1993 YJ transfer case question
05-02-2004, 02:50 PM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1993 YJ transfer case question
Jerry, why the f**k are you defending Daimler's use of the NP231 forget
the bicycle chain the sun and planetary are smaller than anything used
in an America automatic transmission. Tails of them exploding are all
over the internet:
http://www.amghummer.com/features/Va...BrokenCase.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> The stupid slip yoke notwithstanding, just like the older gear driven boxes,
> NP231s have been around for nearly two decades and have proven themselves
> time and again to be extremely durable. Further, at 2.72:1, they're far
> better crawlers than 2.0:1 D20s & 18s.
>
> As for me, hey, I've got an Atlas II AND a D20, no sissy chain driven stuff
> around here....except for the one in the Grand Cherokee.
the bicycle chain the sun and planetary are smaller than anything used
in an America automatic transmission. Tails of them exploding are all
over the internet:
http://www.amghummer.com/features/Va...BrokenCase.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> The stupid slip yoke notwithstanding, just like the older gear driven boxes,
> NP231s have been around for nearly two decades and have proven themselves
> time and again to be extremely durable. Further, at 2.72:1, they're far
> better crawlers than 2.0:1 D20s & 18s.
>
> As for me, hey, I've got an Atlas II AND a D20, no sissy chain driven stuff
> around here....except for the one in the Grand Cherokee.
05-02-2004, 08:13 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1993 YJ transfer case question
That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
(like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:409542EC.4EBA3542@***.net...
> Jerry, why the f**k are you defending Daimler's use of the NP231 forget
> the bicycle chain the sun and planetary are smaller than anything used
> in an America automatic transmission. Tails of them exploding are all
> over the internet:
> http://www.amghummer.com/features/Va...BrokenCase.htm
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jerry McG wrote:
> >
> > The stupid slip yoke notwithstanding, just like the older gear driven
boxes,
> > NP231s have been around for nearly two decades and have proven
themselves
> > time and again to be extremely durable. Further, at 2.72:1, they're far
> > better crawlers than 2.0:1 D20s & 18s.
> >
> > As for me, hey, I've got an Atlas II AND a D20, no sissy chain driven
stuff
> > around here....except for the one in the Grand Cherokee.
(like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:409542EC.4EBA3542@***.net...
> Jerry, why the f**k are you defending Daimler's use of the NP231 forget
> the bicycle chain the sun and planetary are smaller than anything used
> in an America automatic transmission. Tails of them exploding are all
> over the internet:
> http://www.amghummer.com/features/Va...BrokenCase.htm
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jerry McG wrote:
> >
> > The stupid slip yoke notwithstanding, just like the older gear driven
boxes,
> > NP231s have been around for nearly two decades and have proven
themselves
> > time and again to be extremely durable. Further, at 2.72:1, they're far
> > better crawlers than 2.0:1 D20s & 18s.
> >
> > As for me, hey, I've got an Atlas II AND a D20, no sissy chain driven
stuff
> > around here....except for the one in the Grand Cherokee.
05-02-2004, 08:13 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1993 YJ transfer case question
That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
(like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:409542EC.4EBA3542@***.net...
> Jerry, why the f**k are you defending Daimler's use of the NP231 forget
> the bicycle chain the sun and planetary are smaller than anything used
> in an America automatic transmission. Tails of them exploding are all
> over the internet:
> http://www.amghummer.com/features/Va...BrokenCase.htm
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jerry McG wrote:
> >
> > The stupid slip yoke notwithstanding, just like the older gear driven
boxes,
> > NP231s have been around for nearly two decades and have proven
themselves
> > time and again to be extremely durable. Further, at 2.72:1, they're far
> > better crawlers than 2.0:1 D20s & 18s.
> >
> > As for me, hey, I've got an Atlas II AND a D20, no sissy chain driven
stuff
> > around here....except for the one in the Grand Cherokee.
(like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:409542EC.4EBA3542@***.net...
> Jerry, why the f**k are you defending Daimler's use of the NP231 forget
> the bicycle chain the sun and planetary are smaller than anything used
> in an America automatic transmission. Tails of them exploding are all
> over the internet:
> http://www.amghummer.com/features/Va...BrokenCase.htm
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jerry McG wrote:
> >
> > The stupid slip yoke notwithstanding, just like the older gear driven
boxes,
> > NP231s have been around for nearly two decades and have proven
themselves
> > time and again to be extremely durable. Further, at 2.72:1, they're far
> > better crawlers than 2.0:1 D20s & 18s.
> >
> > As for me, hey, I've got an Atlas II AND a D20, no sissy chain driven
stuff
> > around here....except for the one in the Grand Cherokee.
05-02-2004, 08:13 PM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1993 YJ transfer case question
That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
(like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:409542EC.4EBA3542@***.net...
> Jerry, why the f**k are you defending Daimler's use of the NP231 forget
> the bicycle chain the sun and planetary are smaller than anything used
> in an America automatic transmission. Tails of them exploding are all
> over the internet:
> http://www.amghummer.com/features/Va...BrokenCase.htm
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jerry McG wrote:
> >
> > The stupid slip yoke notwithstanding, just like the older gear driven
boxes,
> > NP231s have been around for nearly two decades and have proven
themselves
> > time and again to be extremely durable. Further, at 2.72:1, they're far
> > better crawlers than 2.0:1 D20s & 18s.
