5.0 awd transfer case

[delexploder]

Wow, ever run a tractor? Gotta bump the throttle after you engage the PTO, that's more fuel consumption, same principal,

 

[masospaghetti]

The 4406 is only driving the front driveshaft when you have it in 4hi or 4lo. In 2hi or 2wd (however it is spelled out) 100% of the available power is sent straight through to the rear driveshaft.

To stop the front D shaft and axles from turning you need to have hubs that unlock.

It's only driving the front shaft but shaft is still turning. The only difference is that the wheels are driving the shaft and not the other way around.

Either way, you still have those u-joints rotating, the front differential spinning and slinging gear oil, and all of the friction from the wheel bearings. Also remember that in steady state the 4404 viscous coupler is essentially locked so there's essentially no loss there.

I fail to see how there could be any real benefit from the 4406 from a fuel economy or power standpoint. Now, maybe the 4406 is stronger, and maybe you want the low range - that's not what I'm arguing here.

Again - To be able to "feel" a gain in performance would mean, at minimum, about 10 HP or so. How in the world could that viscous coupler inside the 4404 be absorbing that much power? Remember, 1 hp = 745 watts. Where are all these watts going? It would be red hot within seconds and be melting the case after less then 20.

 

[masospaghetti]

The awd is weak and will just be a constant plague, along with the cv joint on the front drive shaft. If you'd ever look close you'd see the cup is just a trap for rocks,and, the angle of the driveshaft will drive the trapped rocks into the rubber boot. Once this happens the cv joint soon follows. Unless you pull the driveshaft to inspect it after every drive on a gravel road, who knows?

1. Doesn't the 4406 use the same CV joint as the 4404?

2. Early 4404's use a double cardan u-joint instead of the CV.

 

[Turdle]

1. Doesn't the 4406 use the same CV joint as the 4404?

2. Early 4404's use a double cardan u-joint instead of the CV.

No. It has a typical 4 bolt driveshaft flange for the front output.

 

[SoNic67]

I fail to see how there could be any real benefit from the 4406 from a fuel economy or power standpoint. Now, maybe the 4406 is stronger, and maybe you want the low range - that's not what I'm arguing here.

Again - To be able to "feel" a gain in performance would mean, at minimum, about 10 HP or so. How in the world could that viscous coupler inside the 4404 be absorbing that much power? Remember, 1 hp = 745 watts. Where are all these watts going? It would be red hot within seconds and be melting the case after less then 20.

You are talking with people that don't have a grasp of this simple physics lesson that you just typed. They won't even try to understand that, so they will just dismiss it.

PS: I have put my signature exactly to explain issues like this - people don't know that... they are not knowing something.
Is not my statement, people smarter them me reached to the same conclusion as me in nicer words...

 

[SWIGIN]

I'm not saying the MPG improvement will be huge and you never heard me say I'll feel the HP difference between the two.

The facts are that if 100% of the motors power is going straight back to the rear with a 4406 and therefore without splitting or stealing some of that power and redirecting it to the front D shaft there will be an improvement.

You can never redirect power without a loss.

My 79 bronco has a manual T case just like the 4406 and locking hubs and guess what happens when you put a gopro camera at the axles or front D shaft in 2wd......nothing......nothing happens.

When the hubs are unlocked there is no extra parts moving. the front wheels are free just like the front wheels of an old RWD 2WD car.

Now with that said, guess what happens in the fall when I lock them in for the winter.......any guesses?

I lose 1.5 to 2 MPG just because the front wheels are now turning the axles, rear, and front D shaft.

Guess what happens when I then pull the T case into 4wd hi........I lose another 1.5 to 2 MPG.

Wow crazy isn't it.


These are things I found true from 18 years of daily driving an old school 4X4 and I want my Explorer to be the same way to get the most mileage out of it for the 90% or more of the year when I'm just driving on the street.

That and being old school myself I will not be told by anything or anyone when I need to be in 4wd or AWD or whatever. I'm a big boy I can decide when and where I need to pull the lever into 4HI or 4LO.

If my 18 years of testing this simple power loss isn't enough for some of you, well I guess nothing will change any minds.

Now I'm heading back out to finish tearing my AWD awfulness out and hopefully installing my 4406 tomorrow.

Wish me luck.

 

[CDW6212R]

...


When the hubs are unlocked there is no extra parts moving. the front wheels are free just like the front wheels of an old RWD 2WD car.

Now with that said, guess what happens in the fall when I lock them in for the winter.......any guesses?

I lose 1.5 to 2 MPG just because the front wheels are now turning the axles, rear, and front D shaft.

Guess what happens when I then pull the T case into 4wd hi........I lose another 1.5 to 2 MPG.

Wow crazy isn't it.
....

Everything posted in this thread so far has been kind of basic and common knowledge.

I just quoted the one thing that stands out, and it suggests the opposite of what has been argued since the mention of the BW4406.

If we are agreeing that no mpg is to be gained from having the 4WD 4406 versus the AWD 4403/4404, for the reasons mentioned several times, what's going on with the 79 Bronco that loses 1.5 to 2 MPG by engaging 4WD hi(if the front axles/diff etc are all turning already)?

Hmm, what's in that TC that is using up more fuel? I'm guessing that is with snow etc, on the ground, and extra throttle is being used than when driving in the dry. But that's kind of making the argument for the other direction, that a BW4406 in 2WD would save some gas.

 

[delexploder]

Wow, ever run a tractor? Gotta bump the throttle after you engage the PTO, that's more fuel consumption, same principal,

I say again

 

[CDW6212R]

I say again

I agree with you too. I think regardless if the parts are all "spinning", being engaged applies more pressure throughout the drive line, and it uses a bit more fuel. I've always been surprised to read that it's enough to really notice, but I look forward to it too.

 

[delexploder]

Im about to do it all again in my v8 sport

 

[delexploder]

Along with the AVM hubs of course, just like I did in the 99 mounty

 

[SWIGIN]

Everything posted in this thread so far has been kind of basic and common knowledge.

I just quoted the one thing that stands out, and it suggests the opposite of what has been argued since the mention of the BW4406.

If we are agreeing that no mpg is to be gained from having the 4WD 4406 versus the AWD 4403/4404, for the reasons mentioned several times, what's going on with the 79 Bronco that loses 1.5 to 2 MPG by engaging 4WD hi(if the front axles/diff etc are all turning already.

The difference is when the hubs are locked in the front end the parts are not under any power. They are just being rotated by the wheels. The second 1.5 to 2 MOG loss is from the T case being locked into 4WD and power is being sent forward.

This is very simple stuff guys and just facts that I have seen first hand for almost 2 decades.

Common sense is not so common......

 

[SoNic67]

Common sense is not so common......

No, physics knowledge is not very common. Friction between two surfaces doesn't depend of the force applied between them. So the fact that a torque is transmitted or not trough the driveline is irrelevant.

What happens in a 4x4 TC is that the axles are rigidly locked. Therefore any small, even tiny, difference in axles rpm's (due to multitude of factors) will lead to some binding between axles and the clutches inside TC will start to spin - and THAT will reduce the power with the small amount described above. 4x4 TC will dissipate the heat made by internal friction clutches when rpm's are perfectly identical.

The AWD is a true differential, hence this reasoning is NOT applying. If rpm's are slightly different, they will NOT increase the friction significantly. Only on high levels of delta rpm the VC will 'lock up' and even then only partially.

You cannot deduct that, because the 4x4 binds slightly on asphalt, the same thing will apply to the AWD.
Same thing for people comparing some farm equipment to the AWD differential - is the same thing. You are not comparing apples to apples.

