ECO Hubs Who needs 3:07 gears?

[MatthewWBailey]

Yes the axle is splined to the outer gear, the outer gear rolls the spider gears that roll on the inner gear that is fixed to the hollow spindle.

take a pencil and lay it on the table. Place your fingertips on the pencil and roll it across the table with your fingers and palm of your hand. Note how the tips of your fingers move twice as far across the table as the pencil does. Your hand is the outer gear, the pencil are the planetaries, who's spindle is attched to the wheel hub and the table is the fixed inner gear attached to the hollow spindle. In order to get the planetary(pencil) to move at the same speed as the axle(hand/outer gear), you must first couple them to your hand, and un-couple them from the table…

again, not easy, to do so in the space allowed and in a way that will withstand the forces involved. Also pointless IMO. Traction will be your problem with or without 2:1 hub reduction, not force applied to the wheels…

Yeah, it was obvious to me on the first 500yd drive slow up hill in snow that the previous low gearing was of no value in that situation. I always wondered why this truck was so slippery in loose or wet conditions. The 3.07s + ECO still seemed "low" in 1 but more controllable as the low end CAT torque combined with the TC performed the job without producing slippage (yes!!), and no weight in the back, and no locker! Before the ecos I had the truck out in the back snow and you couldn't touch the throttle without spinning the tires, in 1.

I think the fascination with ultra low gearing for "rock crawling" comes from too many Moab stories, all of gas powered 4x4s with no low end to speak of. Good combo for gas, not for 860ft-lbs. And trying to make a vehicle to be ultra off and on road + highway has never been perfected except in the Abrams lol or maybe the HEMMT.

The 7.8 overall reduction seems totally unnecessary now that I've run the ecos, unless you need that milspec of what was it,, 25klbs over an 18" vertical curb? As someone who was at Los Alamos for 2 decades, thats something that is arbitrarily ridiculous and sounds exactly like what a government bureaucrat would come up with in some project meeting. I've listened to many of those "leadership material" boneheads say things that violate the most basic laws of physics and then turn them into presentation bullet points.

 

[hike]

Yeah, it was obvious to me on the first 500yd drive slow up hill in snow that the previous low gearing was of no value in that situation. I always wondered why this truck was so slippery in loose or wet conditions. The 3.07s + ECO still seemed "low" in 1 but more controllable as the low end CAT torque combined with the TC performed the job without producing slippage (yes!!), and no weight in the back, and no locker! Before the ecos I had the truck out in the back snow and you couldn't touch the throttle without spinning the tires, in 1.

I think the fascination with ultra low gearing for "rock crawling" comes from too many Moab stories, all of gas powered 4x4s with no low end to speak of. Good combo for gas, not for 860ft-lbs. And trying to make a vehicle to be ultra off and on road + highway has never been perfected except in the Abrams lol or maybe the HEMMT.

The 7.8 overall reduction seems totally unnecessary now that I've run the ecos, unless you need that milspec of what was it,, 25klbs over an 18" vertical curb? As someone who was at Los Alamos for 2 decades, thats something that is arbitrarily ridiculous and sounds exactly like what a government bureaucrat would come up with in some project meeting. I've listened to many of those "leadership material" boneheads say things that violate the most basic laws of physics and then turn them into presentation bullet points.

I haven't driven these in snow or ice as yet, though on sand and mud the AWD is not my choice. Something about the 30/70 does not feel solid. In MODE's 50/50 mix she powers through much more cofidently.

There is more than the power band to high crawl ratios. I am not the type to rock crawl for the sake of crawling; I enjoy hiking and camping where few folks do. The ability to switch a transfer case from 1:1 to 4:1 in a jeep not only opens the power band but offers the ability to thread the vehicle (and trailer) through and over obstacles more smoothly. True you can do that with braking with our 1.2:1 transfer cases. Likely it is just something to be learned in a new vehicle. Since I have for years adjusted the transfer case I want to do so now. It is familiar, the techique comfortable. Adding a transfer case to shift 1.2:1 to 4:1 would be interesting though—

 

[CONJIN]

No need... Just take a closer look at the reduction units in each hub. There are 3 main components for the reduction gearset:

1. The outer bevel gear attached to the spinning axle
2. The "spider" gears on the cross
3. The inner bevel gear rigidly attached to the axle housing.

If you lock the outer gear to the hub, that will effectively lock the spider gears to the axle. The inner bevel gear is rigidly affixed to the axle housing and passively trying to spin the spider gears as the axle turns, providing the gear reduction. If the spider gears aren't free to rotate, they will lock up the motion between the inner and outer bevel gears- mechanically fixing the hub to the axle housing.

In the OE configuration, the spider is driving the hub. In the ECO configuration, the axle is driving the hub. Both can't happen at the same time. If it does, it will be expensive.

The crux would be to find a way to make that inner bevel gear selectively fixed or floating. If you got it to float, it would be productive to lock the spider to the hub for the reduction elimination. Finding a cost effective manner which your average Joe could install under the tree (like the ECO hubs- no machining, completely reversible, etc...) would likely be a tall order, but I'd be open to seeing it worked out!

Yes, I understand the principle of the reduction. Let's just forget about the reduction. I'm not proposing doing anything to it. Let it do what it's doing. Can we all agree that the axleshaft and bevel gear are splined together and relative to the hub cover (covering the reduction unit, with a large plug on it) is spinning twice as fast as the hub and cover. If you could put pins through this cover, laterally, not radially, into the bevel gear, you would now lock the bevel gear directly to the cover and hub (the reduction isnt even driven at that point, it just spins with the hub). It would just spin with the hub, at the same speed (very similar to your differential, where the spider gears are only turning when you go around a corner and if you have a selectable locker it will lock and unlock). Just like the eco hubs, but if you could engage and disengage the pins, it would be selectable.
I'm not proposing trying to drill holes through the cover into a hardened steel gear. It would obviously need to be a hardened steel cover unit, engeneered, etc. It would be a new hub reduction cover that simply bolts on in place of the original, with a new outer bevel gear that accepts the engagement of pins (or whatever, maybe a splined connection that can be engaged with the selector) not modifying the original cover. I was just throwing that idea out there.
Maybe we don't need the reduction. I don't know. The military was happy enough with it to order thousands, over 2 decades. Did they change to a non reduction axle on newer ones? I have no idea. I don't really want to debate if we need it or not. Just an idea.

 

[CONJIN]

Yes the axle is splined to the outer gear, the outer gear rolls the spider gears that roll on the inner gear that is fixed to the hollow spindle.

take a pencil and lay it on the table. Place your fingertips on the pencil and roll it across the table with your fingers and palm of your hand. Note how the tips of your fingers move twice as far across the table as the pencil does. Your hand is the outer gear, the pencil are the planetaries, who's spindle is attched to the wheel hub and the table is the fixed inner gear attached to the hollow spindle. In order to get the planetary(pencil) to move at the same speed as the axle(hand/outer gear), you must first couple them to your hand, and un-couple them from the table…

again, not easy, to do so in the space allowed and in a way that will withstand the forces involved. Also pointless IMO. Traction will be your problem with or without 2:1 hub reduction, not force applied to the wheels…

 

[CONJIN]

Ron, I'm not talking about the reduction, I'm just talking about selectively connecting the out bevel gear to the hub cover. This just takes the reduction out of the equation, when you want. I have tremendous respect for you. I'm just not sure if anyone understands what I'm trying to say.

 

[Ronmar]

Ron, I'm not talking about the reduction, I'm just talking about selectively connecting the out bevel gear to the hub cover. This just takes the reduction out of the equation, when you want. I have tremendous respect for you. I'm just not sure if anyone understands what I'm trying to say.

But it is like the pencil rolling on the table. You can attach it to your hand, but you must also disconnect it from the table(inner gear). There is an inner gear, the spider gears and an outer gear. The inner gear has splines and is slid onto splines on the main spindle that the wheel bearings and wheel nut are riding on. It is fixed in place to the main axle housing. The spiders and their carrier roll on that inner fixed gear. The axle comes thru the middle of all this to engage the splines of the outer gear. It spins the outer at twice the speed of the wheel and rolls the spiders and carrier, just like your hand on top of the pencil, covering twice the distance(revolutions) as the spider gears and wheel. the inner gear does not move(spin) at all, like the table. If you connect the outer gear and axle to the cap Without disconnecting the spiders from the inner gear, it will lock the mechanism(tape the pencil to your hand and try and roll it on the table).
All of these parts are free floating, so the gear backlash is set by spacer shims. The inner gear has pins that retain the wheel nut via its inner splines. You would have to separate these parts a considerable distance to disengage the gear teeth, so it would need a longer axle shaft.
goto the 24P manual and look at the exploded view, or the hub overhaul procedure in the manual.. Neil also does a cool hub rebuild video that shows all the parts.

it could be done, but it is neither simple nor easy…

 

[ramdough]

Yes, I understand the principle of the reduction. Let's just forget about the reduction. I'm not proposing doing anything to it. Let it do what it's doing. Can we all agree that the axleshaft and bevel gear are splined together and relative to the hub cover (covering the reduction unit, with a large plug on it) is spinning twice as fast as the hub and cover. If you could put pins through this cover, laterally, not radially, into the bevel gear, you would now lock the bevel gear directly to the cover and hub (the reduction isnt even driven at that point, it just spins with the hub). It would just spin with the hub, at the same speed (very similar to your differential, where the spider gears are only turning when you go around a corner and if you have a selectable locker it will lock and unlock). Just like the eco hubs, but if you could engage and disengage the pins, it would be selectable.
I'm not proposing trying to drill holes through the cover into a hardened steel gear. It would obviously need to be a hardened steel cover unit, engeneered, etc. It would be a new hub reduction cover that simply bolts on in place of the original, with a new outer bevel gear that accepts the engagement of pins (or whatever, maybe a splined connection that can be engaged with the selector) not modifying the original cover. I was just throwing that idea out there.
Maybe we don't need the reduction. I don't know. The military was happy enough with it to order thousands, over 2 decades. Did they change to a non reduction axle on newer ones? I have no idea. I don't really want to debate if we need it or not. Just an idea.

The only way this would work is if you could disengage the splines on the inner beveled gear. That inner gear is stationary to the axle housing. You would have to have extended axle shafts so the whole spider assembly with inner and outer bevel gears would could travel in and out while either locking to the axle housing or hub cover, but never both. You would have to redesign probably the hub itself as well. This is a big rabbit hole.

I think it would be cool to have selectable hubs, but it is probably not possible in most people’s budgets. At that point a selectable transfer case with Eco hubs probably becomes cheaper…..but now you really are putting way more torque into the driveline.


Realistically, you have Eco Hubs, 3.07’s and stock gearing for most people as options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GeneralDisorder]

Ron, I'm not talking about the reduction, I'm just talking about selectively connecting the out bevel gear to the hub cover. This just takes the reduction out of the equation, when you want. I have tremendous respect for you. I'm just not sure if anyone understands what I'm trying to say.

Everyone here understands what you are trying to say - and it WOULD NOT WORK. What you are proposing locks the hub to the outer gear, which then is locked to the inner gear via the planetaries, which in turn is locked to the AXLE TUBE. This renders the entire system immovable. In other words IT WILL NOT TURN. The truck will not move and if enough torque is applied something will break.

 

[CONJIN]

The only way this would work is if you could disengage the splines on the inner beveled gear. That inner gear is stationary to the axle housing. You would have to have extended axle shafts so the whole spider assembly with inner and outer bevel gears would could travel in and out while either locking to the axle housing or hub cover, but never both. You would have to redesign probably the hub itself as well. This is a big rabbit hole.

I think it would be cool to have selectable hubs, but it is probably not possible in most people’s budgets. At that point a selectable transfer case with Eco hubs probably becomes cheaper…..but now you really are putting way more torque into the driveline.


Realistically, you have Eco Hubs, 3.07’s and stock gearing for most people as options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, this I can understand. If the inner gear is splined to the axle housing then I can see that it would be too difficult to disengage that. I had all my hubs apart about a year ago , pre eco hub. I would have paid more attention to how it is setup on that end if it was post eco hub.

 

[Xengineguy]

Delta Locks in stock. They lock the axle nut to the axle tube Splines. Just like the original inner gear. 55.00 4x4 82.00 6x6 shipped.

 

[aw113sgte]

Delta Locks in stock. They lock the axle nut to the axle tube Splines. Just like the original inner gear. 55.00 4x4 82.00 6x6 shipped.
View attachment 917288View attachment 917289View attachment 917290

Could you please explain the usage of these? I'm having trouble imagining how these would function.
Seems they would just slip off the pins and then allow the nut to rotate. I'm guessing there is something I'm missing.
Seems they would require use of the previous split collar locks?

 

[Xengineguy]

Yes they require the split lock. The split lock still locks the axle nut as before. The Delta lock goes between the shims and the split lock. So you have axle nut, shims, Delta lock, split collar in that order. Xtra locking for those that want a more redundant system.

 

[MatthewWBailey]

Yes they require the split lock. The split lock still locks the axle nut as before. The Delta lock goes between the shims and the split lock. So you have axle nut, shims, Delta lock, split collar in that order. Xtra locking for those that want a more redundant system.

Looks ideal. I have to swap in 3.90s that I've bought from Memphis, AND service the hub seals & bearings on the front so I'll be back inside my eco hubs in a month or so. I have to get a set of these from you since I'll have them dissembled.

 

[Xengineguy]

No problem let me know when you’re ready I will fix you up.

 

[Skyhawk13205]

check time stamp 2:48, the adapter plate is installed backwards. The welds are doing all the work now instead of clamp load.

 

[aw113sgte]

check time stamp 2:48, the adapter plate is installed backwards. The welds are doing all the work now instead of clamp load.

Whoops! Lots of problems having it mounted that way. That would space out everything so less spline engagement and if it's on the rear it would pull it out of the diff carrier. It's not just the world's holding it though because the bolts go through both pieces. They also won't be ask concentric as they should.

 

[Skyhawk13205]

Whoops! Lots of problems having it mounted that way. That would space out everything so less spline engagement and if it's on the rear it would pull it out of the diff carrier. It's not just the world's holding it though because the bolts go through both pieces. They also won't be ask concentric as they should.

Are both plates tapped/threaded? I don’t remember from when I installed mine. If only one is tapped it would be a problem.

 

[aw113sgte]

Are both plates tapped/threaded? I don’t remember from when I installed mine. If only one is tapped it would be a problem.

Both are tapped and the screws fully engage both.

 

[Ronmar]

Did you leave him a comment?

 

[hike]

Did you leave him a comment?

@Skyhawk13205 did–