getting a 435 to convert to manual trans and started kickin around making my own doubler. went to the wagoner machine website, they make a 203/203/205 adapters. WOW. 6.68 x 2 x 2 x 1.96 x 5.38 = 281:1 :eek: sure would be cool to count each bogger lug as they go buy ;) guess i had no point, just wanted to share my excitement :D

pic

2 - 435's? anyone see this? 6.68 x 6.68 x 2 x 1.96 x 5.38 = 941:1:eek: holy shit! even just 2-435's and a 205 with 4.10's is 358:1.;)

I don't know if you have seen this.:D

http://www.bc4x4.com/tech/2000/gordtcases/gordtcases.cfm

ya, i've seen that one, ORD's and wagoner's. i just never knew about a 203 redution to 203 reduction.:D good stuff

the gearing options with dual 435 would be interesting as well, wouldnt have to limit yourself to just 1st and 1st, in all you could have 16 options with 205 low range or if you wanted to be silly 32(or is my math wrong) options with the doubler, ohh the sillyness:D

thats what i'm talkin about. good shit huh?:D

in first gear-first gear-low range crawl box-low range case the 941:1 crawl ratio, i wonder how high the motor would have to rev before you got anywhere on flat ground, but with efi,decent wheelbase and some balls, i think that climbing vertical walls wouldnt be a proble, has any body done this, ive thought about how to go about it, what about reverse in trans one and reverse in trans 2, would that make you go forward again, i think it would, and for the ultimate theft protection,first trans in first and second in reverse aint going no wear over 3 miles an hour

:D

i would like to see a guy with a wrangler try and run dual trannies and dual transfer cases, haha, although how much room would that extra trans suck up? would dual 435 be about the same length as a 727?

what about an auto with a 435 behind it? leave it in fourth for most things, but when you need it, you have first, second, third, for crawl gears, or would the kickdown get real confused from it??

What do you guys need these insanely low ratios for? Honestly, I'm curious, is there something I'm missing out on?

My Heep is at 84:1 (7.05 x 2.62 x 4.56) and I really don't use 1st-low much. Most obstacles around here require a bit of momentum, and there isn't enough of it in low-low. 2nd-low works best for most tough obstacles. Yesterday, I was climbing the walls of the quarry at the Badlands (steep and rough) and had to use 2nd to get up anything. Just enough momentum, just enough reduction.

why not, your right, ya might never need it, but the option will always be there.........941:1, john deere tractors would be envious of your gear reducation options, and for extra money on the weekends, just hook-up that chisel plow and go do some cultivating

ya. why not? around here in the summer, traction is unbelievable. nothing funner than creeping up a sick line. i'm leaning more tword the 203/203/205 route due to the fact that it would be alot of load on the 435's 1" 23 spline input shaft on the second trans. i dont want to pay for an untested custom input shaft at this point. plus, with my front axle pushed forward 2" and the triple cases, i could use the same length shaft front or rear.:flipoff2:

Maybe that's the difference - traction. The guys I've talked to who have wheeled out west say that too - the traction on those rocks is unbelieveable. Our rocks are usually covered with mud, moss, dirt or sand; which is where momentum comes in. :p If the traction is there, you're right, gear down and climb it. With those low ratios, you could get out while it's moving, take a leak, and hop back in without a problem. :D Or make a little side money from the farmers.

about the 23 spline input on the np435, thats why i think a 727 up front would be interesting, because then the gear reduction wouldnt get real serious until after the second trans..

i dont like juice boxes.:p i like the feel of a manual, but i see your point. i e-mailed W.M.S. to see how much a custom input would be.;)

Originally posted by mjs408
about the 23 spline input on the np435, thats why i think a 727 up front would be interesting, because then the gear reduction wouldnt get real serious until after the second trans..

I dunno about that... seems like the second transmission would still see ~5:1 at low speed due to the torque converter effect.

A guy at work here has a 6-71 blower on a 427 in his pickup (uses it to tow his 9-sec. camaro) and he can break drivetrain parts at will - usually axleshafts and ujoints - just by applying the skinny pedal. With enough gear reduction you could achieve the same result with a Briggs & Stratton. Just something to think about.

i agree, a manual is just much more fun, i mean whats better than dumpin the clutch and smokin off some old meats that are about to get replaced anyways, and if you motor is a dog, it makes it feel like it has alot more horse, hey that means i should have a manual........
how hard of a swap is it? from a (727 to a np435)and since i already have the front half of a doubler.......and i know were i can get a chevy 205 cheap, i wonder if i could build a new driveline motor to t-case outside the the truck, so i could do it right and take my time, hmmmmmmm the options......

hey, FULLSIZE, heard back from WMS yet?

wow that was a laggin response time (on my part). they said they could not build a custom input shaft from scratch, but if it was possible they'd respline it for $60(hell ya!) i'm still waiting to get my 435 (tomorrow), and see if i can respline both the input and output to match the coupler a 205 uses (female-female) ;)

for the adapter i'm just gonna use 1/2" plate on the mounting surfaces and .500" wall x 3" dia. DOM tube to mate the 2 plates? does that make sense?

then all i need is another 435 and a 205..................