As I said before, nobody here made any real MEASUREMENTS of the gas mileage. Only Ford did, for factory setup, but those are different engine sizes.
I even proposed a simple 'free rolling' test (to support my statements), but that is too complicated for some. They will rather apply 'common sense' judgments and have no clue that they are wrong.
Common sense is dangerous - that convinced people that Earth is flat or that the Sun is rotating around Earth.

 

[SWIGIN]

I don't know anything about clutches in a 4X4 TC, None I have ever owned had clutches.

My 4406 and my NP205 are direct chain and gear driven.

And I don't care about whatever proof you need to see. I know what I have seen in the last 18 years.

Have a great day,

 

[SoNic67]

I don't know anything about clutches in a 4X4 TC, None I have ever owned had clutches.
And I don't care about whatever proof you need to see. I know what I have seen in the last 18 years.

Yep, people see many things, sometimes that are not even there. Understanding, on the other hand, require knowledge.

BTW, you have no clue what are you talking about, but you have firm convictions. Like that one about this part:

 

[CDW6212R]

Yep, people see many things, sometimes that are not even there. Understanding, on the other hand, require knowledge.

BTW, you have no clue what are you talking about, but you have firm convictions. Like that one about this part:

Is that what's in a BW4406 TOD version, a clutch pack like an automatic? Does that mean it has seven frictions, interesting. I might have to take one apart.

 

[delexploder]

I don't know anything about clutches in a 4X4 TC, None I have ever owned had clutches.

My 4406 and my NP205 are direct chain and gear driven.

And I don't care about whatever proof you need to see. I know what I have seen in the last 18 years.

Have a great day,

I did the 4406 and manual hubs on a 99 mountaineer and on hwy it gets 22 MPG and on a perfect day the MPG will flicker between 23/24 MPG, I started with 17/18 MPG, this guy will argue with you and try to convince you your an idiot and he's some sort of scientist for as long as you play along, he argues with everyone on here he can,

 

[SWIGIN]

Yep, people see many things, sometimes that are not even there. Understanding, on the other hand, require knowledge.

BTW, you have no clue what are you talking about, but you have firm convictions. Like that one about this part:

Ok, I was done with this thread but this has got to stop, to say I have no clue on this matter is BS.

Did it ever occur to you that there are 2 different 4406 T cases....guess not.

One with a clutch and one ( mine) without.

How do I know 100% with out a doubt mine has none......I totally rebuilt it and guess what, no clutches in the MANUAL 4406.

The ELECTRIC 4406 has a clutch.


So like I said I do not own any T cases with a clutch nor would I.

You really need to learn about this stuff before you spout off.

 

[SWIGIN]

I did the 4406 and manual hubs on a 99 mountaineer and on hwy it gets 22 MPG and on a perfect day the MPG will flicker between 23/24 MPG, I started with 17/18 MPG, this guy will argue with you and try to convince you your an idiot and he's some sort of scientist for as long as you play along, he argues with everyone on here he can,

I see, I'm the new guy falling into the stupid trap. OK thanks for that heads up.

I just can't stand E thug know it all's spouting nonsense and untruths with no real world experience to back anything they say up.


That is some great mileage. With the AWD and the front D shaft off I average 15.5 per fill up. I would like to think that on the highway my 15.5 average would be in the 17-19 range but who knows.

 

[imp]

This thread, read through completely, is akin to beating a dead horse. Simple explanations need no argument.

1. There is no differential contained in any TC used by Ford. The ideal system has 3 differentials, the third is in the TC. This has been done by some, Subaru for one, I think. Very expensive.

2. The "electronic clutch" as Ford calls it, allows transmitting power to the front diff. and yet allows "slip" as front and rear axle speeds are different.

3. The TC having no clutch of any kind, is manually shifted from 2WD to 4Wd (and possibly two 4WDs- Low and High.

4. The AWD TC has a viscous clutch, Ford calls it a "Viscous Coupling" which is like a small torque converter, in that it transmits power through a fluid, but can allow "slip" between front and rear axles.

Anything else needed to sum up? imp