CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Are np203s now desirable? - full time 4x4

Deeper gearing, better reduction design, lighter, better shifter, etc.

Martin
I've been reading as issues, it has slip yoke and is easier to break being aluminum, depending on how it's used of course.


96A923CD-7E98-43A0-BB5B-E85A478A8B3F.png
 
Something else. The 78 K5 has a 4x4 light indicator. If you want to have an indicator light you need to have the shift rails with indents for the light and the switch that attaches to the np205. My 72 NP205 did not have indicator light. I have the shift rails from a later np205 and indent to install the updated rails so that I can have my 4x4 indicator light.
 
you 78 np203 should have an indicator light
If it did or does I've never seen it. But it was modified when I bought so no telling what was done prior to my ownership. I don't have the stock shifter. The 203
I have now is from '74 truck so... I don't really need it the indicator light though.

I also have the part time kit installed as well.
 
Don't sweat the 205 you'll be happy with it and will never break it. The 208 has a little better gearing but it's not something I'd worry about. I run a TH400 and a 205 with a Gen V motor and I bash trough the desert and pretty much abuse my K5. Could I use better low gears for crawling...yes but I know I'd have broken an aluminum case 208 by now, I already have.
 
I went through a similar process not long ago trying to decide whether to swap my 203 out before attending BB. Ultimately I decided to swap to a 208 for the better gearing and because I simply know the aluminum chain drive cases better (coming from Jeeps). The slip yoke rear isn’t the big deal everyone makes it out to be (thanks Martin) and I like being able to easily lift the case in and out.

That said a lot of it comes down to intended use, for normal everyday use most people will never break either one. For the hardercore crowd the 205 is pretty bulletproof…..

As for gearing transmission plays a big part, I have a 205 behind a NP435 and with the 6.68 first gear the 1.96 low is plenty….with my TH400 I like the 2.62 of the 208 better than I did the 1.96 of the 203 I swapped out.
 
On my '78 I have the torque bar from 203 to the bell housing. Does the 205 have such a thing? Or does it just mount tot the cross member
If you would like to use a side torque bar/brace ( like your TH350/203 had ) you could get a side brace/bar from a 81~84 K-30 that came with a 465/205 set up - same dimensions from attachment point on the 205 to the proper bell housing bolt location as your TH350/205 has.
If your 205 is not drilled the boss is there on all GM 205’s and can be drilled.
One of these bars is a great idea on any automatic trans but especially on an older thin casting TH350 case - use one if at all possible because they do a wonderful job of keeping everything in place and happy happy happy.

Just as a note: not all 205’s after 1980 came with a slip yoke rear output. The regular long bed fleetside 131.5” wheel base trucks did but any K-30 that came with a carrier bearing equipped rear driveshaft ( such as Crew Cabs, Cab Chassis ) came with a rear bolt on yoke.
Just did not want ya’ to skip over any potential purchases because ya thought all were a certain way after a time period.

As for your question about which front output to use and which is stronger - the square flange style fit a Saginaw style cv-joint and the output shaft is 30 spline while the yoke style front output was made for a Spicer style cv-joint and the output shaft was a course 10 spline that was slightly smaller in diameter than the 30 spline shaft.
The Saginaw style cv-joint does not have a lot of tolerance for more angle than OEM set up - could be ground and clearanced but life expectancy goes down.
The Spicer style cv-joint puts up with a little more angle as is.
As for the front output shaft size difference the 30 spline is stronger ( could also up grade to the 32 spline shaft too ) than the 10 spline shaft but if you are still running a 1310 series front driveshaft than don’t worry about the transfer case shaft breakage - most likely even the smaller 10 spline shaft will outlive a stock front driveshaft.
 
If you would like to use a side torque bar/brace ( like your TH350/203 had ) you could get a side brace/bar from a 81~84 K-30 that came with a 465/205 set up - same dimensions from attachment point on the 205 to the proper bell housing bolt location as your TH350/205 has.
If your 205 is not drilled the boss is there on all GM 205’s and can be drilled.
One of these bars is a great idea on any automatic trans but especially on an older thin casting TH350 case - use one if at all possible because they do a wonderful job of keeping everything in place and happy happy happy.

Just as a note: not all 205’s after 1980 came with a slip yoke rear output. The regular long bed fleetside 131.5” wheel base trucks did but any K-30 that came with a carrier bearing equipped rear driveshaft ( such as Crew Cabs, Cab Chassis ) came with a rear bolt on yoke.
Just did not want ya’ to skip over any potential purchases because ya thought all were a certain way after a time period.

As for your question about which front output to use and which is stronger - the square flange style fit a Saginaw style cv-joint and the output shaft is 30 spline while the yoke style front output was made for a Spicer style cv-joint and the output shaft was a course 10 spline that was slightly smaller in diameter than the 30 spline shaft.
The Saginaw style cv-joint does not have a lot of tolerance for more angle than OEM set up - could be ground and clearanced but life expectancy goes down.
The Spicer style cv-joint puts up with a little more angle as is.
As for the front output shaft size difference the 30 spline is stronger ( could also up grade to the 32 spline shaft too ) than the 10 spline shaft but if you are still running a 1310 series front driveshaft than don’t worry about the transfer case shaft breakage - most likely even the smaller 10 spline shaft will outlive a stock front driveshaft.
What years were the thin casting TH350?

IMHO the weakest part should be the U-joint on the driveshaft as that is the easy to replace.
 
What years were the thin casting TH350?

IMHO the weakest part should be the U-joint on the driveshaft as that is the easy to replace.
If there were any thick neck casted TH350 cases they would have been the original 78~80 K-cases but I can’t swear that I recall seeing any over the years ( 81+ were lock up converter cases which had a difference in the pump area but had the thick bottom cover bolt bosses for the converter cover that had the struts going up to the motor mount plates ).
The lock up TH350’s were phased out by the mid eighties but were never regarded as good as the non-lock up cases as far as pump and converter durability goes.
 
Last edited:
I've been reading as issues, it has slip yoke and is easier to break being aluminum, depending on how it's used of course.
I doubt you would ever break an NP208.

If you did, they are a dime a dozen, and very easy to replace.

The strength of an NP205 is something of a myth.

Unless you are building a doubler, an NP205 kind of sucks.

Martin
 
I doubt you would ever break an NP208.

If you did, they are a dime a dozen, and very easy to replace.

The strength of an NP205 is something of a myth.

Unless you are building a doubler, an NP205 kind of sucks.

Martin
Just have to protect them from impact. And make sure that the front driveshaft can't kill it with improper slip travel or seized slip joint.
I know a guy who used one in a mud truck. He had a big block and launched at 4K or so with the transbrake in the TH400. Even took it to the dragstrip for a few passes. Ran it for years.
They do very well crawling too.
 
Like I said earlier, too late to stop the purchase.

I have the 205, that's the direction I'm going tentatively. I've yet to read a negative in switching from a 203 to a 205. Had I seen or been made aware of the 208 option I may have considered it and left the 205 alone.

Even still, it's not in the truck yet so I could/can always sell it and snag a 208. This Tcase swap isn't something that's happening in the next month. 205's seem to be getting harder to find so I saw this one and snagged it up.... just in case.

602BA920-BFFF-4920-B39E-BDFEB88ADF2C.jpeg

5ED9DDA6-4A0A-4536-808F-B16DDF0E06F3.jpeg

23CB2D6C-ABFC-4D11-8060-77E40EE8A332.jpeg
 
Last edited:
it just costs a lot of money to change over. That’s pretty much the only negative.
 
it just costs a lot of money to change over. That’s pretty much the only negative.
Yes and money I don't have but I didn't want to sleep on the opportunity to snag a 205. I can always sell it.

You can run 208 behind a th350?
 
Last edited:
Yes and money I don't have but I didn't want to sleep on the opportunity to snag a 205. I can always sell it.

You can run 208 behind a th350?
Yes, a 208 did come behind a TH350 as an option from 81~84-ish but was phased out more and more once the 700R4 was offered in 82+.

The 208 is a decent case with a good low range gear - 2.61:1 but internal parts are more prone to wear with heavy use.

Something to ponder - with the exception of the CUCV’s ( they needed the low range gear so Uncle Sam did what it took to get the contract ) a 208 was never an option in a civilian K-30 and there is a reason for that….
 
1028 CUCVs got NP205s with a slip yoke rear, some of them needed the PTO port on the 205. Another interesting note, on the dodge side….the cummins trucks all got 205s as did the one tons, the half and 3/4 tons got 208s.
 

Latest Posts

Top Bottom