What is the stock crawl ratio of the X, with LSD gearing (4.636), M/T, and just for fun 31" tires.

The above seems to be the average setup...or so I have come to find.

If you don't know I have found a good in-depth calculator (that takes into account tire size and idle rpm), and could plug in the numbers that are known.

And what do you feel the limitations of this gearing are?

p.s. I tried searching but I haven't found the answer.

Uh... search a little harder...

http://www.xterraownersclub.com/news.html

Cool little tools. But the calculation for speedometer error has some pretty bad bugs.

Original Tire Diameter:  31
New Tire Diameter:  32
Speedometer Reading (MPH): 80 Speed (MPH): 32


With those same tire diameters, try also 69 and up...

Works fine here... 82.58064516129032 MPH.
What browser and OS are you using ?

Hmmm. Weird. Works OK on Win2000.... Ah!, OK I found out the problem.

Here's my configuration:
OS: Mac OSX 10.2
Browser: MSIE 5.2

The problem is the justification of the displayed number. Win2000 shows the first digits (left-justified), while the Mac shows the last digits (right-justified).

Perhaps you could make the calculation round to the nearest tenth and/or left-justify the field in the form...

Uh... Relax Coconut!!!

BTW, thanks for the link

I don't think that's possible.
Sounds like a bug in IE or OSX.

I have changed it to round to 2 places.

Very strange.... even with the rounding to 2 places, it still only shows the digits after the decimal.

What's stranger, even, is that other calculations (RPM, MPH, gear ratio) are displayed correctly. P-metric calculation has the same issue.

Perhaps it has something to do with the minimum width of the field or the browser's default font size? I noticed that the Speed (MPH) and Tire Diameter field are slightly narrower than the others on the page.

Anyway, thanks for addressing the concern(s) of the "minority" (Yeah, I know... get rid of my Mac, right? :p )

I changed the size of the result field. It should work now.

Odd bug...

Regarding the minority...yes, Mac and Linux don't come here very often.

#: #reqs: #pages: OS
--: -------: ------: --
1: 1764033: 594421: Windows
: 541535: 186418: Windows XP
: 477383: 166566: Windows 2000
: 392847: 120843: Windows 98
: 150205: 50686: Windows ME
: 114126: 36263: Windows NT
: 43715: 19351: Unknown Windows
: 44075: 14242: Windows 95
: 142: 52: Windows CE
: 5: 0: Windows 32-bit
2: 76448: 28448: Macintosh
: 76448: 28448: Macintosh PowerPC
3: 24872: 4388: OS unknown
4: 4408: 3807: WebTV
5: 9916: 3348: Unix
: 6170: 1729: Linux
: 2739: 1069: SunOS
: 791: 477: HP-UX
: 216: 73: IRIX
6: 2415: 2396: Known robots

Pacopico,

I did the math once and came out with about 28, but autos get a little plus up... like a manual with 30. Your 31" tires also mess up the calculate (makes it worse).

Needless to say an X is a mild crawler. If you want a crawler, Calmini's new 98% gears will get you along the trail, but at $1,295 just for the parts... to rich for me.

See ya at WestX,
Doc

Thanks Doc,

I was just looking for reference, as I am building something else, and I wanted to see if (by comparison) what crawl ratio I was getting was acceptable.

...Trying to make it to West-X!

The only problem with the formula is that it states to use a different measurement for the tire. It does not matter if the tire is loaded or not. Yeah, the static height may differ from the advertized dealer claims but the tire will travel the same distance whether it has 12 psi or 40 psi. The circumference does not change, the tire just becomes egg shaped ( for lack of a better term ). The circumference of the tire will affect the effective crawl ratio when compared to stock but it should not be used to figure crawl ratio...just to compare it to the same gearing with stock tires.

P.S.-not trying to be a smart@$$...just clearing up a possible glich.