Twin Stick Transfer case

I know exactly what forces are applied to the shafts.

It would actually be easiest to replace the stationary shaft than to modify it. In any case, EXTREME care with an abrasive disk would cut into the shafts. Hardened steel does not stand up to high speed abrasives. Since the only cutting I actually propose is adding notches for circlips and notches for ball-and-spring retainers, extreme care with a dremel and/or die grinder would suffice.

Having the shaft move does not eliminate it as a point of support. It will still support both forks. In fact, the modification I propose could actually increase the stability of the forks on the shafts. The FJ case has each fork affixed to a single shaft without the benefit of a second shaft for stability. I am proposing to affix each fork to a single shaft while sliding on the second shaft, if bolted, this would certainly increase the stability.

No, because the two forks will be affixed only to opposite shafts, sliding on the other. For example, you could take the 2/4 fork and affix it to the existing sliding shaft, have that fork slide on the current stationary shaft. Take the H/L fork and affix it to the custom was-fixed-now-sliding shaft and slide it on the existing sliding shaft. Move one shaft, you move one fork. Move the other shaft, you move the other fork.

Does not apply, you obviously misunderstood how the system would operate. FJ uses two moving shafts with one fork affixed to each. I propose doing the exact same thing, but with a dummy hole in each fork to allow the other shaft to slide through with the secondary benefit being added stability to the fork. You would only move each of the two shafts within the range of motion required to operate its own fork. I understand that one of the downsides of the Tacoma case is that a worn fork may bind against a shaft. This problem would be eliminated by firmly affixing each fork to its own shaft. In theory, you could even expand the hole for the shaft to which it is NOT affixed in order to guarantee zero binding against it. I would not want to do this however, since the second shaft does add stability.

That is absurd. The forces required wouldn't be any different than an FJ case.

This picture you provided actually contradicts your claim. Notice the clip on the fixed shaft between the two shift forks? Neither fork is able to move beyond that point EVER. The two forks can never interfere with each other.

2H is with the 2/4 fork against that clip, the H/L fork away from it.
4H is with both forks away from that shaft (as pictured).
4L is with the 2/4 shaft away from the clip and the H/L fork against it.
**2L would be achieved with both forks positioned against that clip on the fixed shaft.

Take an aluminum block, drill it to match the two shafts on the outside of the case, and bolt it on in place of the existing actuator, drill/tap two holes perpendicular to the shafts in that block, drop in ball and spring, bolt. Shafts will need to be notched appropriately to line up with that block. A gasket between this block and the case, and o-rings appropriately, would seal the case.

Everything is possible.
If you want me to prove you wrong, send me a tacoma case to modify.

 

I have one for sale. You buy it - you mod it. If your successful Ill pay you your money back.

 

after all that work, it would just be easier using a fj case and modding that.

especially since the fj case is proven and anyone can do the twin stick mod. after gettin the sticks and spring from wyatt, i did the rest of it myself. easy as fuck and i didnt even have any issues with those keys

 

Really. Coulda swore you had help

 

yeah, some monkey helped me. you would think he would do his own setup in the next century

 

Here are a thousand crude words to (hopefully) make this more clear.

 

my tacoma t-case is for sale - words are cheap - prove us wrong! Wyatt put his time in and his idea works in reality not just theory.

http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/2nd-gen-tacoma-marketplace/237668-2005-transfer-case.html

 

#boom

 

Reality = correct theory + execution.
If you are sufficiently interested in this modification, you can supply the case at your own expense. I am absolutely not paying anything for <sarcasm>the honor to prove something to the internet</sarcasm>.

This is something I look at as ***fun***, certainly not something worth spending any kind of money on. I would personally NOT buy an FJ case, since it doesn't solve any problem that I can't deal with using a $0.50 switch to bypass the ADD. Not to say that it wouldn't be a good modification for somebody, it simply interests me only as far as the work itself goes.

Edit: If its so important to you to prove to the internet that my proposition is invalid, then I don't see why you should be worried about supplying the case at your own expense. Its obviously worth something to you to prove me wrong. I personally, couldn't care less WHAT you think, I'm having a discussion with Wyatt, not you.

 

so then you can stop with the theory now. until its done, it cant be done. Wyatt took his theory, applied it and its reality. He didn't pour over the forums with the gospel of his theories, he just did it and posted his results and it works.

I wouldn't pay you to F up my t-case but by all means if you want to have fun, its for sale... and as I said I will give you 100% of your money back if you do it. Its a no loss situation for you. you get to have fun, spend no money and prove the interwebs wrong!

 

sounds like a good deal, no?

 

Wow, OK, I think we are clear on your line of thinking.
Everything that hasn't been done must be impossible. No point in investing in R&D, because everything you're trying to accomplish, no matter what it is, must be impossible.

Good thing that most people are more open minded than you are, and thanks to them, we have horseless buggies, space ships, and the internet.

 

like i said - im buying only ONCE you do it. Im an investor of sorts - think of it that way.. buy my case and ill pay you back once the job is complete. i want to see this done, my mind is open question is are you going to step up and be the next horseless buggy inventor ;-)

 

If you don't engage the front ADD, then even if the transfer case is selected to 4wd, it will not deliver any power to the front wheels. It is effectively 2-L.

The trick is simply to tell the 4wd ECU that the ADD is engaged, when in fact, it is not. There's a write up about this modification you should be able to find with the search button.

 

No, like *I* said, if its so important to you to prove to the internet that I'm wrong, it will have to be at your own expense. If you were actually an investor, you'd have no problem making an INVESTMENT.

 

i just don't invest in junk especially when there is an easier and more cost effective way to do it. remember you are the one fighting your cause on this. if you dont want to prove it, stop trying to prove the internet wrong....

 

Hate to break it to you, but investment involves RISK. In this case, the risk is practically zero, but the risk exists nevertheless.

 

exactly risk vs reward. i'm not going to invest in junk no matter what the risk is.

like you said your risk is ZERO - once you do it, its paid for... again, no one here would front money or their diff to you since an FJ case works, does whats its advertised to do at a fraction of the risk and cost associated with your theory....