Gear Splitter

[tm america]

i would definately go to a 3052 trans with 53s .with 9.00s its not much of a problem but when you're running bigger tires it gets harder to power past the drop in rpm especially loaded.besides once you go to a 15.5 or bigger tire do you really need to go 70 or more since the brakes have a hard enough time at 60mph

 

[m16ty]

i would definately go to a 3052 trans with 53s .

IMO that would be the best overall setup for the money.

I know my truck could stand to be turned up a little but the 3rd to 4th jump really kills me when I'm loaded on a big hill.

 

[booger]

I've got a pretty steep grade to deal with on the hi-way out of here every morning. Getting up to speed is only a challenge between 3rd and 4th. Once I'm in 4th it pulls great as well as in 5th. If I shift at 2300 in 3rd, 4th gear is trying pull the grade at 1300 ( maybe even a little less, I need to check it again) it's not pretty, lots of smoke and not enough giddy-up

 

[rebel_raider]

i don't understand the problem with drop in rpm between gears. if i shift at 2300 rpm, this is what i get (with .69 od) 2nd to 3rd, 960 rpm. 3rd to 4th, 881 rpm. 4th to 5th, 714 rpm. it all works out very well with plenty of power.

Theoretically, that may be fine, but with a pretty good load you have to wind up the motor and pray you don't miss 4th or you'll be way below the power band and lugging it. Having an extra gear in between would cut down on a lot of strain on everything.

 

[stumps]

When they converted the 3052 into the 3053 they left a gear out between 3rd and 4th. It's like you are skipping a gear. That's the reason for the wierd shift pattern.

They didn't leave any gears out when they adjusted the gasser's transmission to make the MF's transmission. All but one of the MF's ratios are actually closer together than the gasser's.

What they did is a hack: They changed the original gasser's 4th gear ratio to an overdrive ratio, and adjusted the gasser's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear ratios to something appropriate for the new MF engine. The old gasser 5th gear was a direct drive 1-to-1, so it was relabeled as the new MF's 4th gear. Otherwise, it is the same transmission as the gasser's. That is why there is a goofy pattern on the MF transmission. 4th was relabeled 5th, and 5th was relabeled 4th.

Here is a table I calculated that gives you the space between the different gear ratios, gasser and MF:

Gasser
1-2 = 1.75
2-3 = 1.79
3-4 = 1.68
4-5 = 1.43

Multifuel
1-2 = 1.78
2-3 = 1.69
3-4 = 1.62
4-5 = 1.27

The MF got a slightly taller shift between 1st and 2nd, but all of the other shifts in the MF transmission are shorter than the Gasser's.

-Chuck

 

[booger]

hmmm

 

[Varyag]

Reason I was looking into one of these is that I live pretty far away from everything and driving the deuce involves highways wherever I go. I wasn't looking for more speed exactly, but less RPM for extended times.

 

[tm america]

every thing i seen showing the ratios for the 3053 and 3052 had first second and third as the same ratios and forth they just switched overdrive in place of forth thus giving you a u shift pattern instead of a standard h pattern .

 

[tm america]

bigger tires is probably the cheapest ans easiest way to get the results you are looking for .i'm not sure how good a deuce will pull od multiplied by a gear spliter especially in a head wind or hills

 

[m16ty]

They didn't leave any gears out when they adjusted the gasser's transmission to make the MF's transmission. All but one of the MF's ratios are actually closer together than the gasser's.

I guess I should have been a little clearer on my post. I didn't literally mean that they took a gear out of the trans and throwed it away. What I was meaning is it is like you skip a gear between 3rd and 4th. You could be right on the ratios but I can tell from driving both there is too big of jump IMO going from 3rd to 4th in a 3053 that's not found in a 3052.

 

[Varyag]

I have no idea how hard it will pull. On flat or slightly hilly I really have to watch to make sure I don't creep by 55. I don't think it would have too much issue at a slightly higher ratio.

