Jump to content
SAU Community

WTB - Transfer Case Steel Ring / Friction End Plate


Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone

I'm in a bit of a pickle. I need the end plate in the transfer case. Circled in the picture.

These steel plates come in various sizes to set the clearance. I need it to be 6.7mm / 6.8mm thick. 

Can anyone help? I will pay up front and need it to be posted fairly quickly. 

Thanks



image.thumb.png.e9ea8578955792b84636695c8d9eb5f7.png
 

You will not get this quickly. These are special order part from Japan, we've done heaps of transfers and wait time is at least 8 weeks generally as they are made up from Nissan. Also needing to go to 6.8mm on the front retaining plate (31537XA) suggests that the rest of your friction and / or steel plates are excessively worn, as we've never needed to go past 5.2mm - 6.2mm, and that's using the standard 7 friction plate or modified 10 friction plate arrangement. These plates go up in 0.2mm increments from 4.8mm - 7.0mm, so a 6.8mm is definitely not the norm.

The rear retaining plate should always be set to 5.0mm (31537X). Are you checking clearance correct as in, you have the Attessa actuator with piston installed in the back ? If not it gives an inaccurate and much larger clearance, which should be between 8 - 20 thou (0.2mm - 0.5mm) between front retaining plate and retaining circlip.

I have some front retainers from 5.8mm - 6.2mm and lots of the steel plates, but if you definitely need the 6.8mm retaining plate the original part number is 31537-05U10 which has now been superceded with 31537-1P410 and is about $90 -$110.

For any other thickness the part number changes with the last two digits from 00 to 11, so a 4.8mm is 31537-1P400, a 6.0mm is 31537-1P406 and a 7.0mm is 31537-1P411.

Hope this helps.

Hi BK! 

Thank you very very much for this long and informative post. I am going to double check with my mate that is rebuilding the transfer case and see if there is something wrong. I am building it with the new arrangement (most aggressive, s/f/s/f/s/f/s/f/s)

I already have a 5.0mm and 6.2mm retainer, but he thinks he needs 6.7mm. 

I have purchased brand new friction plates, but have reused the steel plates. Maybe that is the cause of the large clearance - re-using the steel plates? 

What are the steel plates meant to be thickness wise? 

Thanks again mate, I really appreciate this input. 

 

OK so you're doing the 10 plate mod. Can't remember the steels off the top of my head but they usually don't wear bugger all (less than 0.05mm), UNLESS the wrong oil or low oil has been in there. Castrol Transmax Z is the best, I'll measure one later to confirm steel thicknesses, but very rarely need to replace the steels. As above the clearance is 0.2mm - 0.5mm, and they only come in 0.2mm increments so there is no 6.7mm.

Buying new plates has generally decreased the clearance required, so it shouldn't be that.

As mentioned above, very important - make sure the clearance is being measured with the Attesa actuator installed with piston in. This is a must or else your clearance will be wrong (on the large side).

Yeah that is it I am pretty sure. (I am just a dumb tuner, I'm not doing this, my friend who is a mechanic is lol )

This is a donor case so I have no idea how it was treated before I got it. It's from a R33 GTR so it is possible someone stupid was pulling the fuse and doing skids not knowing these have preload. 

I have only used Transmax Z in both of my GTRs transfer cases so glad to hear that. 

This one we are building is for a circuit car hence the 10 plate mod. 

He has also assured me that he is measuring it with the Attesa actuator installed with the piston in. 

Just curious, when you say "piston in" does that just mean the actuator bolted onto the back with no hydraulic pressure? (at rest if that makes sense) 

Image result for attesa actuator

26 minutes ago, The Mafia said:

Yeah that is it I am pretty sure. (I am just a dumb tuner, I'm not doing this, my friend who is a mechanic is lol )

This is a donor case so I have no idea how it was treated before I got it. It's from a R33 GTR so it is possible someone stupid was pulling the fuse and doing skids not knowing these have preload. 

I have only used Transmax Z in both of my GTRs transfer cases so glad to hear that. 

This one we are building is for a circuit car hence the 10 plate mod. 

He has also assured me that he is measuring it with the Attesa actuator installed with the piston in. 

Just curious, when you say "piston in" does that just mean the actuator bolted onto the back with no hydraulic pressure? (at rest if that makes sense) 

Image result for attesa actuator

Yes, the actuator bolted on the back of the transfer with the piston rod for it also installed with no hydraulic pressure on it. This is the real disengaged state. It does make a difference to the clearance, and the Nissan manual also mentions to check it like this. If you don't do this and measure it, reset to the 0.2mm - 0.5mm clearance with the actuator not installed, then bolt the actuator up the transfer case will be permanently locked to some degree, drag the plates and destroy them.

I just asked him and he said that is exactly how he has done it.

I guess now all I need to do is measure the thickness of my steel plates and see how much they are worn.

If you have some there and can give me a measurement that would be great :) 

4 minutes ago, BK said:

I'll look into it. More importantly, what is the measured clearance now ?

He says it is 0.9mm at the moment. 

I'm starting to think my steel plates are all worn that slightest amount. All the friction plates are brand new. 

Just to add to this mate - I contacted Kudos Motorsport earlier and they said the plates are 2mm thick.

He has 12 in stock so I might be able to grab some if they are the issue. 

Thanks for your help though.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • @Haggerty this is your red flag. In MAP based ECU's the Manifold pressure X RPM calculation is how the engine knows it is actually...running/going through ANY load. You are confusing the term 'base map' with your base VE/Fuel table. When most people say 'base map' they mean the stock entire tune shipped with the ECU, hopefully aimed at a specific car/setup to use as a base for beginning to tune your specific car. Haltech has a lot of documentation (or at least they used to, I expect it to be better now). Read it voraciously.
    • I saw you mention this earlier and it raised a red flag, but I couldn't believe it was real. Yes, the vacuum signal should vary. It is the one and only load signal from the engine to the ECU, and it MUST vary. It is either not connected or is badly f**ked up in some way.
    • @Haggerty you still haven't answered my question.  Many things you are saying do not make sense for someone who can tune, yet I would not expect someone who cannot tune to be playing with the things in the ECU that you are.  This process would be a lot quicker to figure out if we can remove user error from the equation. 
    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
×
×
  • Create New...