Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

6x6 via backwards 205

Discussion in 'The Garage' started by David Witcher, Dec 13, 2004.

  1. David Witcher

    David Witcher Newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bakersfield CA
    Hey how are you guys, Im a nwebie here with a Question. I want to build a 6x6 using a divorced 205 behind my 241 turned backwards. 1 input and 2 output to a pair of 14bolts using twin driveshafts.
    The rear axle will be pointed up with a double CV drive shaft supported by a carrier over the fornt rearend via a crossmember. The million dollar question is could the 205 live in 4 high at freeway speed in reverse direction.
     
  2. ben427

    ben427 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Posts:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Waverley, Nova Scotia
    Well why can't you run int in 2wd on th asphalt?? no need for it to be turning all four rears when theres lots of traction.When you get to a bad spot, just put it in 4 hi. But to answer your question, it should last a while bu i think all the unloading loading of the gears due to drivetrsin bind would be hard on it.
     
  3. original balzer

    original balzer 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,660
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    roosevelt utah
    try a AWD 203 it has a sort of differntial in it and wouldnt bind up like a 205 would
     
  4. Triaged

    Triaged 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2001
    Posts:
    3,808
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA (LA/OC area)
    I think it's time to swap in some rockwells if you want a 6x6. All you would need would be a short driveshaft between the axles.
     
  5. sled_dog

    sled_dog 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Posts:
    16,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    sounds way too complex and weak. Too many shafts and weak parts for my liking. Relying on a 241 to spin 6 wheels and that much weight sounds like a mistake to me. 3 Rockwells would be your best bet for 6x6. Its the way the military does it. How will you run the driveshafts? I mean what if the farthest back axle wants to droop down and the middle one wants to go up? 14 bolts are big, I doubt you'd get it to work without driveshaft issues.
     
  6. atho

    atho 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wayne County, Ohio
    I forget which one specifically, but one of the old New Process transfer cases (NP200, NP201, NP202) has a provision for a 2nd rear output. I think its the 202 that came in the Dodge M37's and the Jeep M715's, but I'm not sure. Anyway, you could run this case divorced behind a 2wd tranny and get your 6x6. Only problem I could see is that the PTO boxes might be a little hard to find if you wanted one, because I don't think they have the regular 6 bolt SAE pto cover, but instead a larger 10 bolt cover.
     
  7. rcurrier44

    rcurrier44 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    It works...just run it in 2wd on the road. I've seen severial rigs do it and am planning on doing it myself.

    The problem with using rockwells is the gearing...sure they are great for 44's but I am using mine as a tow rig and will have around a 31" tire.
     
  8. David Witcher

    David Witcher Newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bakersfield CA
    6x6 via 205 backwards

    As far as the 241 its a DLD model behind a NV4500 with a Cummins in front of that so I think It should be strong enough. Using a 203 could be tuff trying to mount divorce style.
    Rockwells are waayyy out of the question.
    This thing has to be a tow rig.
    And running the thing in 2 high, Im going to check the T-case, that maybe possiable (duh) Thanks.
     

Share This Page