The other thread kind of killed the idea for me when I saw how much articulation you loose because of the shorter drive line. I won't be off roading it that much but I will be taking it through some big stuff from time to time.

 

[tm america]

i dont think driveline angle would be an issue if you moved the transfer case back and put it between the transfer case and trans

 

[booger]

tm america,

i agree with you, the driveline angle is not an issue if you put the aux trans in between the trans and transfer where it belongs.

Does anybody know what the actual gear ratio's are on the 3052 and 3053 ?

 

[stumps]

every thing i seen showing the ratios for the 3053 and 3052 had first second and third as the same ratios and forth they just switched overdrive in place of forth thus giving you a u shift pattern instead of a standard h pattern .

Well, I can see your problem. I'm not looking at the gear ratios, I am looking at the spreads between the gears. That is what the engine sees when you shift from one gear to the next.

I didn't have a table of gear ratios handy, so I made my table of spreads using the table of maximum speeds for each gear (gasser vs MF) found in TM9-2320-209-10. One should be able to assume that they used the same maximum RPM for each shift.... but further investigation shows there is a "mistake" in their table at 3rd gear.

Looking at the parts manual for the transmissions shows, that the only change of significance is the 4th gear ratio was changed to be an overdrive ratio. 1st/rev, 2nd, 3rd, stay the same, and of course the old 5th (1:1), stayed the same.

However, the gear splits MF vs gasser are, (+/- rounding error):

1 - 2 = 1.78 vs 1.75 (close enough to equal)
2 - 3 = 1.69 vs 1.79 ( a little off)
3 - 4 = 1.63 vs 1.68 (close enough to equal)
4 - 5 = 1.27 vs 1.43

If there was a "missing gear", you would see a spread table something like:

1-2 = 1.7
2-3 = 1.7
3-4 = 3.4
4-5 = 1.?

You don't.

As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The army's change between the gasser and MF transmission proves that.

-Chuck

 

[booger]

So, changing to a 3052 isn't going to help a thing. Looks like I'm back to moving the transfer case back enough for an auxillary trans. Or...

 

[rebel_raider]

Here are the ratios for those interested, from the TM.

3052 3053a

1st 7.55 1st 5.02
2nd 4.18 2nd 2.78
3rd 2.45 3rd 1.62
4th 1.45 4th 1.00
5th 1.00 5th 0.79

 

[booger]

that makes the jump from 3rd to 4th even worse with a 3052

 

[stumps]

Here are the ratios for those interested, from the TM.

3052 3053a

1st 7.55 1st 5.02
2nd 4.18 2nd 2.78
3rd 2.45 3rd 1.62
4th 1.45 4th 1.00
5th 1.00 5th 0.79

Which TM?

Interesting that they have a 1.5:1 reduction across the board in the MF ratios vs the gasser.... with the sole exception of the 5th gear. Since all of the gears are the same, except 4th, and a couple of idlers, the idlers must be where the 1.5:1 reduction comes from.

Let's see what the spread table looks like from these numbers:

Spreads gasser vs MF
1-2 = 1.81 vs 1.81
2-3 = 1.71 vs 1.72
3-4 = 1.69 vs 1.62
4-5 = 1.45 vs 1.27

Pretty close to the numbers I calculated from the max speed table.

-Chuck

 

[rebel_raider]

Which TM?

TM 9-2520-246-34

Cranetruck posted the specs for both transmissions in this thread from that TM. Post #6

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/deuce/3394-anyone-out-there-have-3503-5th-gear-od.html

 

[stumps]

TM 9-2520-246-34

Cranetruck posted the specs for both transmissions in this thread from that TM. Post #6

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/deuce/3394-anyone-out-there-have-3503-5th-gear-od.html

Thanks to both you and Cranetruck!

I thought I had that manual, but mine was the -1 version which didn't have the specs.

-Chuck