# Planning Land Rover Series conversion



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

Hi and welcome. I'm a Land Rover fan too and done may a conversion in the past with big diesels, six wheel drive and my own home built transfer box. But that was many years, nearly two decades, ago.

For one motor I would definately keep the gearbox or get a gearbox and transfer box from a later vehicle. That is the easy option.

For going twin motor I would not have one motor per axle as you will only have half the power to each axle when you are off road.
The better solution would be to mount the motors to the transfer box. One in front where the gear box used to go and one behind where the PTO would be. The second motor will have to spin backwards so that will need to be checked before purchase. 
Done this way you will have the power of both motors going to which ever axle has the traction and, if you have diff locks, to which ever wheel on that axle.

You could modify the Rover transfer box to fit the motors by using the PTO output bolted on the back of the Tbox but you will need to fabricate an adaptor to mount another one on the front of the Tbox. There would be no gear inside but a short shaft could be machined to permanently fit the drive gear to the front PTO shaft and then the sliding dog clutch can be used to engage the rear PTO shaft. That gives you the option of running only one motor to save energy or running both for maximum power.

If the Tbox adaptation is too difficult for you then you can get a remote Tbox from one of the Japanese 4x4s or you can get the Tbox from a Lada Riva 4x4 which has full time four wheel drive with a locking centre diff.

I don't think either of these options has a simple PTO output though.

But here is an option.
Get a Suzuki remote Tbox and a Lada remote T box.
Mount the Lada Tbox in the chassis to drive the axles.
Mount the Susuki TBox upside down so that the input flanges of both Tbox line up.
Connect a motor to the each of the output flanges on the Suzuki Tbox.
You will then have two motors where one can be slected in or out of drive and a full time four wheel drive system.
You also have the Tbox gears in the Suzuki Tbox as a step up ratio if needed.

Personally I would go with the Land Rover Tbox and twin ac motors and I think Ian Ashcroft Transmissions in Luton UK used to do a remote fitting kit for it once so he may be able to help.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Hi Woodsmith, 

Thanks for your very fast response. 



Woodsmith said:


> You could modify the Rover transfer box to fit the motors by using the PTO output bolted on the back of the Tbox but you will need to fabricate an adaptor to mount another one on the front of the Tbox. There would be no gear inside but a short shaft could be machined to permanently fit the drive gear to the front PTO shaft and then the sliding dog clutch can be used to engage the rear PTO shaft. That gives you the option of running only one motor to save energy or running both for maximum power.


I Didn't think of this option. This will also rise the gear ratio, what will enhance the acceleration and torque. Doesn't makes it much simpler. Have to study this one. 

But the problem with independent front and rear wheel drive is that you can’t give full power to the wheels if only the front or the rear wheels have grip. That’s not a very common situation, or do you disagree?


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

Jan said:


> But the problem with independent front and rear wheel drive is that you can’t give full power to the wheels if only the front or the rear wheels have grip. That’s not a very common situation, or do you disagree?


That depends on how you use the vehicle.

On road it probably doesn't matter but having four wheel drive is also not necessary either.

Off road it will matter. Without diff locks all you need is one wheel to spin and you have lost half your available power as one motor is ineffective. I'd much rather have that power available to the remaining axle.

In my off road days I sent a lot of time with less then four wheels on the gound. Even my six wheeler often spent time with the front axle in the air while balacing on the rear bogie.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Woodsmith said:


> That depends on how you use the vehicle.
> 
> On road it probably doesn't matter but having four wheel drive is also not necessary either.
> 
> ...


With six wheels -I agree- it's a compleet different story. But we keep the difflocks, that's not an issue. So in my opionion we'll miss the power of one engine only if booth wheels of one axle are in the air. And I still think that's not a very common situation. It's like hanging with the front wheels over a cliff. 

Is it correct that the four or two wheel drive selection is part of the transfer box? That makes it even more interesting.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

Jan said:


> With six wheels -I agree- it's a compleet different story. But we keep the difflocks, that's not an issue. So in my opionion we'll miss the power of one engine only if booth wheels of one axle are in the air. And I still think that's not a very common situation. It's like hanging with the front wheels over a cliff.
> 
> Is it correct that the four or two wheel drive selection is part of the transfer box? That makes it even more interesting.


I'd say even with diff locks I would prefer all the power to both the axles.

Say you are climbing a steep slope. The weight transfer on the vehicle would mean that maybe 80-90% of the weight and traction is on the rear wheels alone. You would want 80-90% of the power there as well rather then only 50% and wasting the other 50% causing front axle spin.Th


The Transfer box in a series Land Rover has the high low gears and the selection for engaging the front axle or just the rear.
That does mean that there is no centre diff so you could only have two wheel drive on the road and four wheel drive off road.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Woodsmith said:


> I'd say even with diff locks I would prefer all the power to both the axles.


You got me convinced.



> The Transfer box in a series Land Rover has the high low gears and the selection for engaging the front axle or just the rear.
> That does mean that there is no centre diff so you could only have two wheel drive on the road and four wheel drive off road.


No centre diff? No centre diff lock, or do you mean that the power distribution over the front/rear is fixed?


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

I'm currently designing a system for my own 1971 Series 2A Land Rover (88"). Wanted to clear some things up.

Series Rovers don't come stock with differential locks... you have to add them, like a the ARB air lockers, or Detroit lockers, etc. Series Land Rovers also don't have center differentials meaning, when 4WD is engaged, 50% power is always going to the front axle and 50% to the rear in all situations, and that's fixed.

I originally thought about using the Azure Dynamics AC-55 package that EVComponents has to mount directly to the transfer case (direct drive) which would have gotten rid of the main gearbox. But ultimately, while I think the performance would have been adequate I was concerned that the UMOC445 controller was the weak link with its limited power handling capability (250A).

So my current plan is to mount a 192v 11" Kostov EV motor to the transmission using the Soliton-1. Batteries (just put in an order) will be 64 (at first) 160Ah Thundersky LiFePO4 cells for about 32.7Kwh of power.

This could actually be too much power for the gearbox internals, and I will no doubt have to upgrade the relatively weak stock rear differential to 24 spline axles and a Dana 44 or at least a Salisbury rear. I will also probably put a Detroit locker in the rear diff. I can also always limit power output at the controller.

Spreadsheet testing indicates that at full power, the truck would be able to hit 100km/h (62mph) in under 10 secs using only 3rd gear (which is significantly faster than stock using a 2.25L petrol engine), and have a realistic range of at least 80 kilometres (50 miles), all on 32" tires. More if the driving is under 45mph. The Rover's aerodynamic efficiency is ridiculously bad. These figures are adjusted for an altitude of 7000 feet, which actually favors range due to the 20% thinner air.

But that's all in paper. I'm eager to see what will happen for real. I'm planning an completing the conversion by early December.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Hi Overlander23,



Overlander23 said:


> Series Rovers don't come stock with differential locks... you have to add them, like a the ARB air lockers, or Detroit lockers, etc.


OK, if the one we eventually buy doesn't have them, we will have to place them our selves. Diff lock's seems to me an essential part of 4x4 vehicles.



> Series Land Rovers also don't have center differentials meaning, when 4WD is engaged, 50% power is always going to the front axle and 50% to the rear in all situations, and that's fixed.


Ah, OK. I just found out that the gear ratio of an Discovery Transfer box would be perfect with the two engines I've in mind. You think they would fit on a Series? I guess they have more options, or not?

I don't know when we start, I'm just planning and trying to understand. We haven't even yet a body.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Overlander23 said:


> I originally thought about using the Azure Dynamics AC-55 package that EVComponents has to mount directly to the transfer case (direct drive) which would have gotten rid of the main gearbox. But ultimately, while I think the performance would have been adequate I was concerned that the UMOC445 controller was the weak link with its limited power handling capability (250A).


I can't find this AC-55 engine at evcomponents. But was a Curtis controler with 550A no option?


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Looks like EVComponents may have finally sold out of their remaining AC-55 drive sets.

The twin AC30 to transfer case setup has a potential problem, IMO. If you use a Discovery transfer case and stock 3.54 rear diff ratio, your overall gear ratio is 4.32:1... too tall for direct drive with this combo. I'd think you'd want more of a 6:1 or 7:1 ratio.

But before that, the AC30 is rated at 15hp continuous. So let's just say 30hp for the twin setup, with a peak of 100hp. The aerodynamic efficiency of the boxy Land Rover means that it needs an estimated 40hp just to maintain 100kmh. That would be over your continuous rating. It could certainly do it, but for how long? By comparison it takes just 17hp to maintain 70kmh.

Getting there would be leisurely, too. With a curb weight of 1500 kg (which is very generous for the SWB version and using 36 x TS 160Ah cells)... about 35 sec 0-100. The lower gear ratio also means that hills will be tough. You'd be better off with the 1.67 high ratio gearing in the 2.5L 90 or 110 LT230 transfer case and varying your final output with different ring and pinion sets at the diffs. You can get over 7:1 this way.

The twin AC, direct drive approach is really expensive, too... $9000 USD for both!

I know your first option, the ADC 9" has been done... by the evparts guys. But I don't know that the performance is like. They used AGM pb batteries.

For my conversion, I need a controller able to handle over 200v, so the Curtis' are out... It's really down to the Soliton-1 and Zillas.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

Jan said:


> You got me convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> No centre diff? No centre diff lock, or do you mean that the power distribution over the front/rear is fixed?


No centre diff. 
On road it is a rear wheel drive car. Off road it is like a four wheel drive car with the centre diff locked.

Series Tboxes are not the strongest but can be improved a bit but the best one to use would be a later Series 3 Tbox as it has a larger shaft on the intermediate gear. There were also one ton varients that had slightly lower ratios.
Disco boxes would vary depending on year. Best have a chat on a Land Rover forum for the best options. Try LR 4x4, they are quite helpful and very knowledgable. Tell them 'Night Train' sent you. I'm sure they will be interested in your plans but may try to convince you to get a V8 instead.

The folks here will be more expert on the electric motors side of things though.


----------



## efan (Aug 27, 2009)

Hey,
look at this add and you cat try contacting this person for an ac55

http://www.austinev.org/evtradinpos...ory&fromfrommethod=showhtmllist&fromfromid=30


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Overlander23 said:


> The twin AC30 to transfer case setup has a potential problem, IMO. If you use a Discovery transfer case and stock 3.54 rear diff ratio, your overall gear ratio is 4.32:1... too tall for direct drive with this combo. I'd think you'd want more of a 6:1 or 7:1 ratio.


I thought that a stock series diff is 1:4.7, and that combined with the 1:1.2 low gear of a disco box would make 1:5.64. And that ratio is according to my calculations perfect for normal use. 

The high gear ratio of that box adds a little extra in extreem conditions. 



> By comparison it takes just 17hp to maintain 70kmh.


Yes, I know. But again it's purpose will be playing around and a little city traffic. It must -to get you anywhere here in Holland- at least be able to reach 80 kmh for the highways. And if it could reach a 100 for -let say- 15 minutes, that would be great. But again that's not a goal. 

And there are no hills in Holland. None. Completely flat. 



> The twin AC, direct drive approach is really expensive, too... $9000 USD for both!


Where can you find a cheaper AC solution? 

Your Li-Ion battery pack would cost me here 20k, thaat's what I call expencive. 



> I know your first option, the ADC 9" has been done... by the evparts guys. But I don't know that the performance is like.


I saw it, a lot of nice pictures but no data. That says something too.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Woodsmith said:


> No centre diff.
> On road it is a rear wheel drive car. Off road it is like a four wheel drive car with the centre diff locked.
> 
> Series Tboxes are not the strongest but can be improved a bit but the best one to use would be a later Series 3 Tbox as it has a larger shaft on the intermediate gear. There were also one ton varients that had slightly lower ratios.
> ...


Thanks Woodsmith. I will.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

Jan said:


> I thought that a stock series diff is 1:4.7, and that combined with the 1:1.2 low gear of a disco box would make 1:5.64. And that ratio is according to my calculations perfect for normal use.
> 
> The high gear ratio of that box adds a little extra in extreem conditions.


You have high and low ratios the wrong way round.
High ratio is low numbers
Low ratio is high numbers

Also the ratio of the diff is 4.7:1, ie. 4.7 turns of the prop equals 1 turn of the axle.
Same with the Tbox, 1.2:1, ie. 1.2 turns of the input gives 1 turn of the output.
But your maths is right.
High range is actually 1.148:1and low range is 2.35:1
For a one ton it is 1.53:1 and 2.92:1



Jan said:


> Yes, I know. But again it's purpose will be playing around and a little city traffic. It must -to get you anywhere here in Holland- at least be able to reach 80 kmh for the highways. And if it could reach a 100 for -let say- 15 minutes, that would be great. But again that's not a goal.
> 
> And there are no hills in Holland. None. Completely flat.


Why do you need a 4x4 with twin motors and big horses?
Seems a lot of expense to do what cyclists and small cars will manage. I'm not even sure you need that much power to do a little playing around. You may be better with a single motor and the full compliment of gears.

One other thing to bear in mind, if you do go and play, is that usually one would use engine braking when decending a steep slope. A DC motor won't give that as it won't have regen and selecting a lower gear may overspeed the motor causing damage.
An ac motor may have regen but you will need to be sure of its ability to control decent speed before trusting to it entirely.
Braking down a steep slippery slope is potentially very dangerous.

In model sized off road play I have used a little electrical reverse to control decent. Not sure how or if this would work full size.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Woodsmith said:


> You have high and low ratios the wrong way round.


Thanks for the explanation. 



> Why do you need a 4x4 with twin motors and big horses?


I prefer AC because of it's Regen capabilities and the flat torque line. With the possibility to remove the extra weight and energy loss of the gearing.

The only affordable AC drive I've found so far is this twin setup. If someone knows a cheaper solution, please let me know.



> Not sure how or if this would work full size.


Me neither, but the Curtis controler seems to be able to handle Regen breaking with an extra pot box. That seems promissing to me.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

I'm imagining a series Land Rover with a motor where the gearbox used to be and batteries under the seat box and rear wheel boxes.

Imagine the looks when people lift the bonnet and there is nothing there, except maybe a huge electric winch!


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Jan you're right... You said Disco, I was thinking Disco for rear diff which would be 3.54... But yes, the Series rear diff is 4.7 stock.

The big question with direct drive is whether you have enough torque to handle the load through one ratio. You're safer going through a gearbox to be able to get different ratios if needed (acceleration or hills, though Holland is renowned for its lack of elevation changes, I suppose). If your goal is a vehicle that is generally driven less than 70kph and doesn't need much acceleration, then I think you're fine. But 100kph in a Series truck takes a lot of power, we're talking about a vehicle that has four times the drag area as a conventional car. And if you go lead, you've got weight to contend with depending on range.

I think my concern with your AC setup is the direct drive aspect of it with the desire to travel 100kph for 15mins. That's a lot of continuous power for not an insignificant amount of time. Usually peak power ratings are quoted for much shorter periods of time, both for motor and controller.

Have you seen Roderick Wilde's (evparts) conversion in action?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSV_46y6ufs

I don't think they could do that without the gearbox.

Is the cost of LiFePO4 that much more expensive to ship to Holland? Is it import duty?


----------



## madderscience (Jun 28, 2008)

In addition to my MR2, I have a 1962 series IIA land rover, which gets about 3000 miles of driving a year. While it definitely makes sure to remind me periodically that it is British, I still love it.

It gets a combined average of about 15 miles per gallon on gas (petrol?). 17mpg long distance cruising at 55 to 60 in overdrive. Not bad, all things considered.

My MR2 has an ADC 9", 1250lbs of flooded lead, and a curtis 1231C controller.

If I were to put my MR2's drivetrain into the rover (keeping all ratios), it would probably perform similarly to the stock rover engine, (torquey but sluggish, in other words) but I'd be lucky to get 25 to 30 miles of range, city driving only (no significant distances at speeds over about 45mph). Basically, I'd lose freeway capability and still have to live with around half the usable range that my MR2 gets. I keep coming up short on traffic lights and stuff with the rover because I have gotten used to coasting up to them from blocks away after driving the MR2. The rover does NOT roll very well, even with 50PSI in the tires and good alignment. CdA on the rover is over 3 times worse than the MR2.

I have no plans to convert my rover to EV (unless perhaps if lithium drops by a factor of 5 in price ) but if and when its stock drivetrain dies (and I have a 40 foot ocean cargo container full of parts to keep that from happening anytime soon...) I will consider a modern rover 2.5 turbodiesel and a compatible 5 speed transmission. Its the modern evolution of that old rover 2.25 engine, and it basically bolts in. (And those engines are much more common in europe than stateside) Same rover, 25mpg on biodiesel or veggie oil with a modern, reliable engine and tranny. 

Just a thought. 

Cheers.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Woodsmith said:


> I'm imagining a series Land Rover with a motor where the gearbox used to be and batteries under the seat box and rear wheel boxes.
> 
> Imagine the looks when people lift the bonnet and there is nothing there, except maybe a huge electric winch!


Yep, that's what I'm dreaming of. 

All the drive stuff in the chassis. Perfect weight distribution.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Overlander23 said:


> Have you seen Roderick Wilde's (evparts) conversion in action?


Thanks Overlander23! I missed that. I saw some pictures and and read some about a challenge, but never saw any movie. Great stuff. I've to see it again later. Give it more attention. I can't tell if it's an AC drive. And he says something of using the gears. I understood that he only used 3th and 4th gear in the dragrace. And never switched gear in the up hill race.

I know that eliminating the gearbox is a risk. I've to recalculate and use different spreadsheets to be sure. I know. But I prefer it. Like I said before, all the stuff in the chassis, and no gearinglosses.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

madderscience said:


> Just a thought.


I know Madderscience, this thing will not winn the World Solar Challenge. But it's what I want.

Love your Landy. And appreciate sharing your conciderations. 

But about that rolling recistance of your Landy. Any idea what's the main reason? The axles, Joints, gearing?


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Overlander23 said:


> Is the cost of LiFePO4 that much more expensive to ship to Holland? Is it import duty?


Missed this one. I don't know why it's so expencive, and hard to get. What do you pay for your 25kW pack? And where?


----------



## CroDriver (Jan 8, 2009)

Jan said:


> Missed this one. I don't know why it's so expencive, and hard to get. What do you pay for your 25kW pack? And where?


I have payed 12.000$ for my 35kWh pack excluding customs

www.EVcomponents.com


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

CroDriver said:


> I have payed 12.000$ for my 35kWh pack excluding customs
> 
> www.EVcomponents.com


A lot less than what I found uptill now. Well, not realy now, I stopped looking for Li-Ion already a while ago. 

It's still over our budget. I think we should still stick to Lead and wait another 2-3 years or so. I rather use the current budget for the engines and controlers. They will probably never be replaced again. The batteries will.


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Here are some details on the EVParts conversion.

http://www.evalbum.com/45

So, it's not AC or exotic. I'm pretty sure it uses Optima Yellow Tops (AGM), possibly group D31.

In the last, difficult uphill race the vehicle was in Low Range.

In the middle race which ended in an uphill run, the clutch was broken... but he had to switch into low range to complete it, I think.


----------



## madderscience (Jun 28, 2008)

Jan said:


> I know Madderscience, this thing will not winn the World Solar Challenge. But it's what I want.
> 
> Love your Landy. And appreciate sharing your conciderations.
> 
> But about that rolling recistance of your Landy. Any idea what's the main reason? The axles, Joints, gearing?


Fair enough. No point in not doing what you want, as long as you understand the tradeoff (which you do). 

As for the rolling resistance, the answer to your question is yes, all of the above. Every gear, joint, bearing, seal, yoke, etc. means more friction losses and more weight and inertia. And at higher speeds (anything over about 40mph) the rover's total lack of aerodynamic qualities will be a very significant additional penalty. 

