What's new
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.

DO NOT OPEN IN PUBLIC, YOU WILL BECOME INSTANTLY ERECT!!!

Overview Gallery Discussion
So, if anyone has interest in the shortened and resplined 31 spline 203 output and short 31 spline 205 input they are useless to me. If you can make your own 3" adapter then you could be into a 203/205 doubler super cheap. Once I see what exactly I need to swap over to the new 8620 shaft I'll throw them up in the for sale section and just take a reasonable offer considering shipping cost and my time.
 
truck-oholic said:
So, if anyone has interest in the shortened and resplined 31 spline 203 output and short 31 spline 205 input they are useless to me. If you can make your own 3" adapter then you could be into a 203/205 doubler super cheap. Once I see what exactly I need to swap over to the new 8620 shaft I'll throw them up in the for sale section and just take a reasonable offer considering shipping cost and my time.
Click to expand...
I have a ord doubler setup with 31 spline output, and I am looking for a Ford 205.
I could buy your 31 spline input if the price is right
 
Need to pick your brain a little @skunked . I'm going to start building my Eco Box tomorrow and all your pics on that in your thread are gone like most of mine. Do you have those somewhere else? I realize they have the instruction manual but I still wanted to look at yours too. One big question I have that wasn't answered anywhere is if you thought the spline engagement from the Eco Box to the 205 was sufficient with the short 205 input and the figure 8 adapter taking an extra 3/4". I know that if it was a round pattern case the Eco Box would go directly up to the 205 and that would be the best scenario for strength since it's the most spline engagement. That 3/4" figure 8 adapter results in that much reduced spline engagement or in your case 1" total with the 1/4" mounting foot. Thinking that what remains is still enough and the only alternative would be using the longer 205 input. NWF specifically mentions that if you have a longer main case input and are getting interference, the easiest thing to do is cut down the longer input if not using the 3/4" spacer/adapter or just use their spacer. I think that since I already have a short 205 input what I would need to do to get back that 3/4" spline engagement is swap to a long 32 spline input (1.5" longer) and then cut 3/4" off since the spacer uses up the other 3/4". Am I just thinking about this too damn much? How much spline engagement do you think you have?
 
Sent NWF an email asking about the above and they said no issues with 3/4" less spline engagement. Figured as much but wanted to be sure so I didn't have to break down the 205 after final assembly to swap inputs because I didn't ask a simple question.
 
Couple updates.

Got the Jed's Machine heat treated 32 spline shaft and installed the adapter plate onto the Lomax 205
60575244_968052268947_2364175601465556992_n.jpg


Installed the 203 to the adapter
60729708_968051949587_5675147404412715008_n.jpg



Meanwhile, also got the original main case back together with new 32 spline input.
60480013_968052503477_7919437961702146048_n.jpg


Then got this from some crazy Canucks at Northwest Fab
60358389_968051695097_3537499901535453184_n.jpg


Installed the Figure 8 to round pattern adapter
60255781_968051430627_291639072651214848_n.jpg


Built the Eco Box
60608923_968051186117_5336429756416000000_n.jpg


And installed on original main case
60385364_968050602287_6957814618286718976_n.jpg


There you have it. One Jed's Machine 203 in front of a Lomax 205 and one NWF Eco Box in front of a "stock" 205. The first is going back into the 77 since that setup is the same as what I built all my crossmembers and skid plating around and also my preferred setup since the biggest reduction occurs in the stronger aftermarket case. The second is going to wait patiently for me to find a decent mostly built square body project that could use some additional sexiness in the transfer case department. These setups are pretty much identical in overall length and damn close in overall reduction with the Lomax edging out the Eco Box by a mere 0.28:1. The Eco Box is definitely the best bang for the buck and the tightest packaging height wise but I essentially got the Lomax for free or else I wouldn't have gone this route.
60588293_968050891707_3768652846677884928_n.jpg
 
Gotcha. A buddy of mine has a 3:1 203, at first I was thinking it was a Jed’s mod but it may have been WMS that did it.
 
nvrenuf said:
Gotcha. A buddy of mine has a 3:1 203, at first I was thinking it was a Jed’s mod but it may have been WMS that did it.
Click to expand...

Hmm, never heard of a 3:1 203 kit. Probably didn't sell too many since it's not a very popular stand alone case.
 
No, not many out there. There were a few in the Pirate crowd back in the day (same time period as the first gen Doublers). It’s actually 3.2:1, WMS cut the range box shell and the welded a plate over the hole, for the input gear they cut the down the original and then welded a new bigger gear on the input and heat treated it. Not ideal by today’s standards but they worked.

I never read of anyone running a straight 203 like this, just as an “upgrade” to a Doubler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom