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.

Flat belly(clocked t-case) worth it?

I was able to get mine to work by using 2 Tom Woods Super Joints. I got rid of the cv in the front shaft and got one of these u-joints at each end.
However I did not go completely flat to the bottom of the frame rails, but 1.5" lower as that was the size of the square stock I used to make the x-members and skid plate.
Clocking allows a much better break over angle with out having to add extra lift. A huge skid plate solidly mounted is a great way to get more poor mans break over as well. Have not looked back from this mod, but there are several issues to consider.
How are the vibes from those joints?
 
ok, i get why you raised everything up. what i don't get it why add the carrier bearing. was it to push the driveshaft forward before it went to the axle, so there wasn't as much hanging down to defeat the purpose of the flat belly? or was it to get around the tranny pan? when you pushed it forward, you increased the d-shaft angle. you could have just went with u-joints at the t-case and axle and pobably have been fine with the angles.
 
ok, i get why you raised everything up. what i don't get it why add the carrier bearing. was it to push the driveshaft forward before it went to the axle, so there wasn't as much hanging down to defeat the purpose of the flat belly? or was it to get around the tranny pan? when you pushed it forward, you increased the d-shaft angle. you could have just went with just u-joints at the t-case and axle and pobably have been fine with the angles.
Well,
The angle is SOOOO BAAAD, that joints wouldnt work. I tried every driveline possibility except the HAD 42*cv for a million bucks. I can get 50 degrees out of this. The flange at the t-case is maxxed out with what you see now.
The only other solution would be to lose the lift.


I also like the fact that my driveline is out of the way, and gives more flat pan surface. The tranny pan had nothing to do with the carrier bearring.

I know I have a strange set up, but it works very well. If someone has a better way, Im all for listening. I have yet to see another clocked comepletly flat 241 like mine. I wish I could just so I can see what someone else had to do. Some will show you a 208 but they are a little different.
 
thank you.

there is another way. these are what will be going into my 1-ton.
IMG_0479.jpg


dana 60 yoke welded to a custom spacer, then bolted to the existing flange on your t-case. this is not my idea, there is another thread on here about it.

i also like getting more clearance for the d-shaft with moving it forward out of your setup.
 
thank you.

there is another way. these are what will be going into my 1-ton.
IMG_0479.jpg


dana 60 yoke welded to a custom spacer, then bolted to the existing flange on your t-case. this is not my idea, there is another thread on here about it.

i also like getting more clearance for the d-shaft with moving it forward out of your setup.


I would like to see more info on this. I have a set of 60 stubs and I plan to make mine out of square tube so all I should need is the custom spacer.
 
one side is machined to fit the flange, the other side is sized to fit the cut off stub. it is .70 thick.

IMG_0513.jpg
 
it's actually 9" slip. probably 7" usable. i have yet to build this shaft yet. altho i do feel this will work ok with my 52" springs up front.

IMG_0428.jpg
 
How are the vibes from those joints?

I notice none on the trail, so far. Though I do mostly rocks. But even in snow with wheel spin I have not had any issues. I do not street it in 4wd so I have not gone much over 35-40mph with the front engaged, though to that speed it was ok.
I doubt it is any worse than a square front shaft.
 
Top Bottom