• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

Oil seal mod. for 3053 input shaft

brianp454

Member
572
11
18
Location
Portland, OR
As I’ve looked into this, I’ve found that there are at least two versions of this part out there (note the thick flange version has obviously deeper counterbores):


1) Thicker mounting flange with more material on the convex side and less material on the concave side
2) Thinner mounting flange with less material on the convex side and more material on the concave side

151223 3053A Bearing Retainer types 1.jpg151223 3053A Bearing Retainer types 2.jpg


I measured 11 OEM parts yesterday and found them all to be within +/- 0.002 inch or less on any critical dimension. An in fact, they were all right on the money and completely inconsistent with gringels claims. There's absolutely noting more that can be done past 100% measuring every part and confirming they are correct. For all intents and purposes they are functionally equivalent. End of story.

Regardless, the seal as I’ve worked it out results in no loss of strength of the part. I base this on the models of the parts and applying loads in an FEA model and demonstrating that the part with the machined pocket results in no lack of strength over the original part. If the modified part has the same strength of the unmodified part how can anyone claim that the part is weak?
 
Last edited:

gringeltaube

Staff Member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
6,986
2,522
113
Location
Montevideo/Uruguay
I base this on the models of the parts....
With all respect: that's the problem; your "model" is just wrong: it shows 87.5mm where in reality we have 88.9mm (3.50"). So instead of 2.5mm material left it really is only 1.1mm (in the best case).

.....how can anyone claim that the part is weak?
It's just common sense; if you actually measured that part you will come to that same conclusion.

To be clear: that modified bearing retainer is now extremely fragile but I'm not saying it won't work: 1) Once the transmission was installed and everything in normal operating condition, the forces applied radially to the shaft portion are minimal.
2) In the event of the nose snapping off it really can't go very far and/or do any collateral damage. The input shaft would still keep it centered and the distance to shift forward is only about 4mm, before it touches the clutch disk hub.
But... this means returning home soon and pulling the whole transmission out again!




G.
 

Attachments

brianp454

Member
572
11
18
Location
Portland, OR
Here's a picture from under my truck this morning. I used to have a little dribble of oil on the drive from every stop, now, NOTHING!

151224 3053A No Leaks lowrez.jpg

Rusty, When are you available for me to drive up so you can drive my truck with this installed? I'm hoping to put a stop to this nonsense.
 
Last edited:

Tow4

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
2,096
646
113
Location
Orlando, FL
Just machine a sample and cut it in half if you can't settle the argument using a model and measuring. A physical sample of the end product will answer all the questions.
 

doghead

4 Star General /Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
26,246
1,179
113
Location
NY
Let's not turn this thread into an ad!:rules:
 

Jeepsinker

Well-known member
5,399
456
83
Location
Dry Creek, Louisiana
Hey guys, been away for a while now. I've been having a lot of life problems these past few months. I apologize to all of you who have been patiently waiting for news on getting some of these manufactured and shipped. This is why I'm glad I didn't collect any money from anyone before getting some of these made. You guys would have been pissed. Anyway, my machinist seems to be perpetually behind the curve because he has so much work. I'm trying to get some of my own money together to at least get a couple made and shipped, because of course if I pay first, I can probably get them made more quickly.
Note: I've got close to 20k miles on mine now and it has started leaking. Upon inspection it turned out to be that the seal has failed, or begun to fail. I used a single lip seal from Napa when I put it together because I was rushing to get the truck ready for last year's rally. In light of the seal failure, it is mandatory that a quality double lip seal be used.
Don't give up on me guys. I always make good on my word. Life has just put me through the wringer for quite a while now.
 

m-35tom

Well-known member
Supporting Vendor
3,021
222
63
Location
eldersburg maryland
i am still not sure why anyone would want to do this? the original does not leak, it does not even seep, there will be no oil on the floor, ever, if it is all put together as design intended. if you anticipate driving in deep water a fording kit is still a better option as it will keep both the clutch and trans dry. and to those who will say that the front of their trans leaks? it is because something is wrong.
 

gringeltaube

Staff Member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
6,986
2,522
113
Location
Montevideo/Uruguay
Tom, I used to think exactly the same way... And I fully agree with you that if it leaks while the input shaft is spinning, then something isn't right.

But... I have seen this even with all-new transmissions, running on the bench: every time after a stop - a few hours later I had oil that came out, just a couple drops, then it stopped. This may not be detected when in service - with the TO-bearing & -carrier in place, but it happens...
No oil on the floor doesn't mean no-oil slowly collecting in the bell-housing (and eventually getting on the clutch disk)

Usage; operating temps; type/brand of lubricant... certainly many variables that can play in favor or against.
For some reason the later transmissions all came with a seal.

Also, someone please explain to me why the big brother, the 5-ton Spicer #6453 has a seal there? The basic design is the very same, only everything doubles the size of the #3053.



G.
 

rustystud

Well-known member
9,280
2,987
113
Location
Woodinville, Washington
Tom, I used to think exactly the same way... And I fully agree with you that if it leaks while the input shaft is spinning, then something isn't right.

But... I have seen this even with all-new transmissions, running on the bench: every time after a stop - a few hours later I had oil that came out, just a couple drops, then it stopped. This may not be detected when in service - with the TO-bearing & -carrier in place, but it happens...
No oil on the floor doesn't mean no-oil slowly collecting in the bell-housing (and eventually getting on the clutch disk)

Usage; operating temps; type/brand of lubricant... certainly many variables that can play in favor or against.
For some reason the later transmissions all came with a seal.

Also, someone please explain to me why the big brother, the 5-ton Spicer #6453 has a seal there? The basic design is the very same, only everything doubles the size of the #3053.



G.
Gerhard, you mentioned that the later Spicer 3053 transmission used a front oil seal. Do you know what years this would be ?
Thanks.
 

rustystud

Well-known member
9,280
2,987
113
Location
Woodinville, Washington
Hey Brian, have you cut one of your modified input housings to see if there is enough material there yet ? I was hoping you would do that so we could all see and put this question to rest.
Then we can start buying your input housings !
 

rustystud

Well-known member
9,280
2,987
113
Location
Woodinville, Washington
Last edited:
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website like our supporting vendors. Their ads help keep Steel Soldiers going. Please consider disabling your ad blockers for the site. Thanks!

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks