VC versus Permanent 4WD Drive Shaft

Anyone out there help me in making a decision regarding the pro and
cons of Viscous Coupling versus permanent 4WD shaft. Do any members
own a permanent drive T3 like the Bernd Jaegar set-up with a
de-coupler fitted. I believe the very first (protype) syncro's had
this system of 4WD.Is there a marked difference in on and off road
performance? Any info would help.
Thanks Michael.
Michael,

if an opionon from a German guy who travelled OZ for 9 months in his
syncro would be welcome: here it is.

We travelled OZ in 2004 with the VC setup and found it to be very
useful in rainy road conditions, on gravel roads and when experiencing
strong side winds because the VC felt stabilizing the car a lot. This
is why I would recommend the VC for any kind of syncro use DESPITE in
soft, sandy, uphill conditions. This is where the back wheels start to
spin and dig in until the power is transfered to the front. At this
point there is not enough power to keep the car moving however and it
will sink in deeply. That's only our personal experience trying to
climb a sand dune with a heavily laden syncro camper and tyre pressure
reduced to 15 psi front and 18 back (both diff locks engaged).

This experience has led me to try the BJ setup. Unfortunately I
haven't had the possibility to try this in deep sand so far. Only got
the chance to test it in an old quarry. Found the grip a lot better
(tried steep hills with no spinning wheels) compared to similar
conditions on a Fire Trail in the Blue Mountains near Sydney. Having
contact to several German guys who regularly travel the northern part
of Africa including the Sahara. Most of them prefer the solid shaft,
others are happy with the VC.

I have now been driving nearly 20.000 km with the decoupler setup and
must say that I hardly miss the VC (only in those conditions described
above). As these don't appear very often I am able to enjoy 2WD mode
as it handles a lot easier.

There has been a discussion in this group here earlier about the pro's
and con's of a VC versus solid shaft setup. It includes all necessary
thoughts for a decision, but to sum it all up again:

It depends on how you would like to use your syncro. Want to have the
security of a VC in all kind of weather conditions? Take the VC. Want
to have 100% power on both axles for heavy off-roading? Take the solid
shaft. This is what the syncro test driver of Steyr Puch in Austria
told me last year during the 20th anniversary gathering and I can only
back this opinion from my (few) own experiences...

Sorry for any unfamiliar expressions and spelling-mistakes!

Hope this helps.

Joachim
South-West Germany

--- In Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com, "evm614" <mrphoto@...>
wrote:
>
> Anyone out there help me in making a decision regarding the pro and
> cons of Viscous Coupling versus permanent 4WD shaft. Do any members
> own a permanent drive T3 like the Bernd Jaegar set-up with a
> de-coupler fitted. I believe the very first (protype) syncro's had
> this system of 4WD.Is there a marked difference in on and off road
> performance? Any info would help.
> Thanks Michael.
>

Hi Joachim,

 

It’s Stuart here, I met you on your visit through Melbourne back in ’04.  I think I might ditch my VC and go for the solid shaft.  I am doing a lot beach driving and got stuck a few times last summer in soft sand. This sounds like a cheap way to investigate an alternative. I already have a decoupler fitted so I guess I just need the coupling shaft from BJ.  Is there anything else I need to get?  

 

Cheers

 

Stuart

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of veilofhiddenes
Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 12:47 AM
To: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: VC versus Permanent 4WD Drive Shaft

 

Michael,

if an opionon from a German guy who travelled OZ for 9 months in his
syncro would be welcome: here it is.

We travelled OZ in 2004 with the VC setup and found it to be very
useful in rainy road conditions, on gravel roads and when experiencing
strong side winds because the VC felt stabilizing the car a lot. This
is why I would recommend the VC for any kind of syncro use DESPITE in
soft, sandy, uphill conditions. This is where the back wheels start to
spin and dig in until the power is transfered to the front. At this
point there is not enough power to keep the car moving however and it
will sink in deeply. That's only our personal experience trying to
climb a sand dune with a heavily laden syncro camper and tyre pressure
reduced to 15 psi front and 18 back (both diff locks engaged).

This experience has led me to try the BJ setup. Unfortunately I
haven't had the possibility to try this in deep sand so far. Only got
the chance to test it in an old quarry. Found the grip a lot better
(tried steep hills with no spinning wheels) compared to similar
conditions on a Fire Trail in the Blue Mountains near Sydney. Having
contact to several German guys who regularly travel the northern part
of Africa including the Sahara. Most of them prefer the solid shaft,
others are happy with the VC.

I have now been driving nearly 20.000 km with the decoupler setup and
must say that I hardly miss the VC (only in those conditions described
above). As these don't appear very often I am able to enjoy 2WD mode
as it handles a lot easier.

There has been a discussion in this group here earlier about the pro's
and con's of a VC versus solid shaft setup. It includes all necessary
thoughts for a decision, but to sum it all up again:

It depends on how you would like to use your syncro. Want to have the
security of a VC in all kind of weather conditions? Take the VC. Want
to have 100% power on both axles for heavy off-roading? Take the solid
shaft. This is what the syncro test driver of Steyr Puch in Austria
told me last year during the 20th anniversary gathering and I can only
back this opinion from my (few) own experiences. ..

Sorry for any unfamiliar expressions and spelling-mistakes!

Hope this helps.

Joachim
South-West Germany

--- In Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com, "evm614" <mrphoto@... >
wrote:

>
> Anyone out there help me in making a decision regarding the pro and
> cons of Viscous Coupling versus permanent 4WD shaft. Do any members
> own a permanent drive T3 like the Bernd Jaegar set-up with a
> de-coupler fitted. I believe the very first (protype) syncro's had
> this system of 4WD.Is there a marked difference in on and off road
> performance? Any info would help.
> Thanks Michael.
>

Stuart,
Please let me know how you go with the purchase of the solid shaft through BJ. I havent
purchased anything through him before so I dont know how smooth the transaction will
be. I too have been seriously thinking of replacing my VC for the same reasons as yourself
as I have never been happy with the syncros performance in very soft sand (even with an
aggressive VC and let down tyres). As I do more sand driving than dirt roads, I think the
conversion is a wortwhile addition. If all goes well and you are happy with the
performance, I will be doing the same. Please keep us posted.

--- In Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <stuart@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Joachim,
>
>
>
> It's Stuart here, I met you on your visit through Melbourne back in '04. I
> think I might ditch my VC and go for the solid shaft. I am doing a lot
> beach driving and got stuck a few times last summer in soft sand. This
> sounds like a cheap way to investigate an alternative. I already have a
> decoupler fitted so I guess I just need the coupling shaft from BJ. Is
> there anything else I need to get?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of veilofhiddenes
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 12:47 AM
> To: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: VC versus Permanent 4WD Drive Shaft
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> if an opionon from a German guy who travelled OZ for 9 months in his
> syncro would be welcome: here it is.
>
> We travelled OZ in 2004 with the VC setup and found it to be very
> useful in rainy road conditions, on gravel roads and when experiencing
> strong side winds because the VC felt stabilizing the car a lot. This
> is why I would recommend the VC for any kind of syncro use DESPITE in
> soft, sandy, uphill conditions. This is where the back wheels start to
> spin and dig in until the power is transfered to the front. At this
> point there is not enough power to keep the car moving however and it
> will sink in deeply. That's only our personal experience trying to
> climb a sand dune with a heavily laden syncro camper and tyre pressure
> reduced to 15 psi front and 18 back (both diff locks engaged).
>
> This experience has led me to try the BJ setup. Unfortunately I
> haven't had the possibility to try this in deep sand so far. Only got
> the chance to test it in an old quarry. Found the grip a lot better
> (tried steep hills with no spinning wheels) compared to similar
> conditions on a Fire Trail in the Blue Mountains near Sydney. Having
> contact to several German guys who regularly travel the northern part
> of Africa including the Sahara. Most of them prefer the solid shaft,
> others are happy with the VC.
>
> I have now been driving nearly 20.000 km with the decoupler setup and
> must say that I hardly miss the VC (only in those conditions described
> above). As these don't appear very often I am able to enjoy 2WD mode
> as it handles a lot easier.
>
> There has been a discussion in this group here earlier about the pro's
> and con's of a VC versus solid shaft setup. It includes all necessary
> thoughts for a decision, but to sum it all up again:
>
> It depends on how you would like to use your syncro. Want to have the
> security of a VC in all kind of weather conditions? Take the VC. Want
> to have 100% power on both axles for heavy off-roading? Take the solid
> shaft. This is what the syncro test driver of Steyr Puch in Austria
> told me last year during the 20th anniversary gathering and I can only
> back this opinion from my (few) own experiences...
>
> Sorry for any unfamiliar expressions and spelling-mistakes!
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Joachim
> South-West Germany
>
> --- In Syncro_T3_Australia <mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia%40yahoogroups.com>
> @yahoogroups.com, "evm614" <mrphoto@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone out there help me in making a decision regarding the pro and
> > cons of Viscous Coupling versus permanent 4WD shaft. Do any members
> > own a permanent drive T3 like the Bernd Jaegar set-up with a
> > de-coupler fitted. I believe the very first (protype) syncro's had
> > this system of 4WD.Is there a marked difference in on and off road
> > performance? Any info would help.
> > Thanks Michael.
> >
>
Hi Stuart,

how are you? Good to know you're still there. Very nice to remember
the weekend away and the lunch... but anyway, back to the topic:

Your thoughts remember me of mine that time when I was shortly
before trying the solid shaft. Once this is done, no more VC's to
replace at some point in the future...

If the decoup is installed: VC out, shaft in. No more parts I think.
Should double check this with BJ though.

As I told you before (in 2004), should you require any help
organizing the shaft, please feel free to let me know. Thanx to Andy
and Melissa (travelling OZ at the moment) and Ken (in WA) I have
already been able to help you guys out a little in organizing parts
and would be more than happy to do so again.

Joachim

--- In Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <stuart@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Joachim,
>
>
>
> It's Stuart here, I met you on your visit through Melbourne back
in '04. I
> think I might ditch my VC and go for the solid shaft. I am doing
a lot
> beach driving and got stuck a few times last summer in soft sand.
This
> sounds like a cheap way to investigate an alternative. I already
have a
> decoupler fitted so I guess I just need the coupling shaft from
BJ. Is
> there anything else I need to get?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
veilofhiddenes
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 12:47 AM
> To: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: VC versus Permanent 4WD Drive
Shaft
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> if an opionon from a German guy who travelled OZ for 9 months in
his
> syncro would be welcome: here it is.
>
> We travelled OZ in 2004 with the VC setup and found it to be very
> useful in rainy road conditions, on gravel roads and when
experiencing
> strong side winds because the VC felt stabilizing the car a lot.
This
> is why I would recommend the VC for any kind of syncro use DESPITE
in
> soft, sandy, uphill conditions. This is where the back wheels
start to
> spin and dig in until the power is transfered to the front. At
this
> point there is not enough power to keep the car moving however and
it
> will sink in deeply. That's only our personal experience trying to
> climb a sand dune with a heavily laden syncro camper and tyre
pressure
> reduced to 15 psi front and 18 back (both diff locks engaged).
>
> This experience has led me to try the BJ setup. Unfortunately I
> haven't had the possibility to try this in deep sand so far. Only
got
> the chance to test it in an old quarry. Found the grip a lot
better
> (tried steep hills with no spinning wheels) compared to similar
> conditions on a Fire Trail in the Blue Mountains near Sydney.
Having
> contact to several German guys who regularly travel the northern
part
> of Africa including the Sahara. Most of them prefer the solid
shaft,
> others are happy with the VC.
>
> I have now been driving nearly 20.000 km with the decoupler setup
and
> must say that I hardly miss the VC (only in those conditions
described
> above). As these don't appear very often I am able to enjoy 2WD
mode
> as it handles a lot easier.
>
> There has been a discussion in this group here earlier about the
pro's
> and con's of a VC versus solid shaft setup. It includes all
necessary
> thoughts for a decision, but to sum it all up again:
>
> It depends on how you would like to use your syncro. Want to have
the
> security of a VC in all kind of weather conditions? Take the VC.
Want
> to have 100% power on both axles for heavy off-roading? Take the
solid
> shaft. This is what the syncro test driver of Steyr Puch in
Austria
> told me last year during the 20th anniversary gathering and I can
only
> back this opinion from my (few) own experiences...
>
> Sorry for any unfamiliar expressions and spelling-mistakes!
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Joachim
> South-West Germany
>
> --- In Syncro_T3_Australia <mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia%
40yahoogroups.com>
> @yahoogroups.com, "evm614" <mrphoto@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone out there help me in making a decision regarding the pro
and
> > cons of Viscous Coupling versus permanent 4WD shaft. Do any
members
> > own a permanent drive T3 like the Bernd Jaegar set-up with a
> > de-coupler fitted. I believe the very first (protype) syncro's
had
> > this system of 4WD.Is there a marked difference in on and off
road
> > performance? Any info would help.
> > Thanks Michael.
> >
>
--- In Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com, "veilofhiddenes"
<joachim@...> wrote:
>
> If the decoup is installed: VC out, shaft in. No more parts I think.
> Should double check this with BJ though.




Yes, that´s correct. That´s all! But don´t forget to buy a new gasget!
Nevertheless, if you take care for your tires and tire-pressure, a
visco doesn´t need to be replaced. Different tires or tire-pressure,
which means different admeasurement, will kill the VC but will also put
a strain on the gearboxes...

Cheers,

Dirk

Hi Dirk, Joachim and others,

 

The decoupler was build as a prototype on about 20 syncro’s. This was the first thing Steyr Puch came up with, in combination with a solid shaft.

VW however liked the permanent 4wd like the audi Quattro had, as permanent 4wd off course has a lot of advantages when driving on the road. It makes your ride a lot safer. So they got rid of the solid shaft and came up with the visco, syncronising the front and rear wheels. Don’t know for sure but I think that’s when the name Syncro was born. From that time on the syncro’s always came with the empty center knob. However, the engineers kept everything in place to install a decoupler, whenever vw would like to install it anyway. They never did.

In Germany , South Africa and the US some people started to remanufacture the decoupler. In Europe an exact copy was build (making it more expensive as all the parts are specially build), in the us they made a good working clone, doing the same but not with exactly the same parts. I don’t know if the south African ones are exact copies or not. The thing is, decouplers can not only be used with a solid shaft but just as easily with a vc. The decoupler sits on the nose of your gearbox, engaging or disengaging the propshaft, the vc sits in your frot differential.

Decouplers were sold with various arguments : you would get a better mileage (not true) or you could use it when your vc is bad (only true when the vc is too tight and then you should change the vc, that’s cheaper and you can then still use it on the road).

The only advantage I see in a decoupler is that you can use it with a sports visco. That visco is more aggressive then the standard one which gives you better performance offroad, especially on loose sanddunes. The strength of this vc is controlled, it keeps within a safe margin for the gearbox, something you can’t say about too tight visco’s that are worn out. The nice thing is that you can still drive in 4wd on the road with a sports visco, you only disengage the propshaft with your decoupler when you need to manoeuvre on a parking lot. Still, a decoupler plus a sports visco is an important investment. If you just fancy a third knob just glue on a spare cigarette lighter J

Just my 2cents. I sold quite some decouplers to people who, I think, bought it for the wrong reason.But who am I to judge ? If it makes one happy to install it, one should do it. For myself I would only do it for a hardcore offroad Syncro.

 

Mike Plompen

www.busman.be

 

 


Van: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] Namens syncro_experts
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 11:38
Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: VC versus Permanent 4WD Drive Shaft

 

--- In Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com, "veilofhiddenes"
<joachim@... > wrote:

>
> If the decoup is installed: VC out, shaft in. No more parts I think.
> Should double check this with BJ though.

Yes, that´s correct. That´s all! But don´t forget to buy a new gasget!
Nevertheless, if you take care for your tires and tire-pressure, a
visco doesn´t need to be replaced. Different tires or tire-pressure,
which means different admeasurement, will kill the VC but will also put
a strain on the gearboxes...

Cheers,

Dirk

Hi Mike,
>
> The decoupler was build as a prototype on about 20 syncro�s. This was
> the
> first thing Steyr Puch came up with, in combination with a solid shaft.


Information that I have received from Germany was that solid shaft syncros were sold to the Danish/Swedish/Finnish (?) military and not just prototypes. Another thing that supports this is that information is available in VW workshop manuals and the parts were available for purchase from Volkswagen. Surely this would not be true if it was only on prototypes?

Phill
Hi phil,

I heard that story before but I don't think it's true. What is true though
is that in Finland there's a tax law that made vw develop a PTO (power take
off) gearbox for the Syncro. As a private person (so not the army) you pay
less taxes when you drive a utility 4wd. Crewcabs there have for instance no
rear bench, if they have they are no utility vehicles. For busses it's
another story. Only way to convince the taxman that your bus is a utility
vehicle is to drive it with a PTO. Therefore some of the finnish Syncro
busses have them. So far I've had three cars with a PTO. The thing is that
in some manuals it appears that the PTO installation is a decoupler, which
it's not. The pto is switched on by pulling a knob on the floor, between the
driver's seat and the handbrake. These syncro's are extremely rare. Coming
weekend I will be putting a 16" Syncro caravelle with PTO up for sale on my
website.
The gearbox code for syncro's with PTO is AHX. The nose of the gearbox is
different as it has a second (very small) power take off, the first being
the power take off for the propshaft.
When looking at it closely I don't think one can combine a pto nose with a
decoupler but I might give it a try later this year :-)

Mike
www.busman.be

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] Namens plander@optusnet.com.au
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 22:41
Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: RE: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: VC versus Permanent 4WD Drive
Shaft



Hi Mike,
>
> The decoupler was build as a prototype on about 20 syncro's. This was
> the
> first thing Steyr Puch came up with, in combination with a solid shaft.


Information that I have received from Germany was that solid shaft syncros
were sold to the Danish/Swedish/Finnish (?) military and not just
prototypes. Another thing that supports this is that information is
available in VW workshop manuals and the parts were available for purchase
from Volkswagen. Surely this would not be true if it was only on prototypes?

Phill




Yahoo! Groups Links
Hi Mike,

this is not a story, this was true. Steyr-Puch developed the PTO only
for the tax law in Finland. So the Finnish army bought lot of
syncros.
I was lucky to speak to one of the project directors of the syncro
manufacturing in Graz in October 2006. He told me not to use this PTO
for big aggregats, only maybe for a small compressor. It's not built
for heavy use. You maybe damage your gearbox by using it.

Regards

Christoph

1985 Caravelle GL syncro



--- In Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <borzeken@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi phil,
>
> I heard that story before but I don't think it's true. What is true
though
> is that in Finland there's a tax law that made vw develop a PTO
(power take
> off) gearbox for the Syncro. As a private person (so not the army)
you pay
> less taxes when you drive a utility 4wd. Crewcabs there have for
instance no
> rear bench, if they have they are no utility vehicles. For busses
it's
> another story. Only way to convince the taxman that your bus is a
utility
> vehicle is to drive it with a PTO. Therefore some of the finnish
Syncro
> busses have them. So far I've had three cars with a PTO. The thing
is that
> in some manuals it appears that the PTO installation is a
decoupler, which
> it's not. The pto is switched on by pulling a knob on the floor,
between the
> driver's seat and the handbrake. These syncro's are extremely rare.
Coming
> weekend I will be putting a 16" Syncro caravelle with PTO up for
sale on my
> website.
> The gearbox code for syncro's with PTO is AHX. The nose of the
gearbox is
> different as it has a second (very small) power take off, the first
being
> the power take off for the propshaft.
> When looking at it closely I don't think one can combine a pto nose
with a
> decoupler but I might give it a try later this year :-)
>
> Mike
> www.busman.be
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] Namens plander@...
> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 22:41
> Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: RE: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: VC versus Permanent
4WD Drive
> Shaft
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
> >
> > The decoupler was build as a prototype on about 20 syncro's. This
was
> > the
> > first thing Steyr Puch came up with, in combination with a solid
shaft.
>
>
> Information that I have received from Germany was that solid shaft
syncros
> were sold to the Danish/Swedish/Finnish (?) military and not just
> prototypes. Another thing that supports this is that information is
> available in VW workshop manuals and the parts were available for
purchase
> from Volkswagen. Surely this would not be true if it was only on
prototypes?
>
> Phill
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Has anyone actually connected anything to the PTO?

Mike, does your orange DOKA have one?
(I wish that I had more time with you at Vanfest to talk about this)
Phill



> vwpix_org <C.Boltze@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> this is not a story, this was true. Steyr-Puch developed the PTO only
> for the tax law in Finland. So the Finnish army bought lot of
> syncros.
> I was lucky to speak to one of the project directors of the syncro
> manufacturing in Graz in October 2006. He told me not to use this PTO
> for big aggregats, only maybe for a small compressor. It's not built
> for heavy use. You maybe damage your gearbox by using it.
>
> Regards
>
> Christoph
>
> 1985 Caravelle GL syncro
>
>
>
> --- In Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <borzeken@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi phil,
> >
> > I heard that story before but I don't think it's true. What is true
> though
> > is that in Finland there's a tax law that made vw develop a PTO
> (power take
> > off) gearbox for the Syncro. As a private person (so not the army)
> you pay
> > less taxes when you drive a utility 4wd. Crewcabs there have for
> instance no
> > rear bench, if they have they are no utility vehicles. For busses
> it's
> > another story. Only way to convince the taxman that your bus is a
> utility
> > vehicle is to drive it with a PTO. Therefore some of the finnish
> Syncro
> > busses have them. So far I've had three cars with a PTO. The thing
> is that
> > in some manuals it appears that the PTO installation is a
> decoupler, which
> > it's not. The pto is switched on by pulling a knob on the floor,
> between the
> > driver's seat and the handbrake. These syncro's are extremely rare.
> Coming
> > weekend I will be putting a 16" Syncro caravelle with PTO up for
> sale on my
> > website.
> > The gearbox code for syncro's with PTO is AHX. The nose of the
> gearbox is
> > different as it has a second (very small) power take off, the first
> being
> > the power take off for the propshaft.
> > When looking at it closely I don't think one can combine a pto nose
> with a
> > decoupler but I might give it a try later this year :-)
> >
> > Mike
> > www.busman.be
> >
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] Namens plander@...
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 22:41
> > Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> > Onderwerp: Re: RE: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: VC versus Permanent
> 4WD Drive
> > Shaft
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > The decoupler was build as a prototype on about 20 syncro's. This
> was
> > > the
> > > first thing Steyr Puch came up with, in combination with a solid
> shaft.
> >
> >
> > Information that I have received from Germany was that solid shaft
> syncros
> > were sold to the Danish/Swedish/Finnish (?) military and not just
> > prototypes. Another thing that supports this is that information is
> > available in VW workshop manuals and the parts were available for
> purchase
> > from Volkswagen. Surely this would not be true if it was only on
> prototypes?
> >
> > Phill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >

Thanks Joachim,

 

Yes, am still here … I read but don’t get on this site very much.  Yeah, we have great memories of you guys too.  That was a fun weekend despite all the rain.

 

Thanks for that advice…. Yes I  am going to do it.

 

I have emailed BJ to get the weight etc of the connector so I can figure out whether to fedex or post it back to me.  I’ll let you know if I need more help.

 

I’ll let you know how I go though.

 

Cheers

 

Stuart

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of veilofhiddenes
Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 7:22 PM
To: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: VC versus Permanent 4WD Drive Shaft

 

Hi Stuart,

how are you? Good to know you're still there. Very nice to remember
the weekend away and the lunch... but anyway, back to the topic:

Your thoughts remember me of mine that time when I was shortly
before trying the solid shaft. Once this is done, no more VC's to
replace at some point in the future...

If the decoup is installed: VC out, shaft in. No more parts I think.
Should double check this with BJ though.

As I told you before (in 2004), should you require any help
organizing the shaft, please feel free to let me know. Thanx to Andy
and Melissa (travelling OZ at the moment) and Ken (in WA) I have
already been able to help you guys out a little in organizing parts
and would be more than happy to do so again.

Joachim

--- In Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com, "Stuart" <stuart@...>
wrote:

>
> Hi Joachim,
>
>
>
> It's Stuart here, I met you on your visit through Melbourne back
in '04. I
> think I might ditch my VC and go for the solid shaft. I am doing
a lot
> beach driving and got stuck a few times last summer in soft sand.
This
> sounds like a cheap way to investigate an alternative. I already
have a
> decoupler fitted so I guess I just need the coupling shaft from
BJ. Is
> there anything else I need to get?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com]
On Behalf Of
veilofhiddenes
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 12:47 AM
> To: Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [Syncro_T3_Australi a] Re: VC versus Permanent 4WD Drive
Shaft
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> if an opionon from a German guy who travelled OZ for 9 months in
his
> syncro would be welcome: here it is.
>
> We travelled OZ in 2004 with the VC setup and found it to be very
> useful in rainy road conditions, on gravel roads and when
experiencing
> strong side winds because the VC felt stabilizing the car a lot.
This
> is why I would recommend the VC for any kind of syncro use DESPITE
in
> soft, sandy, uphill conditions. This is where the back wheels
start to
> spin and dig in until the power is transfered to the front. At
this
> point there is not enough power to keep the car moving however and
it
> will sink in deeply. That's only our personal experience trying to
> climb a sand dune with a heavily laden syncro camper and tyre
pressure
> reduced to 15 psi front and 18 back (both diff locks engaged).
>
> This experience has led me to try the BJ setup. Unfortunately I
> haven't had the possibility to try this in deep sand so far. Only
got
> the chance to test it in an old quarry. Found the grip a lot
better
> (tried steep hills with no spinning wheels) compared to similar
> conditions on a Fire Trail in the Blue Mountains near Sydney.
Having
> contact to several German guys who regularly travel the northern
part
> of Africa including the Sahara. Most of them prefer the solid
shaft,
> others are happy with the VC.
>
> I have now been driving nearly 20.000 km with the decoupler setup
and
> must say that I hardly miss the VC (only in those conditions
described
> above). As these don't appear very often I am able to enjoy 2WD
mode
> as it handles a lot easier.
>
> There has been a discussion in this group here earlier about the
pro's
> and con's of a VC versus solid shaft setup. It includes all
necessary
> thoughts for a decision, but to sum it all up again:
>
> It depends on how you would like to use your syncro. Want to have
the
> security of a VC in all kind of weather conditions? Take the VC.
Want
> to have 100% power on both axles for heavy off-roading? Take the
solid
> shaft. This is what the syncro test driver of Steyr Puch in
Austria
> told me last year during the 20th anniversary gathering and I can
only
> back this opinion from my (few) own experiences. ..
>
> Sorry for any unfamiliar expressions and spelling-mistakes!
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Joachim
> South-West Germany
>
> --- In Syncro_T3_Australia <mailto:Syncro_ T3_Australia%
40yahoogroups. com>
> @yahoogroups. com, "evm614" <mrphoto@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone out there help me in making a decision regarding the pro
and
> > cons of Viscous Coupling versus permanent 4WD shaft. Do any
members
> > own a permanent drive T3 like the Bernd Jaegar set-up with a
> > de-coupler fitted. I believe the very first (protype) syncro's
had
> > this system of 4WD.Is there a marked difference in on and off
road
> > performance? Any info would help.
> > Thanks Michael.
> >
>

Hi Phil,

 

My orange doka hasn’t got one yet, i’m tempted to install one (taken from another car) but actually i have no use for it, apart from having a nice gadget that no one else has, which is always fun at meetings.

I have never seen pictures or read something from people who have attached anything to the PTO outlet. It doesn’t look like you can mount big aggregates, I think it would only be interesting to run a hydraulic pump.

On the other hand, if one wants a hydraulic pump there’s also a factory original hydraulic pump to mount in the engine compartment, driven by the engine (at least the 1600TD). You can just bolt it on like a power steering pump or aircon compressor, very simple, you won’t have to invent warm water.

Haven’t seen a VW hydraulic pump except for a drawing once. Biggest chance to find a transporter with a OEM hydraulic pump  is to look for cars with a snow plow on it or a crane,

 

Mike

www.busman.be

 

 


Van: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] Namens plander@optusnet.com.au
Verzonden: woensdag 23 mei 2007 0:28
Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: was decoupler, now PTO

 

Has anyone actually connected anything to the PTO?

Mike, does your orange DOKA have one?
(I wish that I had more time with you at Vanfest to talk about this)
Phill

> vwpix_org <C.Boltze@gmx. de>
wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> this is not a story, this was true. Steyr-Puch developed the PTO only
> for the tax law in Finland. So the Finnish army bought lot of
> syncros.
> I was lucky to speak to one of the project directors of the syncro
> manufacturing in Graz in October 2006. He told me not to use this PTO
> for big aggregats, only maybe for a small compressor. It's not built
> for heavy use. You maybe damage your gearbox by using it.
>
> Regards
>
> Christoph
>
> 1985 Caravelle GL syncro
>
>
>
> --- In Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com,
"mike" <borzeken@.. .>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi phil,
> >
> > I heard that story before but I don't think it's true. What is true
> though
> > is that in Finland there's a tax law that made vw develop a PTO
> (power take
> > off) gearbox for the Syncro. As a private person (so not the army)
> you pay
> > less taxes when you drive a utility 4wd. Crewcabs there have for
> instance no
> > rear bench, if they have they are no utility vehicles. For busses
> it's
> > another story. Only way to convince the taxman that your bus is a
> utility
> > vehicle is to drive it with a PTO. Therefore some of the finnish
> Syncro
> > busses have them. So far I've had three cars with a PTO. The thing
> is that
> > in some manuals it appears that the PTO installation is a
> decoupler, which
> > it's not. The pto is switched on by pulling a knob on the floor,
> between the
> > driver's seat and the handbrake. These syncro's are extremely rare.
> Coming
> > weekend I will be putting a 16" Syncro caravelle with PTO up for
> sale on my
> > website.
> > The gearbox code for syncro's with PTO is AHX. The nose of the
> gearbox is
> > different as it has a second (very small) power take off, the first
> being
> > the power take off for the propshaft.
> > When looking at it closely I don't think one can combine a pto nose
> with a
> > decoupler but I might give it a try later this year :-)
> >
> > Mike
> > www.busman.be
> >
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com
> > [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com]
Namens plander@...
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 22:41
> > Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com
> > Onderwerp: Re: RE: [Syncro_T3_Australi a] Re: VC versus Permanent
> 4WD Drive
> > Shaft
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > The decoupler was build as a prototype on about 20 syncro's.
This
> was
> > > the
> > > first thing Steyr Puch came up with, in combination with a solid
> shaft.
> >
> >
> > Information that I have received from Germany was that solid shaft
> syncros
> > were sold to the Danish/Swedish/ Finnish (?) military and not
just
> > prototypes. Another thing that supports this is that information is
> > available in VW workshop manuals and the parts were available for
> purchase
> > from Volkswagen. Surely this would not be true if it was only on
> prototypes?
> >
> > Phill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >

Hi Christoph,

 

When i said “i heard that story” i was talking decouplers constructed for Scandinavia . Then I said I think that that’s probably a mistake and that not more then a couple of decoupler prototypes was build.

I then explained the reason of the mistake : in the etka/etos manual the PTO (power take off) also has the name decoupler. In fact, when you think about it, it is a decoupler as well : coupling and decoupling power going from the PTO to whatever you want to mount on it.

I know it’s getting complicated, but I wrote in my other mail that these PTO’s were build for Finland only, not for whole Scandinavia ( denmark , Sweden , Norway and finland ). Chances are higher to find them on civil transporters in Finland instead of military ones as the army pays no taxes on their cars, so there’s no use for it to have one on an army car. I think that’s the second mistake people often make. A PTO is not useable in the army anyway and I never saw pics of a pto with something attached to it.

As the decoupler as we know it was only build as a prototype and the PTO was actually produced on a somewhat bigger scale, it’s logic that VW calls a PTO a decoupler in their documentation. Of course a PTO is not what we mean with decoupler, but it couples and decouples whtever you have mounted on it. So there’s right to call it a decoupler as well.

Finally, to put everything in it’s right proportion, don’t forget Finland is a country with only 6 million people living there. And we’re talking 40.000 syncro’s sold worldwide. So how big are the chances to find a car with a PTO ?

 

Mike

www.busman.be

 

 


Van: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] Namens vwpix_org
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 23:43
Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: was decoupler, now PTO

 

Hi Mike,

this is not a story, this was true. Steyr-Puch developed the PTO only
for the tax law in Finland. So the Finnish army bought lot of
syncros.
I was lucky to speak to one of the project directors of the syncro
manufacturing in Graz in October 2006. He told me not to use this PTO
for big aggregats, only maybe for a small compressor. It's not built
for heavy use. You maybe damage your gearbox by using it.

Regards

Christoph

1985 Caravelle GL syncro

--- In Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com, "mike" <borzeken@.. .>
wrote:

>
> Hi phil,
>
> I heard that story before but I don't think it's true. What is true
though
> is that in Finland there's a tax law that made vw develop a PTO
(power take
> off) gearbox for the Syncro. As a private person (so not the army)
you pay
> less taxes when you drive a utility 4wd. Crewcabs there have for
instance no
> rear bench, if they have they are no utility vehicles. For busses
it's
> another story. Only way to convince the taxman that your bus is a
utility
> vehicle is to drive it with a PTO. Therefore some of the finnish
Syncro
> busses have them. So far I've had three cars with a PTO. The thing
is that
> in some manuals it appears that the PTO installation is a
decoupler, which
> it's not. The pto is switched on by pulling a knob on the floor,
between the
> driver's seat and the handbrake. These syncro's are extremely rare.
Coming
> weekend I will be putting a 16" Syncro caravelle with PTO up for
sale on my
> website.
> The gearbox code for syncro's with PTO is AHX. The nose of the
gearbox is
> different as it has a second (very small) power take off, the first
being
> the power take off for the propshaft.
> When looking at it closely I don't think one can combine a pto nose
with a
> decoupler but I might give it a try later this year :-)
>
> Mike
> www.busman.be
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com]
Namens plander@...
> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 22:41
> Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com
> Onderwerp: Re: RE: [Syncro_T3_Australi a] Re: VC versus Permanent
4WD Drive
> Shaft
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
> >
> > The decoupler was build as a prototype on about 20 syncro's. This
was
> > the
> > first thing Steyr Puch came up with, in combination with a solid
shaft.
>
>
> Information that I have received from Germany was that solid shaft
syncros
> were sold to the Danish/Swedish/ Finnish (?) military and not just
> prototypes. Another thing that supports this is that information is
> available in VW workshop manuals and the parts were available for
purchase
> from Volkswagen. Surely this would not be true if it was only on
prototypes?
>
> Phill
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Hi Mike,

the decouplers were not only developed for the Scandinavian countries.
The first prototype versions were tested in 1983/84.
In spring 1985 they finished the developement, but the Volkswagen
product management and marketing concluded not to bring them on the
market.
Later for the 16 inch versions the decoupler appeared in German
price-lists, but nobody bought it. Less than 10 syncros were delivered
with a decoupler.
The first versions were actuated mechanically with a bowden cable like
the PTO, the later versions with vaccum.
Originally the decoupler only works in the G-Gear, there was a special
actuation in the gearbox which allows only to work with the G-Gear.

On our syncro meeting last weekend Henning Duckstein visited us, and
he told us some details.

Regards

Christoph

1985 Caravelle GL syncro


--- In Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <borzeken@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Christoph,
>
>
>
> When i said "i heard that story" i was talking decouplers
constructed for
> Scandinavia. Then I said I think that that's probably a mistake and
that not
> more then a couple of decoupler prototypes was build.
>
> I then explained the reason of the mistake : in the etka/etos manual
the PTO
> (power take off) also has the name decoupler. In fact, when you
think about
> it, it is a decoupler as well : coupling and decoupling power going
from the
> PTO to whatever you want to mount on it.
>
> I know it's getting complicated, but I wrote in my other mail that these
> PTO's were build for Finland only, not for whole Scandinavia (denmark,
> Sweden, Norway and finland). Chances are higher to find them on civil
> transporters in Finland instead of military ones as the army pays no
taxes
> on their cars, so there's no use for it to have one on an army car.
I think
> that's the second mistake people often make. A PTO is not useable in the
> army anyway and I never saw pics of a pto with something attached to
it.
>
> As the decoupler as we know it was only build as a prototype and the
PTO was
> actually produced on a somewhat bigger scale, it's logic that VW
calls a PTO
> a decoupler in their documentation. Of course a PTO is not what we
mean with
> decoupler, but it couples and decouples whtever you have mounted on
it. So
> there's right to call it a decoupler as well.
>
> Finally, to put everything in it's right proportion, don't forget
Finland is
> a country with only 6 million people living there. And we're talking
40.000
> syncro's sold worldwide. So how big are the chances to find a car
with a PTO
> ?
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> www.busman.be <http://www.busman.be/>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Van: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] Namens vwpix_org
> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 23:43
> Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: was decoupler, now PTO
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> this is not a story, this was true. Steyr-Puch developed the PTO only
> for the tax law in Finland. So the Finnish army bought lot of
> syncros.
> I was lucky to speak to one of the project directors of the syncro
> manufacturing in Graz in October 2006. He told me not to use this PTO
> for big aggregats, only maybe for a small compressor. It's not built
> for heavy use. You maybe damage your gearbox by using it.
>
> Regards
>
> Christoph
>
> 1985 Caravelle GL syncro
>
> --- In Syncro_T3_Australia
<mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia%40yahoogroups.com>
> @yahoogroups.com, "mike" <borzeken@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi phil,
> >
> > I heard that story before but I don't think it's true. What is true
> though
> > is that in Finland there's a tax law that made vw develop a PTO
> (power take
> > off) gearbox for the Syncro. As a private person (so not the army)
> you pay
> > less taxes when you drive a utility 4wd. Crewcabs there have for
> instance no
> > rear bench, if they have they are no utility vehicles. For busses
> it's
> > another story. Only way to convince the taxman that your bus is a
> utility
> > vehicle is to drive it with a PTO. Therefore some of the finnish
> Syncro
> > busses have them. So far I've had three cars with a PTO. The thing
> is that
> > in some manuals it appears that the PTO installation is a
> decoupler, which
> > it's not. The pto is switched on by pulling a knob on the floor,
> between the
> > driver's seat and the handbrake. These syncro's are extremely rare.
> Coming
> > weekend I will be putting a 16" Syncro caravelle with PTO up for
> sale on my
> > website.
> > The gearbox code for syncro's with PTO is AHX. The nose of the
> gearbox is
> > different as it has a second (very small) power take off, the first
> being
> > the power take off for the propshaft.
> > When looking at it closely I don't think one can combine a pto nose
> with a
> > decoupler but I might give it a try later this year :-)
> >
> > Mike
> > www.busman.be
> >
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Syncro_T3_Australia
<mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia%40yahoogroups.com>
> @yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia
<mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia%40yahoogroups.com>
> @yahoogroups.com] Namens plander@
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 22:41
> > Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia
<mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia%40yahoogroups.com>
> @yahoogroups.com
> > Onderwerp: Re: RE: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: VC versus Permanent
> 4WD Drive
> > Shaft
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > The decoupler was build as a prototype on about 20 syncro's. This
> was
> > > the
> > > first thing Steyr Puch came up with, in combination with a solid
> shaft.
> >
> >
> > Information that I have received from Germany was that solid shaft
> syncros
> > were sold to the Danish/Swedish/Finnish (?) military and not just
> > prototypes. Another thing that supports this is that information is
> > available in VW workshop manuals and the parts were available for
> purchase
> > from Volkswagen. Surely this would not be true if it was only on
> prototypes?
> >
> > Phill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
> The first versions were actuated mechanically with a bowden cable like
> the PTO, the later versions with vaccum.
> Originally the decoupler only works in the G-Gear, there was a special
> actuation in the gearbox which allows only to work with the G-Gear.
>

I have some literature about decouplers from the factory and as far as I know there has only ever been the cable/vacuum type which was available until the end of production. I have not seen any evidence of a vacuum type like Bernd Jaeger's. If there was such an item ever produced it would be in ETKA and the workshop manuals.

Phill
Hi,

yes right, maybe it's a misunderstanding, the vaccum only solution is
not original, but there were first a only mechanical solution for the
prototypes, no vaccuum acutation.
I hope I get such a gearbox with a pre series decoupler for making
photos. A friend of mine found some parts of a pre-series syncro.
I'll post them here.

Regards

Christoph

1985 Caravelle GL syncro




--- In Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com, plander@... wrote:

> I have some literature about decouplers from the factory and as far
as >I know there has only ever been the cable/vacuum type which was
>available until the end of production. I have not seen any evidence
of >a vacuum type like Bernd Jaeger's. If there was such an item ever
>produced it would be in ETKA and the workshop manuals.
>
> Phill
>

Hi christoph,

 

Eager to know more about the differences between the prototype decoupler and the decouplers that were available till the end.

 

Btw : I never said the decoupler was developed for the scandanavian countries. What I said is that the PTO was developed for Finland only.

 

Mike

 


Van: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com] Namens vwpix_org
Verzonden: woensdag 23 mei 2007 9:37
Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: [Syncro_T3_Australia] Re: was decoupler, now PTO

 

Hi Mike,

the decouplers were not only developed for the Scandinavian countries.
The first prototype versions were tested in 1983/84.
In spring 1985 they finished the developement, but the Volkswagen
product management and marketing concluded not to bring them on the
market.
Later for the 16 inch versions the decoupler appeared in German
price-lists, but nobody bought it. Less than 10 syncros were delivered
with a decoupler.
The first versions were actuated mechanically with a bowden cable like
the PTO, the later versions with vaccum.
Originally the decoupler only works in the G-Gear, there was a special
actuation in the gearbox which allows only to work with the G-Gear.

On our syncro meeting last weekend Henning Duckstein visited us, and
he told us some details.

Regards

Christoph

1985 Caravelle GL syncro

--- In Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com, "mike" <borzeken@.. .> wrote:

>
> Hi Christoph,
>
>
>
> When i said "i heard that story" i was talking decouplers
constructed for
> Scandinavia. Then I said I think that that's probably a mistake and
that not
> more then a couple of decoupler prototypes was build.
>
> I then explained the reason of the mistake : in the etka/etos manual
the PTO
> (power take off) also has the name decoupler. In fact, when you
think about
> it, it is a decoupler as well : coupling and decoupling power going
from the
> PTO to whatever you want to mount on it.
>
> I know it's getting complicated, but I wrote in my other mail that these
> PTO's were build for Finland only, not for whole Scandinavia (denmark,
> Sweden, Norway and finland). Chances are higher to find them on civil
> transporters in Finland instead of military ones as the army pays no
taxes
> on their cars, so there's no use for it to have one on an army car.
I think
> that's the second mistake people often make. A PTO is not useable in the
> army anyway and I never saw pics of a pto with something attached to
it.
>
> As the decoupler as we know it was only build as a prototype and the
PTO was
> actually produced on a somewhat bigger scale, it's logic that VW
calls a PTO
> a decoupler in their documentation. Of course a PTO is not what we
mean with
> decoupler, but it couples and decouples whtever you have mounted on
it. So
> there's right to call it a decoupler as well.
>
> Finally, to put everything in it's right proportion, don't forget
Finland is
> a country with only 6 million people living there. And we're talking
40.000
> syncro's sold worldwide. So how big are the chances to find a car
with a PTO
> ?
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> www.busman.be <http://www.busman. be/>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Van: Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com]
Namens vwpix_org
> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 23:43
> Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia @yahoogroups. com
> Onderwerp: [Syncro_T3_Australi a] Re: was decoupler, now PTO
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> this is not a story, this was true. Steyr-Puch developed the PTO only
> for the tax law in Finland. So the Finnish army bought lot of
> syncros.
> I was lucky to speak to one of the project directors of the syncro
> manufacturing in Graz in October 2006. He told me not to use this PTO
> for big aggregats, only maybe for a small compressor. It's not built
> for heavy use. You maybe damage your gearbox by using it.
>
> Regards
>
> Christoph
>
> 1985 Caravelle GL syncro
>
> --- In Syncro_T3_Australia
<mailto:Syncro_ T3_Australia% 40yahoogroups. com>
> @yahoogroups. com, "mike" <borzeken@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi phil,
> >
> > I heard that story before but I don't think it's true. What is true
> though
> > is that in Finland there's a tax law that made vw develop a PTO
> (power take
> > off) gearbox for the Syncro. As a private person (so not the army)
> you pay
> > less taxes when you drive a utility 4wd. Crewcabs there have for
> instance no
> > rear bench, if they have they are no utility vehicles. For busses
> it's
> > another story. Only way to convince the taxman that your bus is a
> utility
> > vehicle is to drive it with a PTO. Therefore some of the finnish
> Syncro
> > busses have them. So far I've had three cars with a PTO. The thing
> is that
> > in some manuals it appears that the PTO installation is a
> decoupler, which
> > it's not. The pto is switched on by pulling a knob on the floor,
> between the
> > driver's seat and the handbrake. These syncro's are extremely rare.
> Coming
> > weekend I will be putting a 16" Syncro caravelle with PTO up for
> sale on my
> > website.
> > The gearbox code for syncro's with PTO is AHX. The nose of the
> gearbox is
> > different as it has a second (very small) power take off, the first
> being
> > the power take off for the propshaft.
> > When looking at it closely I don't think one can combine a pto nose
> with a
> > decoupler but I might give it a try later this year :-)
> >
> > Mike
> > www.busman.be
> >
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Syncro_T3_Australia
<mailto:Syncro_ T3_Australia% 40yahoogroups. com>
> @yahoogroups. com
> > [mailto:Syncro_ T3_Australia
<mailto:Syncro_ T3_Australia% 40yahoogroups. com>
> @yahoogroups. com] Namens plander@
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 22:41
> > Aan: Syncro_T3_Australia
<mailto:Syncro_ T3_Australia% 40yahoogroups. com>
> @yahoogroups. com
> > Onderwerp: Re: RE: [Syncro_T3_Australi a] Re: VC versus Permanent
> 4WD Drive
> > Shaft
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > The decoupler was build as a prototype on about 20 syncro's.
This
> was
> > > the
> > > first thing Steyr Puch came up with, in combination with a solid
> shaft.
> >
> >
> > Information that I have received from Germany was that solid shaft
> syncros
> > were sold to the Danish/Swedish/ Finnish (?) military and not
just
> > prototypes. Another thing that supports this is that information is
> > available in VW workshop manuals and the parts were available for
> purchase
> > from Volkswagen. Surely this would not be true if it was only on
> prototypes?
> >
> > Phill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>