1993 GC, how to test the all-drive! - JeepForum.com

 1Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 20 Old 03-17-2016, 01:48 PM Thread Starter
clager
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 16
1993 GC, how to test the all-drive!

Hi! new here! please, how do I test if the all-wheel drive is working or not?
The differentials are beginning to roar a bit when reversing, especially at the back of the car.

Thanks beforehand

clager is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 Old 03-17-2016, 01:53 PM
kg6mov
Hears the voices
 
kg6mov's Avatar
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Cupertino
Posts: 11,763
Assuming you have the t-case with no 2wd mode.

Warm the jeep up then do tight circles in a parking lot, if the wheels hop and bind then the AWD has locked up and the VC will need to be replaced. Otherwise if you have a front driveshaft, the AWD is working.
clager likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1984 F250, 460 BB, T19, work truck/future tow pig
1987 Mercedes 300D Turbo, the diesel daily, 30mpg in style

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas ZJ1 View Post
I heard someone yell "mall crawler" from the back porch. I'll go see who said that. Be right back.
kg6mov is offline  
post #3 of 20 Old 03-17-2016, 02:04 PM Thread Starter
clager
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by kg6mov View Post
Assuming you have the t-case with no 2wd mode.

Warm the jeep up then do tight circles in a parking lot, if the wheels hop and bind then the AWD has locked up and the VC will need to be replaced. Otherwise if you have a front driveshaft, the AWD is working.

Thanks a lot!! that was very helpfull!! going to try that tomorrow. Assuming this is the case, replacing the VC, is that a big or small job?

cheers!
clager is offline  
post #4 of 20 Old 03-17-2016, 02:08 PM
kg6mov
Hears the voices
 
kg6mov's Avatar
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Cupertino
Posts: 11,763
It's not horrible, you can do it with the case still on the jeep. Only special tool needed is a good set of snap ring pliers.

A new VC is a few hundred clams though: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Jeep-NP249-F...VUxX53&vxp=mtr


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1984 F250, 460 BB, T19, work truck/future tow pig
1987 Mercedes 300D Turbo, the diesel daily, 30mpg in style

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas ZJ1 View Post
I heard someone yell "mall crawler" from the back porch. I'll go see who said that. Be right back.
kg6mov is offline  
post #5 of 20 Old 03-17-2016, 02:23 PM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by clager View Post

Thanks a lot!! that was very helpfull!! going to try that tomorrow. Assuming this is the case, replacing the VC, is that a big or small job?

cheers!
Drive it until it's warmed up. A bad VC is more noticeable when it's hot.
PolkaPower is offline  
post #6 of 20 Old 03-17-2016, 02:46 PM Thread Starter
clager
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 16
Thanks fellas! checking it out tomorrow.

best!
clager is offline  
post #7 of 20 Old 03-17-2016, 06:17 PM
AVR2
Web Wheeler
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,734
Also, you should be able to do the figure-8s just with the "creep" you get at idle, or at least with minimal throttle input.
AVR2 is offline  
post #8 of 20 Old 03-17-2016, 08:46 PM
Candymancan
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVR2 View Post
Also, you should be able to do the figure-8s just with the "creep" you get at idle, or at least with minimal throttle input.


Im not sure about creeping on full circle turns lol at least not for later model 249's which are slightly different then the earlier 249's and have a more liquid fluid inside the VC. The earlier 249 vc's the fluid is less viscous and thick.. The newer 249's the fluid is thicker. My 249 has a brand new VC i put in about 5 years ago and even with the new one i couldnt idle at full turn.. I can with the 242 but the 249 wont. it requires a little bit of gas. And even with a new 249 the full wheel lock turns feel pretty tight.. Much more then the 242.. the 242 feels completetly open and loose compared to the 249.. One thing the new VC did help on alot though was u-turns.. before i had to u-turn like a semi truck to avoid the wheel skipping

The Jeeps drive a lot differently even my mom notices it, and this is why all 249 case Jeeps had cv axles vs u joints i believe.


As for replacing the VC get the year appropriate one. They have 2 one for 92-96 and one for 97-98's, i have never worked on vehicles before, and when i bought my 5.9 the first thing i did with the help of the forum was change my vc. I did it with the case still on the transmission. I just dropped the cross member with the bottle jack and a peice of wood on the transmission. And i lowered it about an inch.. The hardest part was getting at the snap ring through the inspection port on the top of the transfercase AND putting the cover back on with the snap ring. You need a set of mini pliers or some really good snap ring pliers that are long and curved down. I did it with the mini pliers.

Oh and my output shaft when i put the cover back on was sagging for some reason (gravity sucks) and i used popcicle sticks to leverage the vc up to get the cover on LOL. I will say though it took me like 10 hours to do it, since i was mechanicly inexperienced and the cone snap ring gave me problems. I think i will change the t/c fluid.. Since it has been 5 years. Anyone remember off hand how many quarts it takes ?

Candymancan is offline  
post #9 of 20 Old 03-17-2016, 10:19 PM
kg6mov
Hears the voices
 
kg6mov's Avatar
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Cupertino
Posts: 11,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Candymancan View Post
The earlier 249 vc's the fluid is less viscous and thick.. The newer 249's the fluid is thicker.
No. No difference in the VC itself, only difference in operation between first and second gen is the case, not the VC.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1984 F250, 460 BB, T19, work truck/future tow pig
1987 Mercedes 300D Turbo, the diesel daily, 30mpg in style

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas ZJ1 View Post
I heard someone yell "mall crawler" from the back porch. I'll go see who said that. Be right back.
kg6mov is offline  
post #10 of 20 Old 03-18-2016, 07:15 AM
Candymancan
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,548
No. The viscous coupler is not different mechanicly but the liquid inside is. This was proven 5+ years ago before you joined the forum we had long discussions on this and there were documents with the different numbers of the viscosity, the newer 249's had a higher viscosity. I cant find the document but there was one, this was back when ratmonkey was still alive and back when me and alot of people installed our viscous couplers like newfirezj i believe and someone else i forgot his name off hand. The viscosity of the fluid is different between the two. Because of the way both 249's behave with the older one running in 4HI and 4LOW and being set at 50/50 even in 4HI, and the newer ones being with most of the power in the rear they required a thicker fluid in the VC to activate the VC quicker on slip. Why do you think there is two different model numbers and years for the VC ?

I know what i saw and read and i will take this to my grave.

These numbers are fictional but they were something like this .. The chart showed the earlier models at something like 600,000 CST and the newer ones at a higher level.. I have the picture burned into my head but i cant find the thread or the document showing it i cant believe that document has been forgotton.

Hell i think Polkapower might remember it he was alive back then lol
Candymancan is offline  
post #11 of 20 Old 03-18-2016, 07:26 AM
kg6mov
Hears the voices
 
kg6mov's Avatar
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Cupertino
Posts: 11,763
No, there is a physical difference in the 97-98 VC, it's a small machining change in the splines.

To quote the VC remanufacturer:
Quote:
The early hub spline goes to the end and the late has a small chamfer. This machining difference does not effect the coupler fitting early or late transfercase. Both early and late viscous couplers interchange.
Design documents I'd believe.

No 96 has a first gen 249, this has been proven.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1984 F250, 460 BB, T19, work truck/future tow pig
1987 Mercedes 300D Turbo, the diesel daily, 30mpg in style

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas ZJ1 View Post
I heard someone yell "mall crawler" from the back porch. I'll go see who said that. Be right back.
kg6mov is offline  
post #12 of 20 Old 03-18-2016, 08:34 AM
jeepjeepster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,801
It would make complete sense. My 94 ZJ 249 is basically invisible. I never can tell that its basically full time 4wd and it has 231,000miles on the original VC.

My 98 5.9 on the other hand will not do a figure 8 without using the go pedal and it only has 75,000 miles on it. I does not hop the inside tire but does growl at times.

1994 ZJ-I6 w/216,000 mi
1998 ZJ 5.9 w/65,155 mi Slate Black
2004 KJ w/90,300 mi
jeepjeepster is offline  
post #13 of 20 Old 03-18-2016, 08:38 AM
kg6mov
Hears the voices
 
kg6mov's Avatar
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Cupertino
Posts: 11,763
Those are functionally different cases though.

Maintained properly a VC will last a very long time, but that means running tires that are matched and not being an idiot. Neither of those traits are what I would call common among PO's when it comes to niners.

My niner's VC was indistinguishable from my 96.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1984 F250, 460 BB, T19, work truck/future tow pig
1987 Mercedes 300D Turbo, the diesel daily, 30mpg in style

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas ZJ1 View Post
I heard someone yell "mall crawler" from the back porch. I'll go see who said that. Be right back.
kg6mov is offline  
post #14 of 20 Old 03-18-2016, 08:46 AM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Candymancan View Post

Hell i think Polkapower might remember it he was alive back then lol
I know there are different part numbers for different years. I think 97-98, 96, and 93-95.

Not sure though. I just got the one for my year. I don't know what's the difference.
Attached Thumbnails
Screen shot 2016-03-18 at 2.43.40 PM.jpg  
PolkaPower is offline  
post #15 of 20 Old 03-18-2016, 08:54 AM
HighLonesome
Belief In All Things Jeep
 
HighLonesome's Avatar
1995 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 6,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by clager View Post
The differentials are beginning to roar a bit when reversing, especially at the back of the car.
Are you sure it's the diffs? Transmission is more likely and nothing to worry about.
HighLonesome is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome