Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Thread: Manual locking hubs....any difference in MPG?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    1,220

    Default Manual locking hubs....any difference in MPG?

    So I got my hands on some manual locking hubs for the montero. Anyone else running them?

    Wanted to know if there is any difference in fuel economy having them turned off?

    1998 Montero 2.5gen, Rear Locker, 35's, 2" BL, ARB FJ Cruiser Bumper, AirTec Snorkel, TrailGear Sliders, LightForce 240's, Superwinch ML Hubs, 16'Raceline Renegades, Safari Rack, chopped quarters, fuel tank tuck, 4.90 R&P



    -=BUILD THREAD=-

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    4,068
    Probably not significantly noticeable however the bigger gain would be the reduction in wear to the front drivetrain since you can disconnect the hub from the front axles.
    Last edited by off-roader; 05-04-2012 at 05:04 AM.

    1996 Montero SR (3.5L v6, rear Locker), 35" mudders, 3.15:1 xcase crawler gears
    Build Thread: http://www.expeditionportal.com/foru...su-build-up...
    1989 SWB Montero RS (3.0L v6, rear LSD), 33" mudders (sold)
    1990 LWB Montero LS (3.0L v6, rear LSD), 33" mudders (gave to rxinhed)
    1990 LWB Montero LS (3.0L v6, rear LSD), 31" AT's (rolled 1st time I ever drove off road)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Campbell River
    Posts
    109
    Yes...there should be a difference in MPGs. Your wheels will no longer be spinning your CV axles. Not only is it good for MPGs...It increases the reliability of your front drivetrain. Its a good call and an easy swap
    1991 Mitsubishi pajero

    1980 Volvo 245 wagon

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    1,220
    Yes thats what I was thinking as well, there is quite a bit of less movement up front. Isnt that what makes the difference in the fuel economy in a 2WD to 4WD in the first place (assuming the 4WD isnt turned on)
    1998 Montero 2.5gen, Rear Locker, 35's, 2" BL, ARB FJ Cruiser Bumper, AirTec Snorkel, TrailGear Sliders, LightForce 240's, Superwinch ML Hubs, 16'Raceline Renegades, Safari Rack, chopped quarters, fuel tank tuck, 4.90 R&P



    -=BUILD THREAD=-

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    4,068
    The added mass of the entire 4wd system is also a big factor in reducing mileage especially with the Montero's robust 4wd system.

    1996 Montero SR (3.5L v6, rear Locker), 35" mudders, 3.15:1 xcase crawler gears
    Build Thread: http://www.expeditionportal.com/foru...su-build-up...
    1989 SWB Montero RS (3.0L v6, rear LSD), 33" mudders (sold)
    1990 LWB Montero LS (3.0L v6, rear LSD), 33" mudders (gave to rxinhed)
    1990 LWB Montero LS (3.0L v6, rear LSD), 31" AT's (rolled 1st time I ever drove off road)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dawsonville, GA
    Posts
    402
    I changed over to manual hubs a few months ago but haven't noticed any real MPG gains however my front wheels now turn when I put it in 4wd.
    Never stop exploring...

    Keep earth clean...It's not Uranus!

    89 Montero LWB 3.0 Auto - OME Torsions, Coils, & Nitrochargers - Rugged Ridge hubs -

    87 4Runner 22RE 5-speed - Needs lots of work

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    939
    I have noticed that with the tires I run coupled with the manual locking hubs, I get close to 18MPG. This is a 3MPG improvement over the 32/11.5 tires with standard flanges. When I installed the manual locking hubs with the 32x11.5 tires I only noticed a slight increase in fuel savings. I'd say it is best to use manual locking hubs in conjunction with some good narrow tires to see an improvement worth mentioning. I have seen as much as nearly 20 MPG for a tank before with my current set up.
    J.W.
    Build thread http://www.expeditionportal.com/foru...e-build-thread

