Regular vs "Reduction" Starter??

[SethM]

Folks,

Just wondering if anyone knows why Toyota used two different versions of starter on the T4WD and IF they are interchangeable if you replace the whole starter/solenoid package? I have a 1985 T4WD and it has the "reduction" version. I am anticipating that I have to change the solenoid at least and the price differences prompt curiosity. The solenoid is about $25 for the regular model vs about $110 for the reduction version. Of course the oddness continues (compounds?) if one considers a remanufactured replacement of the entire starter/solenoid bundle--- going this route the price appears to be LESS than just the replacement solenoid for the reduction model ($90) and the price of the two versions is closer to being equal ($90 vs $75). Anybody know the reasoning here and if one can switch from the reduction version to the regular version? Put this in the category of just curious mainly (since I have the reduction version my guess is that I am limited to working with that).

Thanks,

[keith]

They are completely different designs so the whole package, solenoid, bendix and starter have to be changed if you want to go from one to the other.

[SethM]

They are completely different designs so the whole package, solenoid, bendix and starter have to be changed if you want to go from one to the other.

Which leads to my next question: Given that the entire package (and subsequent replacement of component parts as needed over the years/miles) is cheaper for the "regular" starter, is there any reason to go with the reduction starter? Once you have to replace the solenoid on the reduction starter, it is cheaper to replace the entire package with the regular set up. Did Toyota perceive a benefit to the reduction model?? Why did they come up with it in the first place? This is just a curiosity question at this point.

[4wdchico]

When material costs are high, it is is cheaper to make a reduction gear starter as far less copper is needed to make a small, high speed, low torque motor. When material costs are low, those lower material costs associated in making a large, low speed motor make it the money saving choice. They both work fine, the reduction starter will be a bit lighter.

[keith]

All manufacturers, whether making cars or knee joints, and everything in between like to have multiple sources for parts. That keeps them going if one supplier has problems that could leave them without critical parts. Undoubtedly the two suppliers of the starters make different designs, as do the two suppliers of alternators and the two or three suppliers of front wheel bearings.

This is not uncommon in the industry.

[ariscmarquez]

AFAIK... Reduction starter on cars eats lesser load from your battery compared to ordinary starter, Even when your battery is at low power ( not totally drained) it will work and start your engine, compared again to the regular starters. Reduction Starter is high speed low torque starter compared to normal starter.

HTH..

[Petros]

AFAIK... Reduction starter on cars eats lesser load from your battery compared to ordinary starter,
HTH..

except that both starters put out the same amount of cranking power, so they would use the same amount of battery power. I doubt the efficiency is different enough to make much difference. You can not get something for nothing, and you can not even break even. (that is the first and second laws of thermodynamics BTW).

I would go with cheapest one, seems the non-reduction type is more durable too.