type two gear ratios question

I once put an up-right 1600 cc into a '77 van and it was geared too high
for the motor. I would like to do the same thing again with a '75.
when did they put steeper ( higher ) gearboxes in these?
and If I have too, how can one lower the ratios? i.e. lower profile
tires? ......?
>
g adds.
MONEY , what a concept

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:19:14 -0700, BananaRepublican
> wrote:

>I once put an up-right 1600 cc into a '77 van and it was geared too high
>for the motor. I would like to do the same thing again with a '75.
>when did they put steeper ( higher ) gearboxes in these?
>and If I have too, how can one lower the ratios? i.e. lower profile
>tires? ......?
>>
>g adds.
>MONEY , what a concept
>

If you mean the engine was turning over too fast and you want to
*numerically* lower your final drive ratio then you need taller tires,
not lower profile ones. I'm not up on VW history much at all but some
of the VW vans had reduction boxes on them to make the engines turn
over a little faster. The reduction boxes *numerically* brought the
final drive ratio UP. The reduction boxes are not part of the
gearbox. I've never seen them but I think they are at the ends of the
axles. I know some people somehow use those reduction boxes in bajas
to help them get closer to a "crawl" in offroading. To get their
engines into the rpm range where they're putting out good power while
the vehicle is moving slower than it would normally need to move to
get in that range. They also compensate for the oversized tires that
offroad vehicles run.

"Stupid people are funny." - me

BananaRepublican wrote:

> I once put an up-right 1600 cc into a '77 van and it was geared too high
> for the motor. I would like to do the same thing again with a '75.
> when did they put steeper ( higher ) gearboxes in these?
> and If I have too, how can one lower the ratios? i.e. lower profile
> tires? ......?
>
> g adds.
> MONEY , what a concept
>
>
Up thru '73 was the same as earlier years and a 1600cc works fine.

'74 is a bit of a disappointment (BTDT) but will work if you are
not expecting too much. AFAIK '75 had the same gearing.

'76 and later is not suitable, as you found.

Good info he
http://sandlizrd.baja.com/gears.htm
but some of it contradicts what I thought I knew. <g>

Tire radius would help but I'm no expert on that.
Plus you have to watch the allowable load on the tire.

Speedy Jim
http://www.nls.net/mp/volks/

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:52:32 -0400, Speedy Jim > wrote:

>BananaRepublican wrote:
>
>> I once put an up-right 1600 cc into a '77 van and it was geared too high
>> for the motor. I would like to do the same thing again with a '75.
>> when did they put steeper ( higher ) gearboxes in these?
>> and If I have too, how can one lower the ratios? i.e. lower profile
>> tires? ......?
>>
>> g adds.
>> MONEY , what a concept
>>
>>
> Up thru '73 was the same as earlier years and a 1600cc works fine.
>
> '74 is a bit of a disappointment (BTDT) but will work if you are
> not expecting too much. AFAIK '75 had the same gearing.
>
> '76 and later is not suitable, as you found.
>
>Good info he
>http://sandlizrd.baja.com/gears.htm
>but some of it contradicts what I thought I knew. <g>
>
>Tire radius would help but I'm no expert on that.
>Plus you have to watch the allowable load on the tire.
>
>Speedy Jim
>http://www.nls.net/mp/volks/

Oh... I could see them gearing the transmission a little higher
(numerically) in the vans, but I didn't know there was enough of a
difference that it was noticeable. Hmm... maybe the reduction boxes
I've read of are actually reduction GEARboxes as in transmissions with
different gearing? I could have sworn I read that the "reduction
boxes" I read about were not a part of the gearbox. Maybe I skipped
one paragraph too many in that section when I was reading. I thought
the original question was basically how to drop the RPMs down when
putting a beetle motor in a bus by changing tire profile. If it was
then I still stand by what I said about needing a taller tire rather
than a shorter one. If not then sorry for the
misinformation/rambling.

"Stupid people are funny." - me

Shag wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:52:32 -0400, Speedy Jim > wrote:
>
>
>>BananaRepublican wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I once put an up-right 1600 cc into a '77 van and it was geared too high
>>>for the motor. I would like to do the same thing again with a '75.
>>>when did they put steeper ( higher ) gearboxes in these?
>>>and If I have too, how can one lower the ratios? i.e. lower profile
>>>tires? ......?
>>>
>>>g adds.
>>>MONEY , what a concept
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Up thru '73 was the same as earlier years and a 1600cc works fine.
>>
>> '74 is a bit of a disappointment (BTDT) but will work if you are
>> not expecting too much. AFAIK '75 had the same gearing.
>>
>> '76 and later is not suitable, as you found.
>>
>>Good info he
>>http://sandlizrd.baja.com/gears.htm
>>but some of it contradicts what I thought I knew. <g>
>>
>>Tire radius would help but I'm no expert on that.
>>Plus you have to watch the allowable load on the tire.
>>
>>Speedy Jim
>>http://www.nls.net/mp/volks/
>
>
> Oh... I could see them gearing the transmission a little higher
> (numerically) in the vans, but I didn't know there was enough of a
> difference that it was noticeable. Hmm... maybe the reduction boxes
> I've read of are actually reduction GEARboxes as in transmissions with
> different gearing? I could have sworn I read that the "reduction
> boxes" I read about were not a part of the gearbox. Maybe I skipped
> one paragraph too many in that section when I was reading. I thought
> the original question was basically how to drop the RPMs down when
> putting a beetle motor in a bus by changing tire profile. If it was
> then I still stand by what I said about needing a taller tire rather
> than a shorter one. If not then sorry for the
> misinformation/rambling.
>
> "Stupid people are funny." - me

Part of the problem is that "higher" means different things to
different folks. When OP said "higher" he meant LOWER numeric
gear ratio! He's still right; it's just a different useage.

Anyhoo, back to your query. Buses, up thru the '67 model,
used a separate reduction gearbox, mounted outboard on the
axle (one each side).

This gave additional (higher ratio) gearing but, more important,
gave the Bus higher road clearance. All these Buses still had
swing axle rear ends and the inner "fulcrum" is limited in how
much angle it can run at.

Beginning in '68, CV joints were used (IRS) and these Bus CV's
could operate at high angles to give road clearance without
using a reduction box. The additional gearing was then built into
the ring and pinion.

Incidentally, the original 1940 Kubelwagen (WWII) had swing axles
with reduction boxes to give road clearance and the Kubels went "anywhere".

Speedy Jim
http://www.nls.net/mp/volks/

"Shag" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:52:32 -0400, Speedy Jim > wrote:
>
> Oh... I could see them gearing the transmission a little higher
> (numerically) in the vans, but I didn't know there was enough of a
> difference that it was noticeable. Hmm... maybe the reduction boxes
> I've read of are actually reduction GEARboxes as in transmissions with
> different gearing? I could have sworn I read that the "reduction
> boxes" I read about were not a part of the gearbox. Maybe I skipped
> one paragraph too many in that section when I was reading. I thought
> the original question was basically how to drop the RPMs down when
> putting a beetle motor in a bus by changing tire profile. If it was
> then I still stand by what I said about needing a taller tire rather
> than a shorter one. If not then sorry for the
> misinformation/rambling.


you were right on the function and location of the reduction boxes...but you
are just missing some details that will bring it all together for
you...<G>....the early buses had the reduction boxes to compensate for the
lower output engines used....once the type 4 engines were being used the
raitos were lowered(numerically) to give better drivability on the
highway(less rpm's)....the more powerful engines did not object to "higher"
gearing the way the old(type 1's) ones do...

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:29:03 -0400, Speedy Jim > wrote:

>Shag wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:52:32 -0400, Speedy Jim > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BananaRepublican wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I once put an up-right 1600 cc into a '77 van and it was geared too high
>>>>for the motor. I would like to do the same thing again with a '75.
>>>>when did they put steeper ( higher ) gearboxes in these?
>>>>and If I have too, how can one lower the ratios? i.e. lower profile
>>>>tires? ......?
>>>>
>>>>g adds.
>>>>MONEY , what a concept
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Up thru '73 was the same as earlier years and a 1600cc works fine.
>>>
>>> '74 is a bit of a disappointment (BTDT) but will work if you are
>>> not expecting too much. AFAIK '75 had the same gearing.
>>>
>>> '76 and later is not suitable, as you found.
>>>
>>>Good info he
>>>http://sandlizrd.baja.com/gears.htm
>>>but some of it contradicts what I thought I knew. <g>
>>>
>>>Tire radius would help but I'm no expert on that.
>>>Plus you have to watch the allowable load on the tire.
>>>
>>>Speedy Jim
>>>http://www.nls.net/mp/volks/
>>
>>
>> Oh... I could see them gearing the transmission a little higher
>> (numerically) in the vans, but I didn't know there was enough of a
>> difference that it was noticeable. Hmm... maybe the reduction boxes
>> I've read of are actually reduction GEARboxes as in transmissions with
>> different gearing? I could have sworn I read that the "reduction
>> boxes" I read about were not a part of the gearbox. Maybe I skipped
>> one paragraph too many in that section when I was reading. I thought
>> the original question was basically how to drop the RPMs down when
>> putting a beetle motor in a bus by changing tire profile. If it was
>> then I still stand by what I said about needing a taller tire rather
>> than a shorter one. If not then sorry for the
>> misinformation/rambling.
>>
>> "Stupid people are funny." - me
>
>Part of the problem is that "higher" means different things to
>different folks. When OP said "higher" he meant LOWER numeric
>gear ratio! He's still right; it's just a different useage.