For the purposes of your range calculations, you should use a CdA (m^2) of 1.68. (See http://www.mayfco.com/tbls.htm), I used the defender 90 CdA which should be pretty close to a series 88". Your rolling resistance coefficient (best case) is probably going to be at LEAST 0.02, this accounts for tires and all driveline/suspension/brake friction.

For comparison my MR2's CdA is 0.55 and I have measured rolling resistance at 0.01, so it is clear what you are up against if you want any kind of range at higher speeds. 

Based on some spreadsheets of mine and some rough guesses of what a conversion would look like, with a 144v system, you will be pulling well over 200 amps to maintain 55mph (90Km/hr). Same speed in my 126V MR2 is about 90 amps.

Good Luck.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

madderscience said:


> Fair enough. No point in not doing what you want, as long as you understand the tradeoff (which you do).


Thanks for your braintime madderscience. 

But I've changed my mind. As usual. I checked out several '88's, but I turned them all down. It seems to me they where not designed to drive on a road. In a straight line. Today, I got my Landcruiser BJ40. That's what eventualy's going to be electric. In my humble opinion It's much more fun to drive. But let not start an landrover vs Toyota war here.

While I'll spend my time restorating the thing, I keep a close look at David85's conversion. From where he got his drive train, they sell a 40 kW / 100 kW peak motor. For a lot less than anywhere else. So, keep me/us posted, David85.

And I think -but I have a lot of time to reconsider many times- I will keep the gearbox. It makes the choice of the engine a lot easier. More gearing options. And the landcruiser gearbox is quite compact.


----------



## madderscience (Jun 28, 2008)

Hey, I like the old land cruisers too.

As for those rovers you looked at, sloppy steering boxes, loose steering mounts, bad ball joints, old bias ply tires, sagging or broken road springs, worn steering kingpins, rotted suspension bushings and various other things can contribute to poor road handling. I had to fix all of the above before I could keep my series going in a straight line. It wasn't a matter of design so much as age and neglect.

Its a good reminder that if we choose to convert an older car, you will probably end up needing to spend a good amount of your budget on restoration of the car itself before you even think about electric motors and batteries. Suspension, brakes, steering needs to be in top notch shape to handle all the extra battery weight, especially with a lead acid conversion.

Good luck with the FJ.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

madderscience said:


> Good luck with the FJ.


Thanks.

I'm also reconsidering to build a first Lead accid version with a lot less range. 30-40 km's maybe. Or even less. And -if it all goes well- in a second (actualy third) project phase to convert it to li-ion with the desired range. Considering the prices of Li-ion will drop even more eventually. 

And I keep the costs of restorating the thing out of the budget. For these kind of cars those costs will keep their value. It's a kind of investment.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

I need some advice.

A Ford Siemens motor on ebay made me think, and search a little further. Now I'm able to buy an original Ford Ranger EV from the east cost of the USA. Batteries not included.

I only want the parts that move the thing. My dream stays the same, and that is converting my oldtimer Landcruiser. I've spend a lot of time in restorating the dammn thing already.

For a Siemens AC drive train, and all the parts you need for a conversion, it's prety good deal. Ther power is a little less than I would have wanted. But not much. To make the shipping even less costly I can disassemble the truck in the USA myself, and ship only the stuff that makes ev'S move.

Question one is, is this a good idea at all? Maybe the parts are too complex, too propriaty to make it ever work in another car? 

I've found the workshop repair manual, and it seems to me, doable. But I have a lot of doubts.

Another thing is the reason why I am so attracted to this drive train, is the fact that this motor and gearing assembly could be positioned right in place of my transfer case. And act as one. Only have to shorten one of the axles to make it fit. And maybe think about a connection between the cruiser's joints and the Ford's joints. 

The thing is the thing has a build in differential, just like a transfer case, and a gear ratio of 3:1. And considering the impressive RPM range of this motor that gives me exactly (how is it possible?) the perfect overall gear ratio for 'direct drive'.

See the attached drawing, of how the thing is assembled. At one end is a planetary gearing mounted that has a reduction of 3:1, with a differential that drive an axle right out this end, and one through the motor to the other end.

