Search. There are lists on the Internet with them listed per the manufacturer's torque ratings. Though I would say that I believe the early cases, like the NP205, are rated a bit conservatively compared to modern cases.

 

Torque ratings is one factor. Real world experince is another. I believe a Ford 8.8 has a higher torque rating than a Dana 44, but I do not consider a 8.8 to be "stronger" than a D44 overall. I would assume the same could be true for T-cases.

Also, like you said, they could rate them conservative. (Or overrate) I have a friend that loves to show his pics of his 205 split in half. Lol. (I'm sure he was beating on it bad)

 

Samurai/Track/Kick
NP231
D20
D300
NP241
NP205
Atlas.

There. There is my list. 241 not much further ahead of the D300 only because the weak factory outputs. Based of the case itself I would say 300 is stronger.

 

swap spots between 241/300 and atlas/205 and i would agree

 

NP271 probably is about as strong or stronger than NP205, but NP205 certainly can take abuse, likely because of all gears and cast iron housing, however.

Dodge Ram Transfer Case Specifications

 

NP271 probably is about as strong or stronger than NP205, but NP205 certainly can take abuse, likely because of all gears and cast iron housing, however.

The list I posted was with cases I’ve had experience with.

I feel any iron gear driven box beats it’s chain driven cast ally counterpart.

Now weight does become an issue to consider as well. Building a light buggy with day Toy axles and a Jeep drivetrain, (just to piss off the Yota guys :laughing I would opt for the 231 over the 300.

One ton Jeep where weight isn’t such a factor the 300 is the obvious choice. And the 205 is an even better option, with the trade off of being a little bigger.

 

I run 650hp through a np205. I don't rebuilt it, I think it has a little oil in its water lubrication system.


If I had an atlas race case it would be rebuilt yearly or more often.

If I had a penny for every atlas I have seen take someone out of commission I'd need a wheel borrow. If I had a penny for every np205 that ended someones day I would have no penny's.

I'd run an atlas if I thought it made sense. At this point I don't think it does.

 

I broke the output on my 205 bouncing around on backdoor back in 2011. Changed to an Atlas 3.8 and it is holding strong in my rock buggy today.

But anecdotal crap aside, the 205 is slightly stronger than an Atlas II; but, the Atlas gives fantastic gearing options, mounting options, yoke options, output options, clocking options, etc. And it shaves 50# of weight off the buggy. So IMO, it is a better case even if it does give up a little robustness to the 205.

I went through a couple of 231s on my TJs, which seemed to break relatively easy.

I think anything can be broken.

 

i chose to run a NV271 in my rig over the 203/205 that i also had to chose from. the 271 is a big heavy bitch for sure as about the same length as the doubler but like the 2.73-1 low over the 1.98 of the 205. mine is out of a first gen superduty so 31 spline outputs and stock with flange yokes ect. have been beating on it behind my BBF and other then not having front dig im very happy with it over the 205.

 

and other then not having front dig im very happy with it over the 205.

are they 2wd-4wd and H-N-L shifted like a Toyota case then?

 

Where do the Atlas and Hero cases fall into the mix?

 

No love for the Toyota case/s? :flipoff2:

I would think they would fall right below the D300, but I don't know much about the D20. The out puts are the weak point on a stock case, but there are upgrades available.

I'm not one of those guys who thinks they are the end all of tcases, but they definitely have some advantages and are a great tcase for certain applications.

I'd be interested to see more on the 271, I'm sure some would argue it's stronger than the 205, but you just don't see them in many rigs getting beat on so it's hard to say.

 

I think if you are talking about how much hp and tq it would take to break an internal part the 271 would be right with a 205. I think the big problem comes in with the 271 case itself being aluminum. Shock loads of power in high traction or a direct bang from a rock and the aluminum is going to be its downfall, not to say you cant crack a 205 by hitting it off a rock or anything but if your talking about exact same amounts of force the cast iron is going to win everytime. I would love to see what a cast iron or billet steel cased 271 would handle and weigh compared to the cast iron\gear driven 205.

 

If you're hitting rocks with your transfer case you're doing something very wrong.

The gear driven cases are going to be in tension when you shock load them (the gears want to spread out). The aluminum chain cases are going to be in compression (the chain wants to pull the front output closer to the rear output). The case design on every "good" modern transfer case is an aluminum lattice which should be pretty hard to compress or flex with force in that direction. It's hard to make a direct comparison. I think the weak link is probably going to be the chain every time.

With their larger rotating assemblies and output shafts, not to mention the availability of good computer simulations available to the engineers designing the case, the rear output portion of modern 1-ton transfer case is going to beat the 205 every time when it comes to dealing with shock loads.

That said, the 205 is stupidly compact for how strong it is.

Yeah. They are fucking huge.

So packing one into a crawler that is already limited on space is moot. Is it stronger, yes. Is it a viable option for what we’d use it for? No, not really.

The NVG271 is massive because it uses huge diameter sprockets in order to make the chain withstand some idiot doing clutch dumps with all the rotating mass of a 7.3.

Ford used the BW 4407 transfer case in F250 and the F350 the mid 90s. The 4407 is a much thicker case length wise and not much wider than a BW1356. It solves the "idiots doing clutch dumps" problem with a wider chain.

 

Guy's been running a np241 with a SYE in his "toyota" for awhile now I dont know if hes swapped it out yet but it did work good for him. His build thread is on here somewhere.
https://youtu.be/pWIdd1ZCVNw?t=40

 

so, just waiting to the "the np205 is crap, the only reason it's used and supported is because it's cheap and gm couldnt come up with anything better for years"

 

so, just waiting to the "the np205 is crap, the only reason it's used and supported is because it's cheap and Chrysler couldnt come up with anything better for years"

FIFY. New Process Gear was a division of the Chrysler Corporation from 1934 through 1990.

 

Having been through a fully built Dana 300 a few times, 32 spline outputs, jb conversions 4:1 gears, and a STAK Replace a Case is pretty stout. Dare I say stronger than an atlas basing bottom line strength on the size of the jb conversion gear set.

But an atlas is always a better choice between the two. That’s why I chose a black box and ford np205 instead


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

this is really the best of all worlds IMO, an integrated planetary box (titan, behemoth shorty, ect) with no coupler and an intermediate shaft and a 205 of whatever drop you need. no real weak point, short, and better gear choices
4

 

Slight derail... I am currently running an ORD 203/205 doubler with a divorced 203 behind a 2wd C6. I needed this to get the front drive line away from the transmission. I would like to find a reduction box with a lower ratio, but needs to be able to accommodate an input yoke. As of yet I haven't found an option. Any of you guys know of anything?

 

I know how Behemoth is viewed around here but it looks like they make an adapter that should convert most 6 bolt range boxes to a divorced set up. I think they also sell some of there range boxes with a divorced mount option.

https://www.facebook.com/BehemothDT...csu8rk0dVxt2ws9r345F2YafWjOFYB5N-dkm2z-k_CWT60PaW7ZxHHjHHGVWnNK-kxHNA&__tn__=-R

 

What if someone made a killer aluminum housing design with a 271 style chain drive internals? Atlas? TWF? I bet the front output bearing housings could be built eccentric to allow chain tightening.

 

I mean why?

 

I’ll second BW providing stout chain cases. I have my factory H3 4:1 t case which is made by BW and the planetary itself is bigger then a 241.

While I can’t confirm with my own 2 eyes Watson at ORD told me the 241 all the way through to the 271 run the same exact planetary. It’s the other components that become bigger... case, chains, sprockets, etc.

It would be nice to see a chain slacker mechanism that can tension chain slack in the middle of the chain. Either way I don’t think you can go wrong with a 205 or 271.

FWIW, I think Atlas is overhyped on strength :flipoff2:

stock D300
231, Toyota case
241, BW1356
Atlas
205,271, hero case
SCS
I am only judging on cases I have had experience with...i haven’t dealt with D18,D20 etc.

 

Another nod to the 205/20/atlas/hero that all of the 2xx and Toy T-cases don't have, is the ability of the twin stick. And the fake twin stick toy cases don't count. I'm taking about H-N-L for the front and H-N-L for the rear........ As far as off road I know I use it all the time on my Magnum205.....

 

I agree. Probably the biggest reason the 2XX cases aren't used more. Honestly I would settle for the toy fake twin stick shifting if I could. I really hate the way the NP cases shift.

Any thoughts on how a rover case (LT230?) fits into that list?

Kevin

 

I also allows you to have 2WD low range even if the hubs are locked up front.

 

It's a big advantage for a crawler in tight quarters or when you just need the front to shift over a bit. It's called a front dig and can be used to reposition the front by spinning the front wheels while the rear stays stationary.

 

8 year member on world's largest rock crawling site, doesn't know even the most basic rock crawling fundamentals :homer:







:flipoff2:

 

8 year member on world's largest rock crawling site, doesn't know even the most basic rock crawling fundamentals :

I would not say that is "most basic rock crawling fundamentals". I would say that is an advanced rock crawling feature right along with cutting brakes and rear steer. Many (probably most) people rock crawl without any of those features. (Because they don't have them)

Anyways, I said I was ignorant of driving with the front in high range and the rear in low range. Not, front dig.

 

do they even have any rocks in florida? :laughing:

 

They import them.

 

Front digs are very common on the west coast. If you aren’t with Toyota guys you see them all the damn time.

 

People use front digs anywhere. It’s a great test of front driveline strength. I’m not sure I would be thrashing a front dig on anything less than a 60 ring gear and 205/atlas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

People use front digs anywhere. It’s a great test of front driveline strength. I’m not sure I would be thrashing a front dig on anything less than a 60 ring gear and 205/atlas

I have seen many done with Dana 44’s and 37’s. Chromoly axles are a must. I have a friend who did them in an ifs Chevy with 37’s (ifs always broke)

People do them with 300’s/205’s/atlas/etc. if it’s possible, people will do it.

 

I wasn't trying to start a big debate, just giving the guy from floriduh a hard time. :flipoff2:

 

Front dig is fundamental.

Anyone disagreeing has their head in the sand.

 

Well actually I've done front digs a few times. Got stuck in muddy snow in Canada one time and had to get out and dig up front so I could lay some logs in front of the tires. I always carry a shovel for those occasions. So there!

 

Front digs are a pain in the ass:flipoff2:




Because after you have a transfercase with them you won't ever want a transfercase that doesn't have em.

And you'll do what ever it takes to get em....No matter what it cost.