I'm in the process of trying to locate front and rear axles for My project ride (the '94) and was wondering, Did Ford change the transfer case in the f350's?? I'm looking for a '92 or newer f350 and wasn't sure if the case was any better than mine?? Thanks for the help...

If it has the BW1345, yes its a better case. Also, it is a direct swap for the 1356.
Its a heavier-duty unit, with a slightly lower Low Range (2.72 as opposed to 2.69) than the 1356. Also, it has a built-in oil pump.
:thumbup

1356 still comes in super dutys too. make sure you get a 1345 like reptillikus said.

I would have to run out to my garage and grab my manual but I BELIEVE you guys are telling him to get a Ranger/Bronk II case which is not better then a 1356

never mind a Bronk II case is a 1354...

im dis....lik..

Thanks guys, now how do I tell the difference??

i am almost positive that my 13-56 says 13-56 on the back of it

Cool thanks dude...:beer

Will it bolt right up?

blaze are you going with coils or leafs?

scrap the BW cases and get an atlas II!!

wes

thats some $$$$$ there...:brownbag

not if you steal it......

Originally posted by wes 03
blaze are you going with coils or leafs?

scrap the BW cases and get an atlas II!!

wes

Leafs!:thumbup
Like Crazed said thats pretty expensive..not sure I can justufy it...:shrug

Originally posted by Blaze
Like Crazed said thats pretty expensive..not sure I can justufy it...:shrug
steal it from someone......

Originally posted by reptillikus
If it has the BW1345, yes its a better case. Also, it is a direct swap for the 1356.
Its a heavier-duty unit, with a slightly lower Low Range (2.72 as opposed to 2.69) than the 1356. Also, it has a built-in oil pump.
:thumbup

What in the hell are you talking about?
Have you ever opened up a 1356?
If you have, then you'd know that at around 100,00 miles, a common thing to check for is wear in the groove which retains the OIL PUMP.
http://www.superford.org/getfile.php?id=79531&toggle=fullsize&filename=DCP_2248.JPG

The 1356 replaced the 1345 in Broncos,F150-350's around 1987.
A 92-97 F350 has a 1356. (And after that they went to the NP 273 I believe.)
The 1356 has a stronger magnesium case than the 1345's aluminum.
And 2.72 compared to 2.69, big deal. .03?
Let some air out of your tires, see how much reduction that gives you.

-matt

Eh, ive heard of too many 1356's eating through the case near the pump.
Yeah, that was sort of a typo in my first post, but i heard the pump in the 1345 is alot more reliable and less prone to wear than the 1356.
Also, i have never seen/heard of a bronco with a 1345, only the 250/350s. I know some places state they came with 'em, but i havent been able to find any physical proof to back that up. (IE, never actually seen/heard of a bronco with one from the factory)

Originally posted by reptillikus
Eh, ive heard of too many 1356's eating through the case near the pump.
Yeah, that was sort of a typo in my first post, but i heard the pump in the 1345 is alot more reliable and less prone to wear than the 1356.
Also, i have never seen/heard of a bronco with a 1345, only the 250/350s. I know some places state they came with 'em, but i havent been able to find any physical proof to back that up. (IE, never actually seen/heard of a bronco with one from the factory)



Yeah and the softer aluminum in a 1345 is more durable?

http://www.drivetrain.com/transfercasesparts.html#Borg-Warner%201345

Go order a oil pump kit for a 1345 and then one for a 1356.
They're both #k201900. Same for all BW cases.

BTW, here's a truck that switched from a 1345 to 1356 I found after a quick search.
http://projectresponder.com/content.asp?cid=3&pid=12

I really am not interested in argueing or debating. I don't care what you think or heard. I don't mean to offend, but if I do, oh well. It's not intended that way. It's just that you're offering an opinion as factual info, to somebody who may actually take your incorrect advice. It'd be better to just not answer if you're only speculating. BTW, like you, I haven't seen a bronco with a 1345 eighther, so maybe I should have not typed that earlier. :)
Take care.
sincerely,
-matt

Originally posted by J A F O
I don't mean to offend, but if I do, oh well. It's not intended that way. It's just that you're offering an opinion as factual info, to somebody who may actually take your incorrect advice. It'd be better to just not answer if you're only speculating. BTW, like you, I haven't seen a bronco with a 1345 eighther, so maybe I should have not typed that earlier. :)
Take care.
sincerely,
-matt [/B]


um, you are kinda offending me. must be that jarhead mentality:brownbag

:lolup You guys crack me up...It is true to be carefull posting something that your "pretty sure" about. I have many many many times not posted what I thought to be true just because I wasn't 100%, bet my mothers retirement money, sure. JAFO is right someone may make a VERY costly mistake...As for my self as long as I can weed through the posts and get the info I need, ya'll debate on...:thumbup

Hey Plug, you're running leafs, right?? What did you do about the "crumple zone"?? sorry to ask a question I can prolly find on your SFO site, I'm running dialup and it's hella slow to research SFO.

no hes running coils

Oh sorry, I'm getting old, and I got sometimers desease...:toothless

Originally posted by plug ugly
um, you are kinda offending me. must be that jarhead mentality:brownbag

:rockon

-m

Hey Plug, you're running leafs, right?? What did you do about the "crumple zone"?? sorry to ask a question I can prolly find on your SFO site, I'm running dialup and it's hella slow to research SFO. [/B][/QUOTE]

like andy said, coils. I am in the process of convverting the 0 to front coils also. i will tryand do a good write up on it when i am done. i think dave has one over on wt already

Cool, thanks Plug!:thumbup

shane, i know someones superford site covered what to do about the crumple zone when doing a leaf sas. i just cant remember who. :banghead

http://www.superford.org/registry/vehicles/detail.php?id=2989&s=11689#content
http://www.superford.org/getfile.php?id=66932&toggle=fullsize&filename=Project_X_Ft_hgr_c.JPG

thats kinda scary

I didn't wanna hurt nobodys feelings and I'm not a master welder by a long shot, but I thought it was ALOT scary!!!:eek:

Not sure about how I'll do mine yet, but you can bet...that aint it!:toothless

Wouldn't it be better to weld in the frame section from a 91 and older?

Originally posted by plug ugly
thats kinda scary

I had some thoughts about that too.
Not trying to bag on the guy, just seems like there might have been some other options. I like chris bradley's approach. Where's his write-up? I know he doesn't have the crumple zones but I don't see why it couldn't apply anyway.

-m

keith and I were talking about this at one point when i was figuring mine out. It would seem the best way to do it would be to graft on a new horn section and get rid of the crumple zone all together.

Yeah, I was just thinking that if you sleeved it, so to speak, you'd have a flat surface, make a crossmember, mount the hangers, and go with it from there...
Cutting off the front of two frames, then re-attaching one, then box it, then eighther cut it again to mount the hangers or just mount them to the bottom side, seems like going around your elbow to get to your ass. It's a lot of work before you even get started.
But seeing as you were talking to Keith about this,... well I guess it makes a little more sense now. :goodfinge

JK

-matt

well said. My only consideration would be not wanting the 'bendability' of the crumple zone involved in any support roles. if you sleeved it far enogh back, it would prolly help a lot, but then you would be putting a lot of force where the steering box is and potentially runinto frame strength issues. I am kinda a worry wart about stuff like that, I much prefer to overbuild then run a risk of being stuck with irreparable damage

Originally posted by reptillikus
Also, i have never seen/heard of a bronco with a 1345, only the 250/350s. I know some places state they came with 'em, but i havent been able to find any physical proof to back that up. (IE, never actually seen/heard of a bronco with one from the factory)

Ol' buddy of mine in Denver had an '86 Bronco with the 1345.

I'm not aware of anything to support any claims that the 1345 is superior in any way to the 1356. If anything I'd go with the 1356 'cause they're way more common and were used for a much longer period of time/model years.

Just read through this post. I was under the impression that a 1356 was heavier duty than a 1345. I also am 99% sure my 1986 has a 1345, I know it is stock. Just wondering any one else has a comment?:confused:

Originally posted by J A F O
[BI haven't seen a bronco with a 1345 eighther, so maybe I should have not typed that earlier. :)
Take care.
sincerely,
-matt [/B]

I have a 1345 in my 86, it has 240,000 some miles on it.
And who cares about the alum vs mag? it has a skid plate right?

Originally posted by J A F O
I really am not interested in argueing or debating. I don't care what you think or heard. I don't mean to offend, but if I do, oh well. It's not intended that way. It's just that you're offering an opinion as factual info, to somebody who may actually take your incorrect advice. It'd be better to just not answer if you're only speculating.
-matt

Hey now, all 2400+ posts from me are a half asses guess at best :toothless
Who trusts the internet 100% anyway :confused:
And I have a warning under everyone of my posts :brownbag

Originally posted by Fireguy50
Hey now, all 2400+ posts from me are a half asses guess at best :toothless
Who trusts the internet 100% anyway :confused:
And I have a warning under everyone of my posts :brownbag

yeah but they're all coming from a guy who at least has something to base his comments on... I don't know if you're full of shit or not. You seem genuine and I go on (first) impressions. You bring a lot to the table (so to speak) and in that, meds and all, I value yer opinion.

BUT, going back to the original arguement, there aint no good reason to entertain the thought of swapping out a 1356 for a 1345. AT ALL. That first input was retarded.

bring it.


-matt

Originally posted by Fireguy50

And who cares about the alum vs mag? it has a skid plate right?

not a very good one:goodfinge

Yeah and the softer aluminum in a 1345 is more durable?
Not that aluminum is hard or is durable without a skid plat, but it actually is harder than magnesium, magnesium is lighter and that is probably why they used it. Just look at the Atlas II even it is made out of aluminum, although much thicker than a 1345's.

Originally posted by Zach94
Not that aluminum is hard or is durable without a skid plat, but it actually is harder than magnesium, magnesium is lighter and that is probably why they used it. Just look at the Atlas II even it is made out of aluminum, although much thicker than a 1345's.

:rolleyes:

Since we can probably agree that weight is the deciding issue when mounting a married t-case with no crossmember, pound for pound, magnesium is both stiffer and stronger than aluminum and it's a better choice for making a housing out of (out of the two).

I'm not bagging on 1345's and I'm not praising 1356's. The ORIGINAL question had to do with swapping out a 1356 for a 1345, which would be parrallel (IMO) to swapping out a coil sprung TTB for a leaf sprung TTB. Why in the hell would you bother?

Oh yeah, this is from http://www.norandamagnesium.com/overview/advant.htm

The first set of numbers is Material Thickness.
The second is Bending Strength.
The third is Stiffness.
The fourth is Weight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6061-T6 aluminum sheet and extrusions 290 817 841 100

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AZ31B magnesium extrusions 444 930 1962 100

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ZK60A-T5 magnesium extrusions 444 1753 1962 100

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AZ31B-H24 magnesium sheet 444 1451 1962 100

I didn't say stronger, I said "softer" ie. hit it on a rock and it will deform more/easier. Someone had said that magnesium was "harder" than aluminum.

Just curius, how much thicker are the walls of a 1356 vs. a 1345.:shrug

Originally posted by Zach94
I didn't say stronger, I said "softer" ie. hit it on a rock and it will deform more/easier. Someone had said that magnesium was "harder" than aluminum.

Just curius, how much thicker are the walls of a 1356 vs. a 1345.:shrug

http://www.norandamagnesium.com/overview/high.htm

Did you look at the link I posted?
It will not deform more/easier.
Pound for pound it IS harder.
And I don't know the different case wall thicknesses.

OK, that makes sense. Then numbers you posted were different than hardness (strength), but I didn't look at the link.:banghead

Is a 208 or a 205 totally out of the question?