Our newest diesel is here!

Just a little pet peeve thing - live axle or solid axle?

When I think of live axle I think of older ATVs and go carts. No diff at all. But I hear solid axle call live axle all the time.

Jason

I have always referred to a solid driven axle as a "live" axle, and I am pretty sure that is what they teach in school. A solid axle is not necessarily a driven axle (like in a FWD Chrysler minivan, or the old Rabbit pickups).

And the Jeep book/manual I have in front of me also refers to them as live axles, specifically in context of the old (Renault era) Cherokee that retained them both front and rear.

Which prompted me to look up a wikipedia entry:

"The Jeep XJ utilizes front and rear solid (live) axles as opposed to independent front and rear axles. This configuration allows the XJ to have superior off-road capability and performance at the expense of some on-road comfort and driveability. Mid-1985 and later two-wheel drive models used the same basic suspension with a single tube connecting axle ends with no differential."

So I will continue to call a driven solid axle a "live" axle, as opposed to a "dead" one, which has no driveline components.

Fair enough. We had couple instructors in school go over this and they said "basically since there is no rule about what to call them, don't worry about exact terminology". Same way my 1962 Scout with dana axles, lock out hubs, dana 18 transfer case, had a badge that said "All wheel drive"

Only reason it came up is same instructor liked to call welded or locked diff a "live" axle, like an older atv or go cart. Common is a drag car, typically with a Ford 9 inch. But there was one "live axle" IRS setup in class. Kid welded his diff for traction and couldn't turn worth a damn.

Jason

You know, now that I think about it, I cannot ever say I have seen an ATV or UTV that has an axle like what the Sprinter (and lots of other trucks and older cars) has. They usually use a swing arm, which has no pivoting beyond the one angle of up and down, that may or may not have the entire powertrain rigidly attached to it, true IRS, or a hybrid of sorts like our Kubota RTV has. The Kub has a similar setup as the rear of the AWD ChryCo minivans: a solid leaf sprung frame that the wheel hubs are bolted to, and two double jointed half shafts that go to the main frame mounted differential.

There are Sprinters that have IRS too, supposedly, as our Hunter alignment machine shows that option. Obviously not sold here, and I am curious how and why that setup is even employed. The smaller Metris gets IRS. The underside of those look like a sports car, LOL. And they drive pretty amazing, but sadly it was just too small for our needs (and no diesel option for us ).

It looks like the IRS option exists for the buses, and maybe some of the European chassis cabs. Probably to get a lower floor in both cases, and a better ride for bus passengers?

Nice sprinter. We may be getting one of those in 2 years when the lease is up on my wife's chevy traverse. Six kids plus the two of us and that traverse is completely cramped, so 12 passenger is gonna be next. I like the sprinter, she likes the Nissan NV. Would be nice if Nissan would put the Cummins in that one like they do their titan truck.

The NV was not even considered. They roll on a 4WD Titan frame/chassis (2WD only, though) which means they have a lot of curb weight. Essentially like the GM G-vans and the outgoing Ford E-vans. In other words, a dinosaur and not at all efficient. Even with the 4.0L V6. Plus, they are not very well packaged, as too much of the van is wasted space over the hood. Look at one from the profile, the passenger (usable) area is only 2/3 of the box.

I have no idea what Nissan was thinking with them, especially given the fact that parent company Renault already has a modern European van. I guess they were looking at dethroning the E-vans as the top seller and not at all looking to the future. Too little, too late.

ANY of the other vans would be a better choice. Even the ancient G-van gets a new-for-2017 2.8L diesel (lifted from the Colorado/Canyon). Not sure how they run, given the obese curb weight that the full frame brings, but that engine has no trouble slinging the midsize pickups around.

The NV does have a more plush interior, though. But in my mind, that is a strike against it. I have no desire for carpeting with kids. The Sprinters rubber floor liner is tough as nails. Kool-aid, dirt, grass, pee, poop, throw-up, milk, blood...whatever...it all just wipes right off. Something I think the minivan segment sadly missed the boat on. They could have offered a carpet delete package (Chrysler already has that type floor in the C/V versions) that would be a boon for families with children. I am in and out of lots of minivans, and they pretty much are all trashed inside due to debris in the carpet. Stink, too.

Seriously, though, if a low roof NV1500 V6 would work for you, you should take a look at the Transit. The Transit is MUCH better to drive, peppier, uses less fuel (even with its standard 3.7L V6), handles and stops better, and has better use of space inside. The main thing that crossed the Transit off my list was the fact that the low roof version was not tall enough for the wheelchair lift, which meant I would have had to buck up to get the taller roof. That along with the added cost diesel engine option that I wanted (but did not *need*).

Apparently the transmission crapped out on the Transit I used to take care of at around 200,000 miles. $2800 for just fixing the trans, not R&R. I heard they cut something to pull the transmission. I looked at it and the subframe needed to be dropped just to remove the pan, so I don't know what all happened to pull the transmission.

I talked to the trans shop about it and he said it's a light duty transmission. In the150 and light duty in the 250 may be OK, but it doesn't last in the 350.

Looks like they use the 6R80 in all applications - makes sense given the torque range of the engines, although the heavier vehicle probably caused problems? And, I'd guess the 6R140 wouldn't fit (considering how the Transit usually has a 6-speed manual in other markets) and would've been way overkill, and the 6R100 didn't exist yet.

Yeah, it is clear the Transit was not really designed to have that slushbox in place, and for that matter really was not designed to have the V6 gassers in there either. Most markets get a 4cyl diesel bolted to a proper manual gearbox.

That said, for normal service they are not too bad aside from dealing with the transmission. And that trans early on (in the F150) did have a problem with the "lead plate" which is the plastic bus bar inside the transmission for the electronics. They even had a recall on them. But even some beyond that range have had the problem. They did change the design again supposedly around the same time the Transit came out though.

We've seen far less transmission problems in Transits, regardless of engine or GVWR, than we have seen in the E-vans. Ford cheaped out the last few years on the E-vans and put the 4R70W transmission in them, instead of the 4R100W. The 70 is the modern version of the old AOD from the early '80s. The 100 is the modern version of the E4ODHD from the late '80s. The little trans was only used in passenger cars and half ton pickups with the little V8s, whereas the big transmission was an actual TRUCK transmission and was what was used behind the big I6, the big (5.8L) and bigger (7.5L) V8s as well as the diesels. That trans is what evolved into the "Torqshift" 5 and 6sp units in the newer Super Duty trucks.

But the little trans behind the 5.4L V8s in 3/4 ton work vans? Yeah, not a good match. I do not care how much improvements and tweaks you make, when the actual SIZE of the case is only so big, because it was designed to bolt to engines that barely weazed out 175hp at most and put it behind a 250hp+ modern engine AND place it in a heavy van? DERP.

Plus, its limited shift strategy can only do so much. The newer 6sp units in the Transits are much better managed. A moderately loaded 5.4L E250 feels like a lethargic sick hippo compared to a 3.7L Transit 250. We have companies that have both, with the aged E-vans being phased out and replaced with Transits, so I have experienced both with similar loads on board. There is no comparison. The Transit is a FAR superior machine. Very nimble, peppy, good ergonomics, even if Ford's newer dashboards seem a bit science-fiction and confusing when you first look at them.

I agree with you on the need for offering vinyl floors in minivans. When we bought our second one the kids were around 3 and 8. On the very first trip, the little one spilled chocolate milk all over herself, the car seat, the seats, and the floor. I sat on the side of I-77 for about half an hour trying to mop up enough of the milk so that it wouldn't stink us out later in the week.

Our family vehicle growing up when I was a kid was a 1975 Volkswagen Bus. Its vinyl seats and rubber floors still looked good when I finally retired that old beast in 1994. It had endured the onslaught of everything six children, countless cousins and friends, camping trips, road trips, hardware stores, feed stores, gardening supply stores, you name it, that Bus hauled it. From a pallet load of rolled sod to countless tons of firewood, chicken brooders, chicken feed, chickens, and every type of beverage known to man spilled upon its floors. In and out with soccer shoes, work boots, mud, gravel, sand from the beaches, it took it all in stride. I miss that old Bus.



I am the oldest... my mom still had #6 cooking I think when that pic was taken.

Same here, Brian. We had a '64, '66, and '71 bus when I was a kid. I "stole" the '71 when I went to college. Same color as your '75. The one I wish we still had was the '66, which was a 19 window bus with the big sunroof. Imagine what that's worth today.

But all of them had plastic seats and rubber floor mats. I remember pulling the mat out of the rear and shaking the beach sand out of it during the summer.

'71 had a slightly different (factory) color. The '75 was Atlas White over Ceylon Beige (L13H), and that color came out along with the facelift in '73. The '71 color that is very close to that was a little more beige than yellow. I know the color, though, because I had a '72 like that, it was L567 which I think was just called Ivory. That color came and went over the years, because there are some early Vanagons (1980-83) that were L567 too.

Rolled 5k miles this weekend. Nothing much to report, other than we really like it! And now I am especially happy with choosing the Sprinter over the Transit, because since I brought my Sprinter home our shop has had a total of FIVE Transits brought here with dead transmissions. And just got our SIXTH one in today.



Huge, pain in the butt job. And not a single one has even made it past 100k. You have to take half the front of the vehicle apart to get the transmission out, as it is nestled above the subframe, which is itself attached to the suspension and steering. And there is no easy way to rack these on a 2-post lift.

Yep. The Transit I used to take care of blew it's transmission somewhere around 200,000 miles but they were all highway miles. The rebuilder said it's a light duty transmission doing a heavy duty job. Ford also came out with a recall on the driveline. Maybe that will stop the Guibo from failing every 30,000 miles.

Well they *look* plenty up to the task to me. It certainly is not a tiny part, and it is bigger than the 4R70W unit, but that was a passenger car transmission. And this is not as big as the "truck" 4R100W upon which the big 5/6 speed units behind the Powerstrokes and V10s are based.

And this Tranit's dead transmission looks just as big as the Sprinter transmissions, and those are also used in passenger cars.

I think it is just a weak design. They use them behind V8s and twin turbo V6s, too, so there is no excuse why this 3.7L non-turbo V6 in the smallest configuration Transit they build should have died so soon.

We've already seen Promaster (gas) transmissions dead, but we expected that. That IS a passenger car (minivan) transmission, so no surprise there. Who knows how well their 6sp double clutch autobox works with their diesel, as I doubt we'll ever see one in our shop.

We do see a few diesel Transits here, and they are already starting to have a bunch of issues with various sensors, heaters, etc.

Knock on wood, not a single one of the 4cyl Sprinters we regularly see here has needed a single thing besides scheduled PM and tires, so I think I should be OK at least for the near future.

Does your Sprinter use the same automatic as MB cars? It seems like, in general, MB has done well with their torque converter automatics.

-J

compu_85 said:

Does your Sprinter use the same automatic as MB cars? It seems like, in general, MB has done well with their torque converter automatics.

-J

Click to expand...

The V6 does, it uses the NAG1 (New Generation Gearbox) 5 speed unit, which is used in some form or another in lots of MB and ChryCo passenger cars and SUVs. The 4cyl Sprinter like mine uses the NAG2 7 speed G-tronic transmission, which is a little different. It is used in lots of newer MB models. It *looks* like a conventional automatic, and it has a torque converter, but in some ways behaves more like a double clutch type transmission. I guess the closest thing I can compare it to is Mazda's newer autoboxes bolted to their Skyactiv engines. The G-tronic also uses an inky blue ATF (looks like G11 coolant) and requires a 40k mile interval fluid change. Also on the few that I have serviced, the used ATF looks exactly the same as the new stuff, and the filter had no signs of any debris of any kind, and the magnets in the pan had only a very slight bit of gray film on them.

Took the Sprinter on a small trip this weekend, went dirt bike riding for the first time in about 15 years. I actually no longer have a bike, I just rode my Honda Recon utility ATV, but had a blast anyway. Towed it and my friend's KX125 bike, on a trailer, plus all our gear, managed it all in stride. And a bonus feature: the Sprinter is big enough inside to change into and out of your riding gear, floors do not care about mud or dirt either.

Closing in on 10k miles. This is the most I have pulled with it for this long, I have towed a couple cars but that was shorter trips (50 miles or so). This was total about 250 miles. We'll see what impact the fuel economy took when this tank is done. I suspect it dropped into the low 20s. I was doing 80ish most of the way.

The new style vans, all of them, are awesome bike haulers because of the extra interior width and height (aside from the low roof Transit version that was specifically designed to not be taller than an E series). That's what I bought mine for. It's the bike hauler, change room, sleeping quarters, errand vehicle, and tow vehicle all in one.

60,000 km on my ProMaster, no issues to report, lifetime consumption is at 11.6 L/100 km which includes a fair bit of trailer towing.

If I end up getting another bike, I will probably get one of the cross-mounting setups that slides into the hitch. I can't use the back door anyway as the wheelchair lift is there. But that would be only good for solo transport, as I do not think they are strong enough to hold two bikes side by side. Lots of Vanagon guys use them for the smaller trail bikes though.

I used to have a dedicated dirt bike trailer, that was designed to hold three, but my XR400 was too wide to allow that. But two were just fine. It was nice because it was fast, easy, and safe to mount them up. But it was only for that, it had no other purpose or use. So I sold it when I sold the bike.

Not sure if my knees could take it anymore, though. Which is why I think a sport quad would be better for me. Sadly, Honda's lone entry right now into that segment is essentially just the same 230cc engine my Recon has, with some snazzy looking plastic and lights. The Yamaha Raptor is looking like the right package.

Update: finally crossed 10k miles. Changed the oil, rotated the tires, flushed the brake fluid. Technically it is supposed to be a 20k mile service interval OR two years. I went a little past the two year mark, but figured they go by that because they assume lots of short trips. Which mine rarely gets. 90% of the miles are 70+ MPH, the rest of the time it is parked in the driveway.

It has a recall, seems MB was buying Takata airbags too.

I will probably do that at some point, even though I despise anyone else touching it... however I have to confirm that is ALL they are going to do, and there are no post-Dieselgate software "updates" I am not aware of. I do not want the engine management touched. It performs excellent as it is, and its last tank was 27 MPG.

Oh, I also rescued a 2.slo Jetta from certain doom a couple weeks ago. Drug it back home (about 120 miles) and it didn't miss a beat. It also brought a broken B5 Passat home recently. So it is earning its keep.

Over 2 years and only 10k miles! Good thing you have lots of other toys to chose from.

Well, and it is technically three years old, but was purchased new by me in January of '17. There were no 2017 4 cyl Sprinters (and actually 2016 was the LAST of them here).

Maybe invest in an OBD lock so they don't lie to your face and then reflash anyways?

Finally have experienced a couple of the new generation Sprinters. Over all, I like them. The electro-assist steering is very different feeling, much nicer at low speed parking maneuvers but feels pretty good and linear once moving. I'd say it is an improvement.

The brake feel is better. Touchier, with a bit more progressive "grab" when slowing down. The brake size didn't look any different but it might be.

Not a fan of the push button start (although I realize the "key" in the old ones is not really used in a mechanical sense, I still prefer it). I loathe the joystick gear shifter, especially considering the old style was nearly perfect in terms of both function and placement.

The loss of the diesel 4 cyl sucks, but at least the V6 diesel not only got some improvements (low pressue EGR, a'la VAG) but it also gets bolted to the 7sp transmission too.

The dash and instruments feels more technology laden, which some may like, I do not. Although it is reasonably clean and well laid out. They also added a DEF gauge, which is nice. The touch-pad steering wheel navigation takes some getting used to, and I think I would grow to hate it like poison. I do not think they call come with that, though.

They also axed the standard roof passenger van, so you have to get a high roof. Further making mine a unicorn.

I have not driven the 2.0L gas/9sp automatic version, just the V6 diesel. I suspect these will be priced much less and appeal to some buyers, especially fleets. They also have a lighter duty '1500' option they did not have before, although even these still have the 8550 GVWR to avoid some lower end emission regs. They also added a HD3500 and a 4500, some of which have nearly 3.5 tons of payload

oilhammer said:

I have not driven the 2.0L gas/9sp automatic version, just the V6 diesel.

Click to expand...

2.0 gas version? No I4 diesel? No low roof passenger van? What's next, no manual transmission?
America is weird.

German price list here:
https://www.mercedes-benz.de/vans/c...e-lists/mercedes-benz-preisliste-sprinter.pdf

My guess is that they consider the Metris (Vito) to be sufficient for the low-roof passenger market? Not a huge demand for more passengers than that in a low-roof configuration, and the people who want those tend to buy American anyway, I suspect (which means they're buying Transits instead).

My guess is that the I4 diesels don't meet US emissions at an acceptably high power level and acceptably low AdBlue consumption, and manuals are harder to get through emissions and have extremely low demand in the US (for 2018, manuals were 2% of the US market). And, with diesel fuel being significantly more expensive and diesel engines requiring more complex (expensive to buy and run) emissions controls, even if a gasoline engine is less efficient, it's usually cheaper to run. (Although, a 2.0 I4 turbo gas engine, ehhhhhhh, not so much, I suspect. More displacement makes sense in a work vehicle to stay in the efficient operating range.)

We've never had a manual option Sprinter here. Fortunately, MB automatics seem to be pretty well behaved and durable. I'd gladly row my own gears, though, if I could.

Don't recall the last "van" here available with a manual. 1993 was the last 3-pedal Volkswagen Transporter (and even those were rare). Transits, Transit Connects, all the rebadged Fiat vans, Nissan vans, GM vans, etc. are all automatics.