| Re: Running Lockers in 4HI (rubicon) [message #777024] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 15:52 |
|
So all the folks running limited slips rears are in the same catagory?
Earle Horton wrote:
> One "CON" might be an increased likelihood of flipping the vehicle over at
> speed. That pretty much wipes out any "PRO"s I can think of.
>
> Earle
>
> "s m" <user [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:iLAsg.116513$Ce1.24359 [at] dukeread01...
>
>>I have heard of guys rewiring their rubicons to allow them to use the
>>lockers in 4HI. I see that you can also buy kits on EBAY that will
>>allow you to do the same thing. What are he PRO's and CON's of making
>>this change? Would I be taking the chance of breaking something simply
>>because the vehicle is not designed to run in this configuration? This
>>question has probably been asked a 1000 times on this list but if
>>somebody could give me a link to the information I would really
>>appreciate it.
>>
>>
>>scott
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Running Lockers in 4HI (rubicon) [message #777032 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 17:50 |
|
Apparently you folks don't understand the meaning of "increased likelihood"
as a statistical probablistic term, as I used it. LSDs are dangerous too,
but the danger is less, and most people who use them understand that. The
ones who don't, are in the ditch. That does not mean, that everyone who has
an LSD installed, wrecks his car as a result. But the car is inherently
more dangerous, less easily controlled, after the operation. I wouldn't
lock up all four wheels in 4HI, unless I was on terrain that really needed
it, had studied all the alternatives, and knew how to drive in deep mud,
sand, deep snow or whatever I wanted it for.
Now on the trails near where I live, you probably wouldn't want to run in
4HI with axles locked, unless you wanted to die. Or unless you had good
sense enough to turn it on and off only as needed.
Earle
"RoyJ" <spamless [at] microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Aestg.7278$PE1.1489 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> So all the folks running limited slips rears are in the same catagory?
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
>
> > One "CON" might be an increased likelihood of flipping the vehicle over
at
> > speed. That pretty much wipes out any "PRO"s I can think of.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "s m" <user [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:iLAsg.116513$Ce1.24359 [at] dukeread01...
> >
> >>I have heard of guys rewiring their rubicons to allow them to use the
> >>lockers in 4HI. I see that you can also buy kits on EBAY that will
> >>allow you to do the same thing. What are he PRO's and CON's of making
> >>this change? Would I be taking the chance of breaking something simply
> >>because the vehicle is not designed to run in this configuration? This
> >>question has probably been asked a 1000 times on this list but if
> >>somebody could give me a link to the information I would really
> >>appreciate it.
> >>
> >>
> >>scott
> >
> >
> >
|
|
|
| Re: Running Lockers in 4HI (rubicon) [message #777035 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 17:46 |
|
Doesn't your state have the highest death rate in 4WDs in the country?
"Earle Horton" <earle-NOSPAM-horton [at] msn.com> wrote in message
news:44b668f8$0$23770$a82e2bb9 [at] reader.athenanews.com...
> Apparently you folks don't understand the meaning of "increased
> likelihood"
> as a statistical probablistic term, as I used it. LSDs are dangerous too,
> but the danger is less, and most people who use them understand that. The
> ones who don't, are in the ditch. That does not mean, that everyone who
> has
> an LSD installed, wrecks his car as a result. But the car is inherently
> more dangerous, less easily controlled, after the operation. I wouldn't
> lock up all four wheels in 4HI, unless I was on terrain that really needed
> it, had studied all the alternatives, and knew how to drive in deep mud,
> sand, deep snow or whatever I wanted it for.
>
> Now on the trails near where I live, you probably wouldn't want to run in
> 4HI with axles locked, unless you wanted to die. Or unless you had good
> sense enough to turn it on and off only as needed.
>
> Earle
>
> "RoyJ" <spamless [at] microsoft.net> wrote in message
> news:Aestg.7278$PE1.1489 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> So all the folks running limited slips rears are in the same catagory?
>>
>> Earle Horton wrote:
>>
>> > One "CON" might be an increased likelihood of flipping the vehicle over
> at
>> > speed. That pretty much wipes out any "PRO"s I can think of.
>> >
>> > Earle
>> >
>> > "s m" <user [at] cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:iLAsg.116513$Ce1.24359 [at] dukeread01...
>> >
>> >>I have heard of guys rewiring their rubicons to allow them to use the
>> >>lockers in 4HI. I see that you can also buy kits on EBAY that will
>> >>allow you to do the same thing. What are he PRO's and CON's of making
>> >>this change? Would I be taking the chance of breaking something simply
>> >>because the vehicle is not designed to run in this configuration? This
>> >>question has probably been asked a 1000 times on this list but if
>> >>somebody could give me a link to the information I would really
>> >>appreciate it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>scott
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Running Lockers in 4HI (rubicon) [message #777112 ] |
Fri, 14 July 2006 07:08 |
|
Actually, I think that San Miguel County, just to the west of here, has that
honor.
Earle
"billy ray" <billy_ray [at] SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:476d3$44b66acf$48311525$29256 [at] FUSE.NET...
> Doesn't your state have the highest death rate in 4WDs in the country?
>
>
> "Earle Horton" <earle-NOSPAM-horton [at] msn.com> wrote in message
> news:44b668f8$0$23770$a82e2bb9 [at] reader.athenanews.com...
> > Apparently you folks don't understand the meaning of "increased
> > likelihood"
> > as a statistical probablistic term, as I used it. LSDs are dangerous
too,
> > but the danger is less, and most people who use them understand that.
The
> > ones who don't, are in the ditch. That does not mean, that everyone who
> > has
> > an LSD installed, wrecks his car as a result. But the car is inherently
> > more dangerous, less easily controlled, after the operation. I wouldn't
> > lock up all four wheels in 4HI, unless I was on terrain that really
needed
> > it, had studied all the alternatives, and knew how to drive in deep mud,
> > sand, deep snow or whatever I wanted it for.
> >
> > Now on the trails near where I live, you probably wouldn't want to run
in
> > 4HI with axles locked, unless you wanted to die. Or unless you had good
> > sense enough to turn it on and off only as needed.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "RoyJ" <spamless [at] microsoft.net> wrote in message
> > news:Aestg.7278$PE1.1489 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> So all the folks running limited slips rears are in the same catagory?
> >>
> >> Earle Horton wrote:
> >>
> >> > One "CON" might be an increased likelihood of flipping the vehicle
over
> > at
> >> > speed. That pretty much wipes out any "PRO"s I can think of.
> >> >
> >> > Earle
> >> >
> >> > "s m" <user [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:iLAsg.116513$Ce1.24359 [at] dukeread01...
> >> >
> >> >>I have heard of guys rewiring their rubicons to allow them to use the
> >> >>lockers in 4HI. I see that you can also buy kits on EBAY that will
> >> >>allow you to do the same thing. What are he PRO's and CON's of
making
> >> >>this change? Would I be taking the chance of breaking something
simply
> >> >>because the vehicle is not designed to run in this configuration?
This
> >> >>question has probably been asked a 1000 times on this list but if
> >> >>somebody could give me a link to the information I would really
> >> >>appreciate it.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>scott
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
