Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Moseley
Hi all this is my research to date based purely on the few images I have.
3. Front tyres - 10.50x20 directionals.
4. Carrier track reduced to 157 track links.
...
6. Carrier running gear fitted to purpose built sub-frames riveted to the truck chassis rails.
7. Rear axle/diff appear to be standard Chevrolet with the addition of a plate to hold the track sprockets on the hubs. One theory says that a second transfer case was introduced but reversed and down angled. This was to align the front and rear diff ratios.
8. Drive sprockets have 43 teeth whereas the Carrier sprocket only has 35 teeth ergo larger diameter drive sprockets. This may be the compensation measure for the diff ratios.
Over to you gurus.
Bob
|
Bob, I was throwing some numbers about with Laurie Winney tonight, and we have come to the conclusion the following concept is a workable proposition:
If the rear axle was driven straight from the 1:1 ratio PTO output of the Transfer case (ie: NO second transfer case in the back) and the front axle was driven from the Transfer case which was permanently in Low range (1.87 : 1 ratio), then the carrier track would turn 75.25 inches per the front wheels turning 70.55inches, or approximately a 6% difference. As the vehicle speed would be limited by the capability of the carrier track, having the vehicle perpetually in low range would not present a problem as this vehicle would never have been intended for highway use, but cross country work. It is possible to re-work the transfer case linkage to keep Low Range selected, but engage or disengage the front axle as required. Cross country work would also provide some slippage necessary to overcome the 6% difference when the front axle is engaged.
Having the rear drive through the dog clutch of the PTO output may present a mechanical weak point, however, being a GM project, I would expect that an output shaft from a C60X would have been substituted, being a solid shaft without the dog clutch.