6.68 x 6.68 x 1.96 x 4.10 = 358:1 :D

SOUNDS LIKE ITS GUNNA FAWKIN ROCK! gunna twin stick that 205?

of course.:D
i'm debating rockwells at this point for axles. i want to run 44" tsl's or boggers and rockwells seem more up to the task. that won't be for awhile due to lack of $$$$$:( cant wait to get it done though.;)

Wasn't there an S-10 thing that entered Top Truck Challenge last year that had TH350 to SM420 to NP205 or something? Does any one have a back issue or remember? From Florida I think.

Rockwells would be a good choice for what you're planning - starting to wish I'd gone that route. Those 6.72 gears with the 44" rubber overdrive suddenly look like 4.56's on stock tires - which isn't really so bad. If you go to a 54" tire those gears look like 3.73's. And for 20" tires there's a hell of a lot better selection than one might think. Besides the Michelin Military tires, check out what Continental has for those. Also I think it's cheaper to go directly to Rockwells than to buy/lock/regear a D60/70. There was a thread in General a while back about this; more specifically if it's cost effective to sell a built Dana axle setup and get into Rockwells. Big difference seems to be setting up the suspension once versus re-working it for the bigger axles. Better to think about it now than kick yourself later. ;)

what kind of suspention concerns are there when you got to rockwells? i have read a few diffrent places that rockwells are not kind to leaf springs, in that after hard wheelin they tend to break/bend them, have read that coils are the only way to fly when running them ultra-pigs known as 2.5 ton rockwells

Because the axles are large, the spring mounts are a long ways from the shaft centerline; ie. they have a longer lever to apply torque to the suspension parts with (just like built-in blocks). Because of this, combined with the facts that they have a very deep ratio and are usually fitted with reallylarge tires (isn't that the point?) they can exert tremendous force on the suspension components. Usually people don't think very carefully about what they're doing, and try something stupid like hanging those axles and huge tires SOA from stock Jeep springs (which wrap with 31" tires and stock axles). Then they whine and complain and don't understand when the Rockwells make their rig look like it had an encouter with a train.

There was a thread in General about this, but people posted so much stupid bullshit that on the whole it's not worth much.

i plan to run the same lift springs and suspension mods that i posted in the suspension combo's thread here, just with some serious traction bars front and rear (1 on each axle). ;)

the rockwell axle shafts/joints for the front dwarf the 60's. plus they were designed for military cargo haulers with big tires. i should have a hell of a time breaking those.:D

I think that a stout and well-designed link should work well with leaves like you're planning. However, I'm a little unsure that 4" lift will be enough to keep the pinion out of the oilpan. There are usually ways around most problems...

probably move the axle forward a little bit, maybe a custom pan. dry sump oiling?:D

Never did understand why we don't see more dry-sumps on the rocks. Just cost I guess. That'd solve a couple of issues at once!

BIG $$$$. i'm probably gonna run the moroso accu-sump.:D

if one were to decide and rock-well there rust pile and wished to drive there mega-pigged fat tired rust pile on the street, would the rockwells stock brakes even think about slowing you down to a half way decent speed, i see pinion brakes and such, im figuring thats the main reason, or is it more of a width/weight saver issue?

rockwell pinion brake set-ups stop well due to the mech. advantage. at 6.72 to one, now the brakes have that ratio on their side. yes, flipping the hubs in and losing the brakes does help with width and weight, mostly the width.

i'm accually re-thinking my game plan, i got that 435 and the input shaft is weenie. no way i could see it holding up to another trans in front of it. i think i'm just gonna stack 203's at this point. also the rockwells are gonna be alot of work as compared to bolting up a set of dana 60s. with my plan to only run 4" of lift the pinions will be way to close to the chassis(and oil pan).

another note, tsl's sidewalls are to girly. my friend just ripped through one without even trying(42-15-15). thats his second one and another friend tore a 39 also. i dont think i want to be sitting in the trail with a torn up 44" tsl(not to mention how much that would cost). i think i'm gonna puss out and go with the same tire i ran on the heep, 38 sx's. they still prove to be bulletproof, haven't seen a dead one yet.

:D

Originally posted by FULLSIZE
another note, tsl's sidewalls are to girly. my friend just ripped through one without even trying(42-15-15). thats his second one and another friend tore a 39 also. i dont think i want to be sitting in the trail with a torn up 44" tsl(not to mention how much that would cost). i think i'm gonna puss out and go with the same tire i ran on the heep, 38 sx's. they still prove to be bulletproof, haven't seen a dead one yet.

:D

A friend has a jeep similar to mine with 38 SX's and has ripped two sidewalls (big time rips, just throw 'em away) in one day ($400 day:rolleyes: ). I run 38 TSL's and this set has been through 4 years of hell. Off road only on the nastiest stuff we can find. All the sidewalls are worn smooth, the text is gone. One of them had a spot in the sidewall where there was a layer or two missing, and cord showing for over two years. Finally, this spring it started leaking. I had a guy repair it - he uses some vulcanizing process - you can't even find where it was repaired now. It has been fine since. Must depend on the situation. :confused:

guess so. you must be one of the lucky ones. thats the first ones i've heard about like that.:confused: