Gen4 pajero LS1 V8 conversion

[nj swb]

Hrmmm, damn hey!? I'm still leaning towards kerping the ns transfer... mainly for the vehicle speed sensor, no driveshaft mods, no console or electrics mods. I guess I'll store the nh one somewhere as a fallback plan.

The NH transfer is smaller than the later Gen 2 / Gen 3 / Gen 4 transfers. If you're concerned about strength, the NH transfer would be my last choice.

I have now had two transfers fail in my NT, for different reasons.

The first failure was my own sheer stupidity. I subjected the low range gear set to more torque than the manufacturer ever intended, and the housing gave way. The most recent failure was an almost identical failure, under high load conditions. I suspect that any Mitsubishi transfer case would fail in the same way under the same conditions.

My second failure was in the centre diff locking arrangement, when one of the brass sliding parts fell out of alignment and jammed.

So why did it fall out of alignment?

My second transfer case had low range reduction gears installed by Marks, and I suspect (but haven't yet proved) that one of the intermediate gears that drive the shift rails wasn't installed in precisely the right spot, allowing the switches to detect proper engagement of the centre diff lock when it wasn't physically in the correct spot. I don't believe this failure was due to "strength", more an issue with relying on motors, gears, rails and switches to ensure proper engagement. The manually operated Gen 2 transfer case shouldn't have this issue, but should still have the torque capacity.

To the best of my knowledge, all Pajero transfer cases now have low range reduction sets available from Marks. But please keep in mind that the mechanical overload failure happens only in low range, and it is the torque multiplication that makes a significant contribution to the forces that destroy the housing. Extra reduction will create extra force, making it easier to destroy the housing.

Use a light foot in low range, and you'll be fine.

[Ian Sharpe]

The NH transfer is smaller than the later Gen 2 / Gen 3 / Gen 4 transfers. If you're concerned about strength, the NH transfer would be my last choice.

I have now had two transfers fail in my NT, for different reasons.

The first failure was my own sheer stupidity. I subjected the low range gear set to more torque than the manufacturer ever intended, and the housing gave way. The most recent failure was an almost identical failure, under high load conditions. I suspect that any Mitsubishi transfer case would fail in the same way under the same conditions.

My second failure was in the centre diff locking arrangement, when one of the brass sliding parts fell out of alignment and jammed.

So why did it fall out of alignment?

My second transfer case had low range reduction gears installed by Marks, and I suspect (but haven't yet proved) that one of the intermediate gears that drive the shift rails wasn't installed in precisely the right spot, allowing the switches to detect proper engagement of the centre diff lock when it wasn't physically in the correct spot. I don't believe this failure was due to "strength", more an issue with relying on motors, gears, rails and switches to ensure proper engagement. The manually operated Gen 2 transfer case shouldn't have this issue, but should still have the torque capacity.

To the best of my knowledge, all Pajero transfer cases now have low range reduction sets available from Marks. But please keep in mind that the mechanical overload failure happens only in low range, and it is the torque multiplication that makes a significant contribution to the forces that destroy the housing. Extra reduction will create extra force, making it easier to destroy the housing.

Use a light foot in low range, and you'll be fine.

Interesting that I have dual cases with a low low of over 100:1 (thats a serious amt of torque, even from the 3.5l petrol) & I its been in use now for over 3 years . In that time I have never busted anything & I changed to an NP242 which I would consider inferior to the NL cases. So I would be questioning the strength or integrity or design of the Gen 4 cases.

[nj swb]

Interesting that I have dual cases with a low low of over 100:1 (thats a serious amt of torque, even from the 3.5l petrol) & I its been in use now for over 3 years . In that time I have never busted anything & I changed to an NP242 which I would consider inferior to the NL cases. So I would be questioning the strength or integrity or design of the Gen 4 cases.

Did you have two Gen 2 transfers in series? Is the NP242 before or after the Mitsubishi transfer? How often do you use full throttle in low range for sustained periods?

The first transfer behind your transmission won't see the same amount of torque that killed my transfer - the engine produces less torque, and at higher revs, so the torque converter at max stall is probably not receiving peak engine torque. All of these factors contribute to the longevity of your transfers.