OK... That's why I kept putting "numerically" in quotes or
parentheses or whatever. I've seen this issue get confused before.
So if he wants a lower *numeric* gear ratio then that means he needs
taller tires instead of shorter tires. I'm positive I understand the
whole gear ratio thing. As soon as I read his post I figured he was
complaining about the engine revving too high when he put it in a bus.
I also thought right away that it might be due to the reduction axles,
and was certain that taller tires would "fix" that for him and not low
profile tires like he suggested.

>
>Anyhoo, back to your query. Buses, up thru the '67 model,
>used a separate reduction gearbox, mounted outboard on the
>axle (one each side).
>
>This gave additional (higher ratio) gearing but, more important,
>gave the Bus higher road clearance. All these Buses still had
>swing axle rear ends and the inner "fulcrum" is limited in how
>much angle it can run at.
>
>Beginning in '68, CV joints were used (IRS) and these Bus CV's
>could operate at high angles to give road clearance without
>using a reduction box. The additional gearing was then built into
>the ring and pinion.
>
>Incidentally, the original 1940 Kubelwagen (WWII) had swing axles
>with reduction boxes to give road clearance and the Kubels went "anywhere".
>
>Speedy Jim
>http://www.nls.net/mp/volks/

"Stupid people are funny." - me

Mostly right but my 68 has a 1600 type 1 single port engine. (as
standard in the UK ) they changed the final drive in the gear box and
removed the reduction boxes.

BTW did you know that reduction boxes cause your back end to RISE as you
pull away ! quirky hey.

Rich


Joey Tribiani wrote:

> "Shag" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:52:32 -0400, Speedy Jim > wrote:
>
> >
>
>>Oh... I could see them gearing the transmission a little higher
>>(numerically) in the vans, but I didn't know there was enough of a
>>difference that it was noticeable. Hmm... maybe the reduction boxes
>>I've read of are actually reduction GEARboxes as in transmissions with
>>different gearing? I could have sworn I read that the "reduction
>>boxes" I read about were not a part of the gearbox. Maybe I skipped
>>one paragraph too many in that section when I was reading. I thought
>>the original question was basically how to drop the RPMs down when
>>putting a beetle motor in a bus by changing tire profile. If it was
>>then I still stand by what I said about needing a taller tire rather
>>than a shorter one. If not then sorry for the
>>misinformation/rambling.
>
>
>
> you were right on the function and location of the reduction boxes...but you
> are just missing some details that will bring it all together for
> you...<G>....the early buses had the reduction boxes to compensate for the
> lower output engines used....once the type 4 engines were being used the
> raitos were lowered(numerically) to give better drivability on the
> highway(less rpm's)....the more powerful engines did not object to "higher"
> gearing the way the old(type 1's) ones do...
>
>

"tricky" > wrote in message
...
> Mostly right but my 68 has a 1600 type 1 single port engine. (as
> standard in the UK ) they changed the final drive in the gear box and
> removed the reduction boxes.
>
> BTW did you know that reduction boxes cause your back end to RISE as you
> pull away ! quirky hey.
>
> Rich
>

yep and when you put them in a baja, and get into some "sticky" situations
the rising rear(when throttle is applied) can be quite detrimental...

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:32:09 -0400, "Joey Tribiani" >
wrote:

>
>"tricky" > wrote in message
...
>> Mostly right but my 68 has a 1600 type 1 single port engine. (as
>> standard in the UK ) they changed the final drive in the gear box and
>> removed the reduction boxes.
>>
>> BTW did you know that reduction boxes cause your back end to RISE as you
>> pull away ! quirky hey.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>
>yep and when you put them in a baja, and get into some "sticky" situations
>the rising rear(when throttle is applied) can be quite detrimental...
>
Details please? I'm only asking because I've never had the reduction
boxes. I could see the rear end raising up being a GOOD thing when
you start to get stuck (to keep your "lowest point" from hanging up in
the mud or whatever). I don't understand how that could be a bad
thing. Hmm... thinking.... Define "the rising rear." hahahah
Yeah, I realize I'm stepping into this one... But seriously...
"rising rear..." I've read something about this before... With a
"normal" rear-end when throttle is applied, the rear tends to "squat."
We've all seen that. With redux boxes it doesn't... Yeah... I
think I read that before... how is that a bad thing for an offroad
vehicle? Edu-ma-cate me?

"Stupid people are funny." - me