It's not designed to work as a 4x4 drive train. It was designed to drive both of the back wheels of the ranger.

Why is this a stupid idea? And why not?


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Dammn! I knew something must be wrong. It's not a 3:1 gear ratio, that's only the planetary gearing. The build in differential brings it to 12.5:1. And that combined with the differential(s) of the Cruiser turns it into a very slow but powerful mud crawler. Not exactly what I want.

So, I can't use the gear assembly, and the motor is just to high on RPM's for my taste. 

My enthusiasm is already fading.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Uhm.. A differential question... If one of the half shafts is locked, the gear ratio for the other one increases... Is there a way to calculate this increase, only based on the fact that the differential has a ratio of 4.17:1...?

Because of the lack of support, I also claim that I can drive this car faster than the White Zombie, and... and... on the power that is generated by an attached wind mill.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Found this: http://charming.awardspace.com/differential/differential.html

With this formula: A * Nx + B * Ny + C * Nz = 0

Let say x is the input drive shaft, and y and z are the half shafts. In a normal car differential that equals to:

A * Nx + B ( Ny + Nz ) = 0

If both wheels turn at the same speed, I know this fact:

4,15 * Nx = (Ny + Nz) / 2

The drive shaft has to turn 4,15 times for 1 rotation of a half shaft. Since there are two half shafts, I have to divide it by two.

If one is stalled, so the RPM is zero:

4,15 * Nx = (Ny + 0) / 2 => 4,15 * Nx = Ny / 2 => Ny = 8,3 * Nx

Useless.


----------



## glaurung (Nov 11, 2009)

Hi Jan,
i do not remember if you are determined to use ac, but from experience i gained from my Range Rover conversion i would suggest new dual-Kostov that has motors side by side and chain driven output shaft below. It would work just as it is.No trans. With proper ratio and Soliton1 it would be simple and powerful conversion.And good price. I have regular dual 11" with original gearboxes but intend to update to new motor when possible.
Greetings, Harri


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

glaurung said:


> Hi Jan,
> i do not remember if you are determined to use ac, but from experience i gained from my Range Rover conversion i would suggest new dual-Kostov that has motors side by side and chain driven output shaft below. It would work just as it is.No trans. With proper ratio and Soliton1 it would be simple and powerful conversion.And good price. I have regular dual 11" with original gearboxes but intend to update to new motor when possible.
> Greetings, Harri


Hi Harri,

Yes, I'm hopelesly focused on AC. Several reasons: RPM control, Regen, Savety, better Nominal power/kg, no brushes, more efficient. And what I forgot. The only problem is money.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

OK, how about this:

A is the rotary of the planetary gearing, 
B are the planets, and 
C (not visable) is the sun. The sun is mounted on the output shaft of the motor.

If I don't use A, and block the planets, so they can't rotate, the planetary gearset is completely blocked. The only gearing is then the differential. The overall gearing is 12.52:1, and I know the planetary gearing is 3:1. So, the gearing of the diff is 4.17. 

This is a little lower than the standard (high) first gear. In a 4x4 situation this is not bad, concidering the torque at zero rpm, and the high rpm capability of the motor.

If I mount a break on the front axle, and open the freewheel hub's on the front wheels I have rear wheel drive only. With a gear ration of 2.08. Which is a little higher than the standard second gear. 

Which is also not bad. Not bad? Which is perfect, it give me the peak nominal power at 110kmh, which is the theoretical top of the car anyway, considering the max nominal power of 36kW and what I've calculated this car will need at 110kmh.

Sounds all to perfect. 

My doubts are at the fixation of the planetary gears. If I block those planets, I doubt the motor's sun gear will fit anymore. The gears are a bit worm shaped. And if the planets can't spin freely anymore it will be impossible to accept the sun...?

Or doesn't that matter? If the planets are fixed in the correct position the sun will work its way into it..?

And what about the strength of the shafts. They are designed to drive just one rear wheel. Which is half the force, of how I'm going to use them in a 4x2 situation. In that case one shaft has to drive the rear diff for both rear wheels. On the other hand mine is smaller and lighter than the ranger.

I know I'm just talking to myself.


----------