    95 Monty LS with 33 10.50 KM2s, air locker, winch, snorkel, sliders, bottle opener, and stuff...-EMT,Auto Tech, US ARMY Survival and land navigation specialist, US ARMY VETERAN

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    489
    It all depends on the 4wd system. The first gen Montero's will not see any benefit in MPG because the front end does not rotate when the autohubs are disengaged. On the second gen Montero with the Select trac 4wd system you will see a 2-3 MPG improvement because the front end components still move even when the hubs are disengaged.
    1985 Mitsubishi Pickup, 2.3L H.O. Turbo Diesel, Watercooled Turbo, $d56 Head, Custom '83 Injection pump, JK Rubicon axles w/elockers, 14" Fox Coilovers, Centerforce II, 5.0 Atlas II, ARB Bull Bar,

    1983 Mitsubishi Pickup 4x4, Brand New 2.5L Turbo Diesel, Fully restored to stock specs.

    2003 G-Class, Hutchison Beadlocks, BFG Rugged Terrain 235/85R/16, VTS spare wheel cover, CVT Mt. McKinley RTT (6 Man), CVT Awning, VTS Sliders, Baja Roof Rack, Baja Ladder, HiLift

    2009 Jetta Sportwagen TDI

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    335
    2-3 mpg is way optimistic <=1 maybe. There is really not much to spin there. Gains would also severely depend on type of driving. Stop and go would see more improvement than hwy. Easy test for people with hubs - lock the hub (make your truck essentially same as stock Gen 2), use a tank of gas, record results, unlock the hubs, use a tank in the same manner, record. 3 mpg out of 15 is huge. it's 20% improvement. Маnufactures would jump on such opportunity. They are continuously hammered with demands to improve mpg and here they miss su...ch opportunity. No way they are so stupid. Yet they seem to go opposite round deleting CAD systems. Like current Ram truck. Big benefit of manual hubs is if you say grenade your front axle/CV/diff you can unlock the hub and drive home as opposed to taking stuff apart on the trail.
    1992 Montero - overland eqpt. (SOLD)
    2002 Montero XLS - died protecting the master.
    1997 TLC 80 - (SOLD).
    2008 Dodge Power Wagon, 35's, FWC Ranger.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Campbell River
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Monterorider View Post
    2-3 mpg is way optimistic <=1 maybe. There is really not much to spin there. Gains would also severely depend on type of driving. Stop and go would see more improvement than hwy. Easy test for people with hubs - lock the hub (make your truck essentially same as stock Gen 2), use a tank of gas, record results, unlock the hubs, use a tank in the same manner, record. 3 mpg out of 15 is huge. it's 20% improvement. Маnufactures would jump on such opportunity. They are continuously hammered with demands to improve mpg and here they miss su...ch opportunity. No way they are so stupid.
    Yeap they really are that stupid. It's called convenience and consumer ignorance. Truth be told, most people, other than any overlanders you find here, don't want to get out of their truck to lock their hubs in. They just want to push a button or swing a lever. We talked a lot about this when I worked at Toyota. We saw benefits in MPG, drive train reliability, easier steering, and even tire wear differences. Of all vehicles you would think the FJ would have manuel locking hubs. Nope instead if you want a manual transmission you get full time 4wheel drive with a high low range and center diff lock, and the automatics gets the selectable 2wheel drive. The reason behind this, as far as I can remember was keeping an even fuel economy across the board for this particular model. It's all politics and what they think people want. The people that actually use these things for the very purpose they were built, miss out on mechanical advantages because some prissy city chick thinks its sick to drive an FJ cruiser or even a brand new 4runner for that matter. The 4runner doesn't even come with a manual transmission anymore and it has to be one of the finest offroad platforms to come out in a while. However it's been ruined by offroad equipment we don't need and anything preferable has been left in the backs of offroaders minds and on endless wish list. Well there's my royal rant for the day.
    1991 Mitsubishi pajero

    1980 Volvo 245 wagon

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •