Wich one?? Low Low range ORD's Doubler or??>>>>>>

[TONYP]

Re: Wich one?? Low Low range ORD\'s Doubler or??>>>>>>

I think I'm getting most of this, but I'm not going to be wheeling as hard as most guys. I do think I need a lower range then the 205 gives me. I have 3:86 gears and 35" tires. So when I put it in low it's not very low. I don't think I want to go with a doubler if your building a 205 gear set, I would think that would be fine for me if it were around 3.75:1,. But then comes the cost....What would be the diff in that? If they are the same, then for what I've been reading I sould go with the doubler. Kinda of new to all of this so I'm trying to gather as much info as possible. /forums/images/graemlins/k5.gif

 

[FULLSIZE]

Re: Wich one?? Low Low range ORD\'s Doubler or??>>>>>>

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Read the atlas manual.

[/ QUOTE ] dont have that much money /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
A large majority of the competition rock crawlers run reduction planetaries, i.e. Klune-V's in front of Atlas's. If it could be broke, they would probably be the ones to do it. I don't believe they would put a part in their rig that is prone to fall, considering that is their paycheck.

[/ QUOTE ] a large percentage of those said rockcrawlers get cases for free or very cheap and get replacement parts often as to not fail. most of the comp rigs you refer to weigh nowhere near what a fullsize truck with camping gear weighs and when the "get it", its not in low/low. they shift out of low/low for some wheel speed. i still say the doubler configuration is the way to go for a trail rig. thats just my .02 /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif