By higher, do you mean clocked higher or sitting higher up in the frame? It’s my understanding the back end of a 4 speed is essentially a 2 speed unit. It may appear lower because the back end is projected down further along the down angle of the drivetrain due to the extra length of the planetary/under drive assembly.
Wow, I had understood that the 4speed was quite a bit wider hence the notching of so many bronco frames when they came out, in order to get the atlas 4 clocked flat.
Thanks for asking these questions. I am working on getting 5.8, 4r70w and atlas II in the frame and ran into problems with the extreme mounts. They had worked fine on the previous 5.0 combination I was running and I believe after reading this that I must have mixed the pieces up after painting. I haven't found a good combination yet that allows the engine to drop back in, but I guess the next time is the charm?! Anyway, very timely post!
I'm surprised by 2 things: 1) that no one noticed that before, and 2) that it's the only error (so far). But you're right that the Section F datum line is ~27 pixels too low. I've corrected it on my computer, but SMN hasn't let me upload anything for several months, so I can't replace the public version. I'll edit a warning into the caption, though.
Oooorrrr, you could just become a contributor here and support the site like so many of us do...
Cheeky...I do contribute and support the site. But with things that are more useful to other users than money. What good would my "contributor" badge have done CowboyGrin, if I had had one? What good does yours do him? You're not supporting the site - you're supporting the site OWNERS. I support the site USERS.
My use of a different image host does NOT cost this site anything. And I have been using SMN since before it was called SMN, so I'm not gonna move all my pictures (there are a few hundred THOUSAND) every time I join a new upstart discussion forum (and I've been discussing vehicles TO HELP THEIR OWNERS online since before discussion forums existed).
My posts certainly don't do anything to HURT him, but if they attract paying users (and I DO occasionally direct new users here), then they ARE helping him.
If YOU want to consider that, you're welcome to. It's not my concern, though. My concern is helping people keep their Broncos running. I don't really care what site or format I'm using to do it, and I've seen more than one format come & go. I don't take responsibility for ANY of them dying off.
...I still wouldn't have, because as I said, I have FAR too many pics to move them here. And they've existed longer than CB has, so I couldn't have begun here. And even if I did, it wouldn't be easy to post them on ALL THE OTHER forums that I use. SMN makes it easy to upload a pic ONCE, and then re-post it everywhere.
What a TROLL! You obviously have no idea how much time & effort went into that diagram, or the THOUSANDS of others I've made freely available to you & everyone else over the past ~30 years. Probably because you can't be bothered to do anything more than send in a few bucks to salve your conscience after spending hours doing NOTHING to help anyone other than antagonize those who actually care enough to WORK on big technical projects. Do you know what diagram was available BEFORE I created that one (with ONE minor error, so far)? A sketch with maybe 4 useable dimensions on it, and one was WRONG. Do some searching and look at it - oh, wait; you don't put that kind of effort forth.
All websites have occasional problems. And CB's history of image hosting is not perfect, either. Not even for the paying members. So yes, SMN has a problem right now, but it'll probably be fixed soon.
Its $12 dollars a year....
I have a question about the measurements on the drawing. First, sorry for what might be a silly question.
Sorry for the questions, I resolved the issue.
Then YOU pay it. Just double up to cover me. It's just $12/yr.
Glad you got it figured out. But you DIVIDE the number of pixels by 16 to get inches; not multiply.
Then YOU pay it. Just double up to cover me. It's just $12/yr.
Glad you got it figured out. But you DIVIDE the number of pixels by 16 to get inches; not multiply.
Frankly I had considered it.Then YOU pay it. Just double up to cover me. It's just $12/yr.
Glad you got it figured out. But you DIVIDE the number of pixels by 16 to get inches; not multiply.
Agreed. If there was a way to gift contributor status, I would have already done so. I‘m sure Steve’s drawing took hours to create, and time is money. His drawing saved me time and gave me the assurance that what I was working with was worth my additional time.
