Locker vs Open

[eleblanc]

Anyone ever purposely not engaged a locker for situations like that?

Absolutely, that is what make selectable locker so appreciated once you have them. I would add even more air lockers since they are mostlikely going to engage and disengage faster then electric. Electric locker may not always engage on the flip of the button.

 

[Maryland 110]

if you really want to see the difference, just do like me, get a ARB front and rear! then you have tons of opportunaties to found out.

Here is me showing how just a rear locker make a difference, first attempt, no lockers, second rear. My guess with the front locked alsom there wouldn't have been any wheel spin or almost none.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnbBFt1qm-s

Cool Cruiser- what engine is in it ? I had a Toyota 2h in my 110 for a while.

 

[Ireland]

Another Locker test article...Surprising results to me...
http://winter2005.4wheelingoz.com/wi05 LOCKER TEST.htm

 

[I Leak Oil]

Try getting a canoe full of potatoes up a steep hill. Woud you push it or pull it up? If you only had 1 locker I agree the front would be the best place for in on a hill climb. And just like most front wheel drive cars in the snow, my truck does great with the front locked vs. the rear. This is why I like to have 2 selectables. Atleast I can choose how much trouble to get myself into!
Jason T.

 

[devinsixtyseven]

That was a great article! Makes me wish for a stronger front end.

FWIW, in the Toyota 7.5" IFS community (95.5-04 Tacos, 4Runners/T100/Tundras which share that differential) it's generally accepted practice to use the rear locker first, as the front drivetrain is prone to failure when the vehicle is climbing in the rocks with the front locker engaged.

I don't know how the other Toyota drivetrains stack up, or other makes...but it is something to keep in mind, especially if you're using larger tires. I use the front locker sparingly in my own 1st-gen Tundra.

-Sean

 

[eleblanc]

Cool Cruiser- what engine is in it ? I had a Toyota 2h in my 110 for a while.

It is a BJ42, so it still as the original diesel 3B. But it is now turbo and water to air intercooled! :Wow1:

 

[Hank]

You people are crazy...front locker only? Seriously?

What do you do when you need to do something like, I don't know, turn?

 

[Rovernut]

Front tires unload on a hill. Weight shifts to rear.

Push a canoe full of potatoes? ****** does that have to do with it?

 

[Rovernut]

There are lots of reasons that second Rangie could have had problems. Bad tires, poorly chosen line, it sure looked to me like the driver didn't understand what finesse was.

Range Rovers from 1970 to 1988 had a center diff lock. From 1989 to 2002 they had center diffs locked by a viscous coupling. From 2003 they had a torsen center diff.

From 1992 or 3 they had traction control on the rear wheels, and a few years later they got it on all 4. I think the current crop has an LSD in the rear axle.

I can show you the rest of the video where a Disco I with taller tires open F/R and a center diff lock had even more trouble than the blue Range Rover. I have a lot of video in that same spot of all makes having lots of trouble there, from an H1 to a BII. Open/open vehicles have a hard time there.

 

[jh504]

You people are crazy...front locker only? Seriously?

What do you do when you need to do something like, I don't know, turn?

Im not sure that ExPo is the place to go around calling people crazy because they have a different opinion than you. If money is not an issue selectable lockers front and rear is the way to go. But, from experience, I would rather have a selectable locker in the front if I can only have one. I usually get along just fine with no locker what so ever, but when I have needed one it has been in the front to climb an obstacle, not in the back to push me over it.

And also about the other weight shifting to the rear comment. The weight of an engine in the front of a vehicle is not going to all shift to the rear. Unless you are on a crazy grade it is going generally stay over the front tires.

If someone has a different opinion, that is ok with me. I am sure they have good reason for it, or at least I hope so. For my driving style I have a certain thing that I like.

 

[Hank]

Well, speaking from experience, you have a lot to learn.

I've played with this a great deal. I have ARB's both front and rear, and I've hacked the wiring harness so I can lock the front diff independently from the rear.

Bar none, the rear locker helps out the most.

You're right that the front locker will help you get up an obstacle. The front locker is great for that. But typically, the rear tires follow the front tires. So the rear tires would, too, need some traction.

I have found, in almost all circumstances, that once the front of a rig climbs an obstacle, that the weight, or load, transfers to the rear axle. Some would call this "unloading" the front axle. The engine weight is not going to help you here, unless your engine is sitting in front of the front axle. Without a little weight, the front axle will float and traction will be minimized. Of course the front axle will still be getting traction, but now your rear axle is "loaded" - you know this because the rear tires, when aired down, are deflecting. You can see in this pic how the rear tires are deforming under load.

Of course in this picture the front axle is unlocked. On this obstacle, you need both traction and turning ability. With the front axle locked, turning the truck is bit of a trick. With the front axle locked, the turning radius is so wide, maneuvering through the "trail" would be rough.

Here is another example. On this obstacle, as you can see, a rear locker is needed. In fact, I did this obstacle numerous times locked, unlocked, front only, rear only, etc... I was able to do this obstacle with the rear only locked, but with only the front locked, I was unable to pull through. Really, I can't understand why:

But again, it's easy to see how the front axle "unloads", thus little traction is provided.

Here is a picture of traction, just incase someone missed it:

Sometimes you want the wheels with traction to actually turn. Sometimes.

Now, with an open diff in the rear, the energy, or force to propel you forward (or backwards) will take the path of least resistance. So if one rear tire is getting awesome traction (see above) it's the other tire that's going to spin.

Of course, sometime you need traction going down a hill. Or what if you're needing to back-up a hill? You may need a traction aid there, too. IN these cases, a front only locker may be more help.

I spend more time driving forward. Maybe some people spend more time driving backwards, though. I'm not sure. I have never really witnessed this, but maybe I need more experience, or travel to other parts of the World to see this.

There is always some wise-one who say's "well, I don't do rocks like that" or they will comment on the condition of my beater truck. So, here is another pic of my girlfriend in her LR3. As you can see, the front-end is unloaded...a front locker will not help nearly as much as a rear locker here:

It's not hard to understand that the rear tires need to climb here. The front end is light.

Now if we were backing up this obstacle, the front locker would be really nice to have.

Again, front locker not so good here (if you can only have one):

Ok, one more:

 

[Maryland 110]

It is a BJ42, so it still as the original diesel 3B. But it is now turbo and water to water intercooled! :Wow1:

Sweet- thought I heard turbo whine in that clip. Bet that really transformed the 3b.

 

[eleblanc]

Sweet- thought I heard turbo whine in that clip. Bet that really transformed the 3b.

totally, from farm tractor, to ten wheeler. I can pull my M101 with rtt steap climb on the highway at 65mph no problem (with the intercooler), prior to the intercooler it would overheat on long climb.

BTW: meant air to water intercooler, water to water would not be a good idea...doh.

 

[jh504]

Well, speaking from experience, you have a lot to learn.

Your right, there is plenty more I can learn about many things, and that is my intention, to keep learning and listening. I do however draw my conclusions from 10 years of off-highway driving. I do not claim to be an expert nor do I think all should "do as I do" or "drive the same way I drive".

I have found, in almost all circumstances, that once the front of a rig climbs an obstacle, that the weight, or load, transfers to the rear axle.

So even if your rig does not change angles when the front clears an obstacle the weight all of a sudden jumps to the back? Im not saying the front will always have more weight on it than the rear, for sure there is a lot of weight transfered to the rear. But until I get my truck in angles like in your second picture I am not going to worry about that. Taking an expedition style rig, or really for me, a camping rig, through stuff like that is not something I plan on doing. That is something I used to enjoy with a trail rig, for example, a full size bronco lifted 8" with a welded rear and selectable up front. I have since kind of left the hardcore trail riding behind to do more exploring rather than see how crazy I can get offroad. Though there is nothing wrong with getting crazy offroad.

You're right that the front locker will help you get up an obstacle. The front locker is great for that. But typically, the rear tires follow the front tires. So the rear tires would, too, need some traction.

I seem to have more trouble with getting my front tires up and over things like logs or ledges than my rear. Considering I am driving on somewhat level ground and not at extreme angles like you have shown in some of your pics.

It's not hard to understand that the rear tires need to climb here. The front end is light.

Now if we were backing up this obstacle, the front locker would be really nice to have.

Again, front locker not so good here (if you can only have one):
]

Seems like all of your examples are of climbing at a high angle, which would support your opinion.

I have run only a rear locker in the past because it seemed to be more feasible offroad. I would have rather had front locker only in that rig. Ofcourse, it was in an IFS rig which developed all of its flex from the rear. So the rears stayed planted and the fronts would come off of the ground. In a SFA rig with the ability to plant the front wheels on the ground using the engine weight there would be different results. I am once again running an IFS rig so I would probably go the front locker route again. Or maybe I just wont lock it at all until it gets a SAS, which is a long way away. That would be the reason that I would lock the rear only in my current rig, no use in locking the front if it is getting ditched in the future.

Dont take me the wrong way, Im not saying you are wrong, I just know what I would want for my driving style and terrain.

 

[Rovernut]

This video is certainly not meant to slam, but it's similar to videos posted of ill-equipped vehicles or inexperienced drivers with a blanket comment like "see they suck."

rb

It's a cut out of a longer video and I cut it out because of references lately about articulation being more important than traction adding differentials. At that time, the blue Range Rover had open F/R diffs and rear cones, everything else being pretty much equal. Now, the blue Range Rover has ARB's front and rear and 33x12.50x15 tires on steel wheels, and made it through Twister at Barnwell Mountain Texas (Where Hank is doing a wheelie) after I broke mine trying. I'm not saying he sucks, I was just pointing out the difference.