towing/pulling in reverse

[Recovry4x4]

Hey Gerhard, do you know if one could swap in the 7.36 reverse into the 3053A?

 

[gringeltaube]

I also feel that because of the load on the nose; engine, pulled line, etc... that you have far greater traction on the singles (similiar to what mudlord said) than pulling from the rear. In certain applications the rear, because of all the tires, doesn't have the contact pressure on the tires and will easily just spin. Plus that doesn't help load the nose at all. I've spun the truck around and pulled logs out in reverse that would just make the truck spin pulling forward.

My experience too.
Allways keeping in mind that the weak link is the front axle shaft/U-joint....!

G.

 

[gringeltaube]

Hey Gerhard, do you know if one could swap in the 7.36 reverse into the 3053A?

Nope!( if you still want .79 o.d.) The (numerically) lower ratio in the 3053A is a direct consequence of the different gearing btw. input- and counter shafts. 3052 has 22T/48T while the 3053A is 29T/42T.
The resulting factor to multiply with is 0.6666..... so 7.36 x .66 = 4.90

 

[Recovry4x4]

I figured as much! Thanks Gerhard.

 

[emr]

Gee Great thread, But I thought I have noticed that pulling in reverse may put traction on the front, BUT reduces it on the rears alot more tires to do the work, the nose pulls down , i like the rear pulling down? Im probably wrong, but it seems that is the way it was made. Im into the dirt big time, My 900, I see good 900 people here, i use low reverse around the shop, am i putting my t case on the line OR is it really only going to happen under load?? That is what I think, I cant see how it could be so weak it would split under its own waight? All the Guard guys I hang with here say they Use low all the time, BUT they never never work the truck, I am thinking thats the difference?? Thanks Randy

 

[spicergear]

The rears may have a lot more tires to do the work, however, you spread the load out from two tires with all the nose weight + you line pull on them to 8 tires and less weight. So your traction is poor even though you've got 8 gummies trying to hook up. Also, if your line pull on the rear is angling down...you will be unloading the front end the harder you pull so there goes that heavy nose advantage there. You'd pull better on the rear with singles instead of floaters...err, I mean duals.

Gerhard, I have a 3052 that I've been possibly thinking of swapping into my deuce (if I go to 1100's) so I can keep the power up nicely with the added weight of my crane netting me 18,000# truck. Also the possibility of slapping one into my big M715 to get a little bit lower crawl ration. Adding the 46" XML's speeded up the crawl ratio a surprising amount.
5.01x 1.96 (t-case np205)x 6.72= 65.98
7.55x 1.96x 6.72= 99.44 <- nearly 30% increase in crawl ratio. Might just be enough that I won't have to do a doubler-

 

[emr]

Singles are better traction off road simply because there following the ruts already made by the front, instead of the tandams snowplowing and causing resistance,thats why it is easier to back out of what one cant drive thru. BUT pulling, i think as long as there is power, more wheels better,and as all towing and mud bogging depends on ground conditions, there is no one answer for traction at all.narrow tires<mud>, wide tires<sand>and 100 variables in that,,but i would rather pull going foward .. Randy

 

[BEASTMASTER]

why would anyone pull anything in reverse??? when you hook to the back of the truck you are putting the pulling on the rears, thus increasing the traction. when you hook to the front end you are robbing the rears of weight transfer thus reducing traction on the rears

 

[73m819]

ya but the rears with 8 tires spread the ground bearing weight , thus losing traction at times

 

[rizzo]

why would anyone pull anything in reverse??? when you hook to the back of the truck you are putting the pulling on the rears, thus increasing the traction. when you hook to the front end you are robbing the rears of weight transfer thus reducing traction on the rears

this is a very tricky subject.

example 1 you have a very wide tire 36". it has a lot bigger traction patch, but low ground pressure (or like the duals on the rear)

example 2 you have a skinny tire, it has a very small traction patch, but a lot of ground pressure

which one is better? how can you tell? somewhere in between would be best right?

ground pressure for traction is good to a certain point.

 

[emr]

I do not beleive that the 8 tires are losing traction because there are 8 of them,one can say more tires more traction, the back end is not floating in a pull it is down and dirty.in deep mud only are singles definitly better, Not on hard pack. it is definitly better to pull the way the truck was made, 2 more cents.randy

 

[spicergear]

Okay...just for grins lets say the stock truck, at 13,000#, has 6,000# on the nose and 7,000# rear...if it were scaled. My truck weighs 18,000 and is 8,000 and 10,000 respectively. Back to the example, so you'd have 3,000# PER front tire (6,000/2=3,000) and only 875# PER tire rear (7,000/8=875). So the down and dirty is that you'll get stuck on wet grass easier with duals then singles. ...which by the way would be 1,750# PER rear tire then. More weight per tire, more tire deflection, larger contact patch, with the larger contact patch means you may actually be getting traction on some tread around the tire not just the solid center bar and a smattering of the rest of the tread. More tires is more safe load hauling...

