Re: Dana 18 VS. Dana 20.

To: "Greg Hermann" <bearbvd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Joel M Brodsky" <jmbrodsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ihc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Dana 18 VS. Dana 20.
From: "Ryan Moore" <baradium@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:34:22 -0500
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
References: <v01510100bb169b4b0e80@[67.4.10.160]>
Reply-to: "Ryan Moore" <baradium@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ihc@xxxxxxxxxx

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg Hermann" <[email protected]>
To: "Joel M Brodsky" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 17:44
Subject: Re: Dana 18 VS. Dana 20.

<snip>
>
> NOPE !! not only do you have the pilot diameter issue, but also
> driveshaft/rear pumpkin offset issues to deal with.
>
> Greg

The talk on the BB about the conversion idea was that the rear pumpkin issue
was alright as long as you didn't get to extreme u-joint angles from it.
The diesel guys really like the idea of using a dana 18 with thier diesel
scouts because of the possibility of splitting shifts and lowering RPMS at
cruise for the diesels.

-Ryan

References:
- Re: Dana 18 VS. Dana 20.
  - From: Greg Hermann

Prev by Date: Re: John's - email
Next by Date: Re: John's - email
Previous by thread: Re: Dana 18 VS. Dana 20.
Next by thread: Re: Dana 18 VS. Dana 20.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Home | Archive | Main Index | Thread Index