But despite all the above, I agree that the Gen 4 case is too easy to break in low range. Whether or not the Gen 2 / 3 case is any stronger is a different issue - I think they have never been subjected to the same torque.

Behind an LS1, I think any Mitsubishi transfer case is in trouble. Using full throttle for sustained periods in low gears in low range is inviting failure - but with all that torque, why bother? If full throttle is required, use high range and make the transmission earn its keep. In high range the lay shaft isn't transmitting any torque, so this failure mode isn't an issue.

Driven sympathetically, the Gen 4 transfer will be fine. Abuse it in low range and it will break.

If full throttle will be used in low gears in low range, use a different transfer case.

[stumagoo]

I wonder if gen 4 case failure has as much to do with the traction control (if that were in use) loading up against the driveline as the strength (or lack of) issues. Thinking like how a locker can load up the driveline surely the traction control would do similar or even more to stress the system if being used hard

[Ian Sharpe]

Did you have two Gen 2 transfers in series? Is the NP242 before or after the Mitsubishi transfer? How often do you use full throttle in low range for sustained periods?

But despite all the above, I agree that the Gen 4 case is too easy to break in low range. Whether or not the Gen 2 / 3 case is any stronger is a different issue - I think they have never been subjected to the same torque.

Behind an LS1, I think any Mitsubishi transfer case is in trouble. .

Have a Behemoth Strong Box behind the NL auto tranny (same tranny basically as used in Jeep XJ cherokees) , mated to an NP242 out of a Jeep Cherokee. No-one makes a doubler that suits the NL case. Believe it or not the crawler box & NP 242 are about the same lenght as the original NL case. They are huge things, hence I said I went backwards in strength (but without any problems).

SImon has been running his NH auto case with his LS motor now for a couple of years with no problems that I know of, thats why I suggested he retained it , but he is going ahead with the NS case now so it will be interesting if he has any problems going forward.

[smccask]

I went into the LS with the expectation of breaking stuff in low range so I've been very careful in low range. That said most driving in wa is sand and with the extra engine low range has not been needed on beach, even with camper. If i use low range its normally a slow traction even rather than smoke fest

[Ian Sharpe]

I went into the LS with the expectation of breaking stuff in low range so I've been very careful in low range. That said most driving in wa is sand and with the extra engine low range has not been needed on beach, even with camper. If i use low range its normally a slow traction even rather than smoke fest

yeah I think thats a good strategy!

[NMPajboy]

Just thought I'd share this. Was watching a Skid Factory vid on the tube about putting a twin turbo Ls1 into a skyline. Anyway, they used the rad below which worked really well, even while dyno tuning, and it's very compact, and all alloy so easy to mod if needed, which could be useful.

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com.au%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F142784470206

[786evo8]

just subscribing for further updates

[smccask]

Received the CAN interface today! Its called CANtact. I've got it running on the paj and now just have to slowly work through to discover the IDs of each packet type and then the contents. Main aim is to maintain the ASC and TC when the pajero ECU is gone. I'm going to run a cable throttle relaxer from a commodore and interface that with the paj ATSC via CAN using an Arduino. That should allow the ATSC to back off the V8 throttle when it needs to.

[stumagoo]

damn this is getting high tech.... the very thing I avoid in my 4x4's lol. For a road car I can deal with hight tech but not a weekend smash it up the rocks basher

[Ian Sharpe]

damn this is getting high tech.... the very thing I avoid in my 4x4's lol. For a road car I can deal with hight tech but not a weekend smash it up the rocks basher

I dont think Simon intends this to be a weekend smash it up rocks basher by any means.

[Ian Sharpe]

Hi Simon

any updates on progress?

[smccask]

Nah sorry, there has been a lot of other stuff on. I've been dabbling in the CANbus stuff but no real progress. The superpaj NH has been deregistered.. donating it's heart to the NS of course

[stumagoo]

I dont think Simon intends this to be a weekend smash it up rocks basher by any means.

what other sort of 4x4 is there ..........