|12-02-2016 01:49 PM|
IMO, you should be able to safely run a smaller yoke/ujoint for the jackshaft. Its not being subjected to tcase reduction or same the angulation, abuse, etc as the other shafts.
I'd rather have more distance between the units to have say 5-10 degrees working angle on the joints. Then get the ground clearance back clocking the tcase flat.
|12-02-2016 10:49 AM|
I was more thinking two 1410 flange mount yokes welded together rather than the tube yokes....thus my concern. The tube yokes may not be as bad of a deal with a sliver of tube to align them, but it won't be as short as what a Double Cardan center will be. Either or, I guess...whatever's laying around.[/QUOTE]
I think with some flap wheel craftiness and creativity to ensure alignment you could get the length of two drive shaft yokes to be less than that of a Double Cardan. Heck, you could even use an aluminum one because racetruck
You could always use a short piece of tube or round stock with the same OD as the pinion flange pilot to align two flange yokes but it would be quicker and easier to just cut down a drive shaft and I think two flange yokes would be the same size as a DC, however, for people wanting more than 1410 creativity is probably the only option.
|12-02-2016 10:01 AM|
|12-02-2016 09:36 AM|
I didn't think of the output shaft (drive shaft) geometry thing.
Of course if you've got the space or are willing to BFH the floor you could just put a spacer under the trans mount, gain ground clearance and get both pinions, the tcase and the transfer case to be parallel (or really darn close).
How does the DC yoke being short affect vibration potential? All I can think of is that compared to a drive shaft it's got a whole lot less mass to accelerate/decelerate over the course of a rotation therefore making less vibration even though the shaft is still slowing down and speeding up so for a given amount of vibration it can be a whole lot more out of phase than a drive shaft. Hoverer, if it's out of phase won't it slow down and speed up everything down stream of it?
I don't see the problem with welded flanges. They're welded into tube to build a drive shaft. Welding them to each other just skips the middle man.
|12-02-2016 09:03 AM|
Thank you for that picture, that is great! Looks to be about 6" shorter than my current jackshaft.
I am also seeing if I can swap the mainshaft and tailhousing to a chev unit (6") vs my current dodge 13" unit.
Need to get the engine and trans in and mocked up to see how it will all sit.
Currently I think my NP205 is cocked upwards at 6 degrees... Need to recheck but ti was pretty up there with my ZF5 infront of it.
No vibrations though
|12-02-2016 06:38 AM|
Like arse_sidewards mentioned, it's not really CV/Double Cardan anymore because the centering ball will be removed.
I agree the trans output and t-case input should be parallel in a ideal situation, but given the short action of the Cardan center and the nature of the setup, I would probably slightly clock the t-case so that the outputs are parallel with the ground thus alleviating some of the upward angle induced in the front driveline from tilted powertrain...if that makes sense.
And while I've seen welded flanges before on some "mega truck" builds, I would much rather run the Cardan center for piece of mind. I don't really trust the welded flanges from a sense of metallurgy and balance...but that's just me.
|11-29-2016 02:27 PM|
In a perfect world the transmission output and transfer case input would be parallel with enough offset (vertical, horizontal or some combination of the two) to get about 10deg of joint movement. The point is that there's enough angle so that the needles in the caps roll around more than a rotation and aren't just rocking back and forth in the same spot.
In the real world you won't get them parallel but you want them damn close for the same reasons you want the joints at each end of a drive shaft to be rotating in parallel planes.
Read the driveshaft bible.
|11-29-2016 10:46 AM|
^ that sounds like the perfect solution to waht i need!
run the slip yoke out 3/4" out from max compressed length in its working range, so i can still detatch the jackshaft from the tcase and slide it in to remove it.
I only have a 1350 input on the NP205 but im sure getting a 1410 is no problem. The NV looks like a 1410
What kind of trans to tcase angle do I need? or do I not care too much since its double cardon?
|11-28-2016 01:06 PM|
|93_Fummins||I've seen multiple mud truck setups using Profab or SCS drop boxes utilize the slip yoke on the trans, then a double cardan center, mated to the fixed t-case yoke, thus giving you a super short package using two u-joints to compensate for movement in almost all degrees. That setup seems to handle big dumb mud truck nonsense pretty well. I'd look for a Super Duty 1410 CV if you can source it, unless your input and slip yoke on the NV are 1350...|
|11-28-2016 11:50 AM|
An intermediate shaft is no different than a short, super low travel drive-shaft. You're asking us if you could run a drive shaft with one U joint
|11-28-2016 10:46 AM|
|XJ_ranger||I don't know much about divorced transfer case mounting and shafting, but I'd make a phone call to Jess at High Angle Driveline. He's full of knowledge and could provide you an experienced opinion from a professional. He also can sell you the parts to make it happen.|
|11-28-2016 08:00 AM|
ditch jackshaft, go slip to fixed yoke?
Current running a fixed output yoke ZF5 with an intermetiate shaft connecting to the fixed input divorced NP205.
Will be swapping a cummins with 2wd NV4500 in place of the IDI which is 10" longer. Id like to keep my NP205 where it is to avoid making new driveshafts.
Can i ditch my 12" jackshaft and use a slip output yoke off the NV to go directly to the fixed input yoke of the NP205?
Figure when the Tcase flexes back and forth that movement would be taken up by the slip yoke of the NV4500...?