> >
> > As for me, hey, I've got an Atlas II AND a D20, no sissy chain driven
stuff
> > around here....except for the one in the Grand Cherokee.
(like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:409542EC.4EBA3542@***.net...
> Jerry, why the f**k are you defending Daimler's use of the NP231 forget
> the bicycle chain the sun and planetary are smaller than anything used
> in an America automatic transmission. Tails of them exploding are all
> over the internet:
> http://www.amghummer.com/features/Va...BrokenCase.htm
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jerry McG wrote:
> >
> > The stupid slip yoke notwithstanding, just like the older gear driven
boxes,
> > NP231s have been around for nearly two decades and have proven
themselves
> > time and again to be extremely durable. Further, at 2.72:1, they're far
> > better crawlers than 2.0:1 D20s & 18s.
> >
> > As for me, hey, I've got an Atlas II AND a D20, no sissy chain driven
stuff
> > around here....except for the one in the Grand Cherokee.
05-02-2004, 08:13 PM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1993 YJ transfer case question
That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
(like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:409542EC.4EBA3542@***.net...
> Jerry, why the f**k are you defending Daimler's use of the NP231 forget
> the bicycle chain the sun and planetary are smaller than anything used
> in an America automatic transmission. Tails of them exploding are all
> over the internet:
> http://www.amghummer.com/features/Va...BrokenCase.htm
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jerry McG wrote:
> >
> > The stupid slip yoke notwithstanding, just like the older gear driven
boxes,
> > NP231s have been around for nearly two decades and have proven
themselves
> > time and again to be extremely durable. Further, at 2.72:1, they're far
> > better crawlers than 2.0:1 D20s & 18s.
> >
> > As for me, hey, I've got an Atlas II AND a D20, no sissy chain driven
stuff
> > around here....except for the one in the Grand Cherokee.
(like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:409542EC.4EBA3542@***.net...
> Jerry, why the f**k are you defending Daimler's use of the NP231 forget
> the bicycle chain the sun and planetary are smaller than anything used
> in an America automatic transmission. Tails of them exploding are all
> over the internet:
> http://www.amghummer.com/features/Va...BrokenCase.htm
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jerry McG wrote:
> >
> > The stupid slip yoke notwithstanding, just like the older gear driven
boxes,
> > NP231s have been around for nearly two decades and have proven
themselves
> > time and again to be extremely durable. Further, at 2.72:1, they're far
> > better crawlers than 2.0:1 D20s & 18s.
> >
> > As for me, hey, I've got an Atlas II AND a D20, no sissy chain driven
stuff
> > around here....except for the one in the Grand Cherokee.
05-03-2004, 01:04 PM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1993 YJ transfer case question
You don't seriously believe Ford would use that POS, would you?
http://www.truckpulls.com/Transferca...mage_Index.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
> (like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
> that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
> engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
>
> Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
> problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
> for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
> boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
>
> D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
> or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
http://www.truckpulls.com/Transferca...mage_Index.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
> (like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
> that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
> engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
>
> Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
> problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
> for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
> boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
>
> D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
> or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
05-03-2004, 01:04 PM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1993 YJ transfer case question
You don't seriously believe Ford would use that POS, would you?
http://www.truckpulls.com/Transferca...mage_Index.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
> (like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
> that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
> engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
>
> Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
> problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
> for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
> boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
>
> D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
> or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
http://www.truckpulls.com/Transferca...mage_Index.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
> (like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
> that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
> engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
>
> Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
> problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
> for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
> boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
>
> D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
> or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
05-03-2004, 01:04 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1993 YJ transfer case question
You don't seriously believe Ford would use that POS, would you?
http://www.truckpulls.com/Transferca...mage_Index.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
> (like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
> that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
> engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
>
> Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
> problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
> for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
> boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
>
> D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
> or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
http://www.truckpulls.com/Transferca...mage_Index.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
> (like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
> that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
> engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
>
> Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
> problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
> for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
> boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
>
> D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
> or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
05-03-2004, 01:04 PM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1993 YJ transfer case question
You don't seriously believe Ford would use that POS, would you?
http://www.truckpulls.com/Transferca...mage_Index.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
> (like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
> that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
> engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
>
> Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
> problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
> for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
> boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
>
> D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
> or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
http://www.truckpulls.com/Transferca...mage_Index.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> That's not a "tale" of an NP231 cratering in a YJ or TJ. If some idiot mfr
> (like Ford) puts an underspec unit in a fullsize and it snaps the p. gears,
> that's not the fault of the box,. it's the fault of the cst cutting idiot
> engineering team that signed off on it in the first place!
>
> Millions of NP231s are serving Jeep owners faithfully every day with narry a
> problem. Bottom line, even with the idiot slip yoke they work like a charm
> for 99.5% of their owners, have a better crawl ratio and are far lighter to
> boot than the old iron case gear jammer xfer cases.
>
> D300s routinely snap their output shafts under load, should we condemn them,
> or just shut the f&*k up and put in a stronger output shaft?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)