Got a reply from Tom Woods. Has some nice insight in their too about theirs compared to a RE SYE.
The reason I do not manufacture a HD conversion for the 242 transfer case seems to be the same reason others such as JB Conversion and Advance Adapters do not, that is a simple matter of economics. Even after the considerable expense of product design and development there would be the production costs. As it is now for the 231 transfer cases, each of the components are ordered in minimum quantities of 500 and usually even higher quantities. Based on current sales history of our conversion, if I were to have 500 of these made, I would expect that I would have a 5 year inventory.
And of course I would also expect the costs for these kits to be substantially more than what we get the 231 HD conversion kit for. It is unknown what the market would bear for pricing. My thought is that the general market would not be willing to pay enough to make this option viable. Especially so given my observation of the number of people who will spend all day on the internet and oftentimes purchasing what I would believe to be an inferior product, because they can "save" 20 bucks.
I would like to take the time to address a couple of other issues or questions or statements I read on the
forum;
I readily acknowledge that we have had some problems in the past with our conversion kit, mostly with leaking seals. If you are a regular reader of this forum or others you may also be aware of these problems. Like almost any other product on the market, our conversion for the 242 has been evolutionary in nature. That is to say that we really didn't get it perfect the first time out. Although we did not intentionally send out anything that we knew would have problems, periodic problems have shown their ugly heads. I strive for excellence and when these problems seemed to more frequently than a reasonable person would expect, I looked for ways to improve. Our first conversions used a modified tail cone and one seal. Occasionally they leaked, We changed to tandem seals. Occasionally the outer seal would come loose from the bore and leak. I think part of this problem was it being too dry and the subsequent overheating. We then started having a new bearing and seal retainer made which is a bit thicker. I believe this allows for a better heat sink and also less expansion of the housing with the result of better seal retention. Although I cannot say that we have achieved 100% success with this design it is very near. The seal retention on the '96 and newer applications have gone through a similar evolutionary process and we believe we have finally got the "bugs worked out" with this conversion too.
Since there seems to be a little confusion about the method we use in our conversion, I will also take this opportunity to point out a couple of differences between our conversion and what many refer to as the "hack and tap" kit.
With the other "hack and tap" kit, after the shaft has been shortened, you will still have a substantial area of unsupported shaft beyond the rear output bearing. The result of this is known as "overhung load." The drive shaft which would install against the modified shaft will weigh about 15 pounds while the factory original drive shaft weighs about 9 pounds. This in itself will nearly double the overhung load. We must also consider that under a load, the drive shaft will have a tendency to want to straighten out. This will also increase the overhung load.
You should also understand that in order for the new output flange to install on the output shaft, there must be some minor internal clearance between the splined bore of the flange and the splines on the shaft. Because of this clearance, you will then have the potential for minor independent movement between the flange and the shaft. This independent movement, over time (sometimes a very short time) will wear down the splines on the output shaft and enlarge the splines in the bore of the flange. When this happens, it will, because of the looseness between the parts, allow the flange to run eccentric. This will cause a vibration problem with the vehicle. Most people, upon discovering this problem, will re-tighten the retaining bolt. Unless the output shaft has been cut off perfectly square, this will cause the face of the flange to be less than perfectly perpendicular to the centerline of the output shaft. This will usually cause even a more severe vibration problem.
With our conversion kit, there will be a more substantial shortening of the output shaft, reducing the overhung load. Furthermore, the rear output flange or yoke is solidly "sandwiched" between the retaining nut or washer and the rear output bearing. This secure attachment will prevent the wearing of the splines on the mating parts. Thus, preventing the problem as outlined above.
In essence, I believe that with our conversion you will have good results and if you want a larger out-put shaft the only option at this point would be to convert to a different transfer case.
Please include this text in any reply.
Tom Wood
Tom Wood's Custom Drive Shafts Inc.
Toll Free US 1-877-497-4238
Worldwide 801-737-0757
Art & Text Copyright, Tom Wood's Custom Drive Shafts Inc.
WWW.4XSHAFT.COM
I have not bought any SYE yet as still hoping something will turn up that I want but no luck yet. Might just have to get a RE one until Currie make a HD version for us all? Going to try this week to see if a later model housing can be used on a early T/C and then at least just buy a flange until something better turns up and not have the seal worries.
