I think that one or both of us is going to be mail-bombed or expelled from
this list soon for this, but, what the hell...
My truck is a part-time 4x4, so the selector console looks like this:
2H
4H -- N
4L
In a true full-time 4x4 (current Jeeps?), I dont think that there is a
selector level at all, because it is always in 4wd. All-wheel-drive
vehicles also lack selectors. I gather you have a part-time system like
mine?
-----Original Message-----
From: fawcett@uism.bu.edu <fawcett@uism.bu.edu>
To: DAKOTA-TRUCK@buffnet.net <DAKOTA-TRUCK@buffnet.net>
Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 5:31 PM
Subject: Re[2]: DML: Re: Re: re:4 wheel drive
>
>______________________________ Forward Header
__________________________________
>
> A-HA! Now I think I really got it! My brain cramp is over! The
> full-time option just gives me another position on the selector (you
> know, the lever on the floor). So my trucks not in full-time 4wd all
> the time... only when I shift it into it. My selector lever looks
> like this:
> 2 WD HI
> 4 WD Part-Time
> 4 WD Full-Time
> N
> 4 WD Low
>
> So, until I shift into 4WD, I'm in 2 WD just like on your truck.
>
> Now to really muddy the water, there is a bit of a debate that because
> the drive shaft to the front axle is always spinning (even though it's
> not getting power from the T-Case until you shift into 4WD) it doesn't
> really matter from a fuel efficiency standpoint whether or not your in
> 4WD or not. How's that for confusing! I'll have to check this out
> this winter but not now... I couldn't live with the knowledge that my
> gas mileage could possibly get any lower!!!
>
> T.
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: Re: DML: Re: Re: re:4 wheel drive
>Author: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net> at smtpout
>Date: 9/24/98 3:42 PM
>
>
>I dont get it. Let me try again.
>
>A truck that is powering two axles consumes more fuel than a similar truck
>powering one, right?
>
>So, a 4x4 with a part-time system allows the driver to switch to 2wd (power
>to one axle) and burn less fuel, right?
>
>If the two assertions above are true (dont know if they are), then it would
>seem that part-time 4wd is more efficient than full-time 4wd, not
>necessarily while it is engaged, but precisely because it can be
disengaged.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fawcett@uism.bu.edu <fawcett@uism.bu.edu>
>To: DAKOTA-TRUCK@buffnet.net <DAKOTA-TRUCK@buffnet.net>
>Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 2:43 PM
>Subject: Re: DML: Re: Re: re:4 wheel drive
>
>
>>______________________________ Forward Header
>__________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> I get it now... The easy answer is no. The 4WD systems in newer
Daks
>> ('93 & up, I think) have all of the parts spinning all the time. So
>> there is no net difference between full-time and part-time 4WD when
>> your running in 2Hi. To say it another way, 2wd on your Dak operates
>> precisely the same way as 2wd on my Dak... Clear as mud?
>>
>> T.
>>
>>
>>
>> <<What I meant was, doesnt a 4x4 consume slightly less fuel in
>> part-time 2wd mode than a 4x4 running in full-time 4wd mode?
>>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:10:00 EDT