Page 1 of 1
Transfer case
Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 9:25 pm
by altohorn2
Does this transfer case belong to a CCKW? It was on my WC18.
Re: Transfer case
Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 10:31 pm
by Motto
It looks very much like a Timken but not the one that was used in the CCKW. This appears to be narrower in the case and will probably be direct drive in high range. This means that if selected to high, all drive yokes or flanges will rotate at the exact same speed. (Front axle drive engaged). The CCKW t/fer case has a reduction even in high range so the output flange or yokes will gradually lag behind the input rotation. The input yoke is the lower left hand coupling in the photo adjacent the hi/lo range shifter shaft.
If it is straight through in high, the only vehicle that I can think of that it may have been intended for is the Canadian Military Pattern C60X, 6x6 3 ton truck.
This t/fer case, if it is straight through as I suspect, could be installed in A CCKW to increase road speed. Some alterations to the truck would be necessary.
By the way, the unit is upside down in the photo.
David
Re: Transfer case
Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 7:25 am
by dr deuce
If t is not as deep, front to back then it might be from an AFKX early shopvan/bus bodied HMV. They had direct drive in high range. The CCKW and chevy have that difference too.
As an aside, I wish that the CCKW had had direct drive on 5th in the tranny and direct drive (1:1) in the transfercase. The transmission could be ordered either way. If you multiply the tranny ratio by the xfer ratio, it comes out 1 to 1. There are a lot of parts turning under load that don't need to be when driving in 5th
Re: Transfer case
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:29 am
by Motto
It has always had me puzzled why the CCKW was fitted out with an overdrive gearbox and an under drive transfer case that cancel each other out. It just seems so stupid to have all those extra gears and bearings for no gain. What makes it even worse is the fact that the fifth gear area is the weakest most trouble prone part of the transmission. We are led to believe that production efficiency and cost savings were paramount. What were they thinking? Imagine the savings that would have resulted from 1:1 units as well as being a more robust drive line.
David