 

[spicergear]

OH...AND lets not forget open differentials. You'll probably end up with ONLY 4 of your 8 rear tires spinning anyway using one side or the other from each axle. Not enough weight to really really plant them in...unlike 3,000# PER front tire. That kind of weight pretty much seats the tires so that the open diff isn't too much a concern. You'd have to have 24,000 on just the rear to have the 3,000# PER tire's worth of traction. Oh well...

 

[emr]

First of all im a much better driver than spinning my wheels,and those 4 tires are still more than the over loaded fronts, makeing tires loose traction in the rear.the calculation is how much is lost in the rear is never compensated for in your figures and wont be., I would love to put my deuce to the front of another and pull, in fact since i have 2 i may one day, but i already know the outcome. . I have been useing a front reciever on my F350 for over 15 years, i use a 7by12 and a 8 by 14 loaded heavy box trailers a 18ft 6 ton for the forklift, and use the front hitch to put the trailers on job sites that are tight, when pulling back wards the rears have a tendancy to spin, and loose traction ,so it stops.sure the fronts have more weight on paper but its worthless, one cant do the job better with only the fronts. not a numbers thing just fact, when i spin the truck around it pulls them right out with ease. so with the motor wieght on the fronts and the tow weight on the rear it beats it every time hands down.. sounds like the old motor in the front debate, why do formula one and the most expensive cars retain rear wheel drive, its becse there is control in all 4 areas, not just the front dragging it thru, oh it does go up a hill better, BUT thats it.. he he.. Randy

 

[emr]

Oh at least i think so, he he he, just thought i would thro a discaimer on that first line, I was also missing that it went to a tire pressure issue, Im done thanks for the fun, randy

 

[Big Mike's Motor Pool]

i have spun my rear wheels on pavement pulling a stump. spun the truck around backwards and tried it in reverse and the stump came out of the ground

 

[Elwenil]

I'll say this, a lot of it has to do with the weight being pulled, the weight of the pulling vehicle and the angle yo are pulling. Generally around here it is an accepted fact that pulling from the front gets better results. Naturally I am speaking of civilian pickups and SUVs and such. If someone got stuck in a mudhole, hooking from the rear typically led to either a bunch of spinning, or hopping as the truck either lost traction or could not hold it to the ground. Pulling from the front in reverse gets you a nice strong pull with minimal traction loss. Again, this is with normal single wheeled 1/2 to 1 tons and we were normally pulling someone up and out of a mud hole or over rocks. Pulling from the rear might work better on flat, level ground, but then there's not much case of things being stuck on flat level ground. Another thought is the final crawl ratio of the vehicle pulling. Typical stock trucks have higher gears for highway driving and when you add larger tires the tires can't rotate slow enough to maintain traction for a good pull so you get a bunch of bouncing. If you have a low enough gear and can get enough weight transferred to the rear tires, I'm sure they can pull fine, but using the pulled vehicle as weight on the suspension on the rear can also be done on the front and add the weight of the engine and most of the weight of the cab, transmission and other gear and you can get much more ground pressure to the front tires. I don;t care how many tires you have, the available traction means nothing if you don't have enough pressure on the tires to hold them down. Otherwise you simply rotate in place. Remember what happens to a Deuce with one rear axle disconnected on wet pavement? That's a perfect example of not enough ground pressure. Another good example is the tube buggy built on Pirate4x4 over in Israel that had 8 driving wheels. When he took it out to test it, he found that once the front was pushed up on an obstacle, the buddy didn't weigh enough to keep good ground pressure on the tires to allow it to move. The axles with good traction didn't have enough ground pressure and the axles with the weight couldn't get enough traction. He later cut one of the axles out and now runs it as a 6x6 and it does fine.

 

[Maroman]

why would anyone pull anything in reverse??? when you hook to the back of the truck you are putting the pulling on the rears, thus increasing the traction. when you hook to the front end you are robbing the rears of weight transfer thus reducing traction on the rears

Pulling is reverse is a result of trucks traveling in the same direction on a narrow trail or road with no room to turn around.

I do not believe traction has anything to do with it. It is simply the fact the t-case can not handle the loading in that direction.

 

[Jones]

As discussed in another post; not only is reverse in a 900 series close to 11 to 1 but it's also possible to shift the automatic with partial throttle. It's one thing to shift into reverse and start up from idle but quite another to hit reverse in two tenths of a second (Allison up-shift transition duration) with 1,200 RPM or better.
Compounding this are a flock of different drivers; and if some of the more careless ones blow something up... they figure 'what the heck-- the motor pool has more'.

 

[emr]

I really never thought much of the 900's, i started a deuce lover, then a 800 lover, but bit the bullet almost 2 years ago, and bought a 900, well i have to say they are awesome, and as for auto's i thought real trucks only had manuals, BUT the 900 really is just a better 800.it is stout to say the least, and as i said in the other post too, it is driver error in the tranny department, 11to 1 is Sweet! I have the dual set up and that is still an awesome rig to climb up into, U just know this thing is for real, I Have heard comments from some guys I hang with that did convoy duty in Iraq , And its been said even the guys that go back to vietnam , that the 900 is just the best of them all, they were NOT inflickted with tranny probs, and said it was and probably is the workhorse of the fleet, Randy