0L) or 13B-T (line-4/3.4L Land Cruiser diesel....direct injection (the non-TD Iveco is probably not?), but with line-pump....not many diesels with that combination around. Also remember the notes about that Steyr line-6/3.2L....they choose mechanical-driven pump-injectors over common-rail to deal with lousy fuel qualities (typical for marine sector, and of course a feature which is much appreciated by military). -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Jens" Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 07:49:46 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: further ideas about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com a new idea about the modification of ZF S5-18/3: 1. take a ZF S5-18/3 from Volvo C306 2. change the 3th gear to 1,48 (Pinzgauer TD) 3. change the 4th to 0,795 (Alfa Romeo) 4. do nothing else ... What will happen ? The gearbox has the following ratios: "Volvo custom" 3,920 (Volvo C306) 2,470 (Volvo C306) 1,480 (Pinzgauer TD) 1,000 (Volvo C306) 0,795 (Alfa Romeo) 3,700 (Volvo C306) I checked the results about gearing with a selfmade diagramm and I mean the ratios are ok. By using a good diesel-engine with enough torque highway-driving is nice. The modifcations at the gearbox are only the changing of 4 four toothed wheels, the gear-shifting could be hold by genuine Volvo C306. Only the sequence to change the gears are abnormal. The driver have to change first to the "5th-gear-position" of the gearshift and after this to the "4th-gear-position". I mean that is not a real problem for the driver ! If I can get a Volvo ZF S5-18/3 I will try to do this modifications ! greetings Jens To: From: "Stephen Cahill" Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:24:01 -0300 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: further ideas about the gearbox ZF S5-18/3 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 4:49 AM > a new idea about the modification of ZF S5-18/3: > > 1. take a ZF S5-18/3 from Volvo C306 > 2. change the 3th gear to 1,48 (Pinzgauer TD) > 3. change the 4th to 0,795 (Alfa Romeo) > 4. do nothing else ... > > What will happen ? > The gearbox has the following ratios: > > "Volvo custom" > 3,920 (Volvo C306) > 2,470 (Volvo C306) > 1,480 (Pinzgauer TD) > 1,000 (Volvo C306) > 0,795 (Alfa Romeo) > 3,700 (Volvo C306) > > I checked the results about gearing with a selfmade diagramm and I > mean the ratios are ok. By using a good diesel-engine with enough > torque highway-driving is nice. > > The modifcations at the gearbox are only the changing of 4 four > toothed wheels, the gear-shifting could be hold by genuine Volvo > C306. Only the sequence to change the gears are abnormal. The driver > have to change first to the "5th-gear-position" of the gearshift and > after this to the "4th-gear-position". I mean that is not a real > problem for the driver ! > > If I can get a Volvo ZF S5-18/3 I will try to do this modifications ! > > greetings > Jens Just a little off topic. As the 300TD is not an SAE standard flywheel housing Thwere are a couple of housings for it.The Land Rover version and the Eaton Fuller version. My question is there a difference between the ZF version and the R380 version.Or ther a different one for the automatic ZF transmissions. Thanking all Stephen To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Jim Molloy" Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:28:38 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Gearbox - lower gearing c303 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Does anyone know just how much longer the 5-speed ZF transmission measures compared to the standard four speed unit? Take care. Jim Molloy Waldersee Farm http://www.northwestmogfest.com http://www.volvo4x.com To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "rdoveryhoo" Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:02:47 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Gearbox - lower gearing c303 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Molloy" wrote: > > Does anyone know just how much longer the 5-speed ZF transmission > measures compared to the standard four speed unit? > > Take care. The 5 speed gearbox is 47 cm from the front edge of the bell housing to the contact edge of the transfer box (the edge past the breather pipe. I would be very interested in fitting the 5 speed box because I've got one to refurbish and it would give me that extra low gear for off roading. Richard www.volvoc303.co.uk To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Willem-Jan Markerink Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:54:07 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Gearbox - lower gearing c303 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 23 Apr 2007 at 7:02, rdoveryhoo wrote: > The 5 speed gearbox is 47 cm from the front edge of the bell housing > to the contact edge of the transfer box (the edge past the breather pipe. > > I would be very interested in fitting the 5 speed box because I've got > one to refurbish and it would give me that extra low gear for off > roading. Ahem, you do realize that the ratio-gain in 1st gear is almost neglible? IIRC, reverse gains more than 1st gear....8-)) Not sure if physical dimensions are in this file also, but at least the ratio's are: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/volvo_5sp&4sp.txt However, the additional gear-split with the 3 inbetween ratio's (5th is still 1.0:1, like it is with the 4sp-box) is still welcome, especially with a loaded vehicle, both up and downhill....a demand inherently caused by the lack of torque cq narrow torque-band of a gasoline. (in the opposite scenario, if you increase torque(band) on a diesel significantly by means of an intercooler, you can almost throw out 1 or more gears) A real splitter would be even more welcome of course.... (utopia would be a splitter-box that acts both as an additional/selectable underdrive as well as an overdrive (the Italian Bremach and Scam 4x4 can be had either way (0.8 or 1.2), but not both) Although, of course, the Volvo does have a rudimentary kind of splitter, due to the synchronized T-case plus single-stick operation....:)) (but it only 'splits' the lower gears, sadly) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "rdoveryhoo" Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:34:05 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Gearbox - lower gearing c303 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: > > On 23 Apr 2007 at 7:02, rdoveryhoo wrote: > > > The 5 speed gearbox is 47 cm from the front edge of the bell housing > > to the contact edge of the transfer box (the edge past the breather pipe. > > > > I would be very interested in fitting the 5 speed box because I've got > > one to refurbish and it would give me that extra low gear for off > > roading. > > Ahem, you do realize that the ratio-gain in 1st gear is almost > neglible? > IIRC, reverse gains more than 1st gear....8-)) > > Not sure if physical dimensions are in this file also, but at least > the ratio's are: > > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/volvo_5sp&4sp.txt > > However, the additional gear-split with the 3 inbetween ratio's (5th > is still 1.0:1, like it is with the 4sp-box) is still welcome, > especially with a loaded vehicle, both up and downhill....a demand > inherently caused by the lack of torque cq narrow torque-band of a > gasoline. > (in the opposite scenario, if you increase torque(band) on a diesel > significantly by means of an intercooler, you can almost throw out 1 > or more gears) > > A real splitter would be even more welcome of course.... > (utopia would be a splitter-box that acts both as an > additional/selectable underdrive as well as an overdrive (the Italian > Bremach and Scam 4x4 can be had either way (0.8 or 1.2), but not > both) > > Although, of course, the Volvo does have a rudimentary kind of > splitter, due to the synchronized T-case plus single-stick > operation....:)) > (but it only 'splits' the lower gears, sadly) IIRC the 1st gear on the 5 speed gearbox is lower than the normal 1st but the final drive is the same. When I'm driving off road a 'super low' 1st gear would come in handy. Richard To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Willem-Jan Markerink Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:02:25 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Gearbox - lower gearing c303 Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 23 Apr 2007 at 8:34, rdoveryhoo wrote: > IIRC the 1st gear on the 5 speed gearbox is lower than the normal 1st > but the final drive is the same. When I'm driving off road a 'super > low' 1st gear would come in handy. Not sure what you mean with final drive (given one and the same vehicle/diff's), but the ratio-difference of 5sp/1st vs 4sp/1st is really neglible....3.92/3.87=1.013x.... While reverse gear is indeed significantly different, 4.16/3.7=1.12x, but the gain is actually with the 4sp, *not* with the 5sp[*]....so in that context you might even reconsider seriously, given the neglible gain of 1st: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th R high low _____________________________________________________________________ 5sp: 3.92 2.47 1.76 1.27 1.0 3.7 1.0 2.39 4sp: 3.87 2.08 1.39 1.0 4.16 1.0 2.39 Sorry when I busted your dream/project....;)) [*] of course, in the original application (TGB20) this 5sp was still an improvement, but only because of the even lower diff ratio (total axle ratio 7.6 vs 7.1 on TGB13 (so actually the diff change doesn't completely compensate the reverse-disadvantage on the TGB20/5sp, being less than 10% (7.6/7.1=1.07x)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://forum.terrangbil.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=2738&PID=41704 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx S5-18/3 är exakt 60mm längre än tgb11-13 lådan S4-18/3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx