LVII. switching from Żuk to Lublin transmission, why and how (todo-list).

Current state of affairs:

Figure 4.1 BEN

Changing gearbox requires paying attention to the clutch, the drive shaft and the gearbox supports.

Gearbox A13.1

My van  got a recent gearbox in the history of the Żuk: the type A13.1, providing 4 (plus reverse) synchronized gears.

3.3 Table




Type :

mechanical with fixed-axis gearboxes

I gear

II gear

III gear

IV gear

V gear

reverse gear






















inertia with ring blocking

Synchronised gears





Speedometer gearbox ratio

3,4; 3,6; 4,1 (depending on the transmission ratio of the main drive bridge)

Internal gearshifting mechanism

ball-snap-fastened hydrodisks

External gearshifting mechanism



Olej Hipol 15

Olej Hipol 15F

Mass (without external gear-shift mechanism)

21,8 kg

26,5 kg

Type A13.1 is actually based on type 16 and share the same general layout. Tells something about how modern it actually is.

type 13.1 (3.13 Figure)

Mine is in bad shape. The lever is all over the place, you can move it in every direction without changing anything. And shifting some gears is quite a challenge. So it would require an overhaul in any case.

A13.1 gear level (3.10 Figure) 

Drive shaft 14.6

It could be associated with a single drive shaft (702) or a splitted one (14.6). In my case, I have the splitted type:

3.11 Table





divided with intermediate support

Length compensation


Maximum angle of articulation

Maximum torque transmission (permanent)

Test torque (with one shaft end stationary)

on a splined joint

cross-braces with needle roller bearings

20 °

560 N⋅m

1000 N⋅m

Length in slip position

Permissible dynamic imbalance at 3600 rpm

Angular clearance at 70 mm radius and static torque load 10 N⋅m

1565 mm

0,245 N⋅cm

0,80 mm

1575 mm

for each kilogram of the mass of the constituent shafts: 0,2 N⋅cm for each external support, 0.25 N⋅cm for the centre support

1,16 mm


– cross joints

– multi-pass couplings

Grease 1S

grease ŁT4S2


10,4 kg

11,6 kg

Replacement gearbox choice:

I am not considering fixing the original gearbox anyway: many people switched to the Lublin 5 gears TS5-21 gearbox (here, here, etc), designed to accommodate the 4C90 engine. It will hopefully allow to travel at lower RPM, saving maybe some gas but surely reducing the engine noise.

Not only TS5-21 was made for the same engine than A13.1 gearbox, but, as far I understand, some Lublin (sold since 1993) up to 1996 were still shipped with A13.1 gearbox (update: they had to, since TS5-21 was actually produced serially only since 1996). That makes very likely maximum compatibility of gearbox/engine setup of Lublin and Żuk produced between 1993 and 1996.


This TS5-21 gearbox was made by Fabryka Przekładni Samochodowych in Tczew and is said to be reliable. It is however longer of about 10 centimeters than the A13.1 and have a 6 bolts flange (instead of 4 for type A13.1).

As alternative, it should also be possible to to mount KIA PD97 and ZF gearboxes also made for Lublin.

Conclusions of Konrad Prajwowski and Wawrzyniec Gołębiewski in their article of simulative comparison of the tractions properties of […] Lublin […] with particular types of gearbox are very interesting in this regard:

The driving force in first gear is the largest (of which the largest reserve driving force results) for gearbox ZF (largest acceleration) and it allows overcoming the resistances to motion on 30% elevation in this gear, whereas gearbox PD.97 mounted in a vehicle is not able to get over such an elevation and gearbox TS5-21 copes with it not before the maximum torque has been reached.
Owing to that, there is a possibility to accelerate a vehicle as fast as possible in first gear. The largest reserve driving force in second gear also speaks in favour of gearbox ZF.
The situation looks in a slightly different way as far as third gear is concerned. In this case, gearbox TS5-21 behaves the best. When it is in use, a vehicle accelerates in the fastest way. This is of enormous importance for driving a vehicle in urban traffic where third gear is used for the most part and most frequently.
Fourth gear is an indirect gear and therefore its gear ratio is equal to 1. This gear is applied to all types of gearboxes.
The last gear determines the reaching of maximum vehicle speed and the possible flexibility of a vehicle (reserve driving force in that gear). Gearboxes TS5-21 and PD.97 (values of the curves overlapped on diagram) determine larger maximum vehicle speed (after overcoming the rolling and air resistances) and vehicle flexibility. A vehicle can drive with a speed of approximately 100 km/h (for gearbox ZF it is about 95 km/h) and has larger reserve driving force in the last gear.
It is difficult to choose decidedly the best gearbox out of the ones mentioned above since each presented its advantages and disadvantages. The worst solution seems to be gearbox PD.97 when compared to other two types. The authors acknowledged that the most reasonable solution, from the point of view of traction properties, would be to use gearbox ZF (it was the last gearbox mounted in a Daewoo Lublin 3 Mi van). This choice was substantiated by reaching maximum accelerations and driving forces and possibilities of overcoming larger elevation in lower gears (gears I and II). Difference in the maximum speed being achieved (disadvantage of about 5 km/h when compared to gearboxes TS5- 21 and PD.97) was not a deciding factor since the vehicle intended use was not of the racing car type.

So ZF gearbox provides better accelerations and can overcome larger elevation, but is less efficient than TS5-21 in 3rd gear and restrict max speed. That would be a tough choice if ZF gearbox was as readily available as TS5-21. But, so far, I never come across one – granted, neither was I looking for such gearbox.

The KIA PD97, often simply referred as “KIA gearbox” is easier to find. It is supposedly smaller than the TS5-21 so it could be an easier replacement of the A13.1. But the fact it is less efficient in any regards than both ZF and TS5-21 gearbox would make it a backup plan.

To do:

One thought on “LVII. switching from Żuk to Lublin transmission, why and how (todo-list).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s