BW1354/1354 Doubler

[holyford86]

The junk I walked past in JY's in years past...

I vividly remember the manual 1354 laying beside the truck I harvested my bucket seat brackets from. I didn't try it but the thing was very clean, almost looked brand new. "That is a shame, I have a V8 swap now. It is of no use to me"

Now I have a '91 with an electric t-case...

Same here, now if I see things I may need in the future I just buy them if I can afford them, because I'll need it or someone else will. When the shifter boots alone can sell for almost what I paid for a whole truck it makes it a hard deal to pass up sometimes.

I had a whole bunch of manual 1350's at one point because a significant majority of 1st gen trucks came with them. I used most of them up on project trucks that came to me with manual 1354's... keep the good parts and send the truck down the road with a perfectly functional but not quite right 1350. Kind of like FM146 swapping Explorers that had bad M5OD's... These days it's hard to find any 1st gen to part out, let alone a 4x4 one with a manual t-case.

The Behemoth deal is really great because you don't need to hack up a good manual t-case and you can use planetaries from an electric shift one. If a guy has a handful of manual 1354's, pretty easy decision to sell a couple and fund the entire Behemoth setup.

I've still got a couple 1350s, including an oddball fixed front yoke case which will end up in a b2 project someday if I ever get around to it.

I've also got a pile of 1354 electric cases, because other than the shifter assembly and front case half, everything is identical. The behemoth deal is attractive to me because of both the fact it uses parts that are still relatively easy to get, doesn't take up a ton of space and uses the oiling system already present in the case are all attractive things to me

I had a home made 1350 doubler that I bought used off of marketplace, then went through it and repaired the shortcomings and issues it had, chewed on it a while then decided to sell it to a member here because of the space it took up and such, I wonder if it's still alive, haha.

 

[holyford86]

Exactly.
I quit buying them from our local pull a part when the prices became insane. $200 for an unknown unit, I have to pull it, then they want $75 for a core and another $25+ in silly fees. I'd rather buy a $500 parts truck.

I'm good friends with the owner of my local junkyard, that being said, I can only buy what he has, and I bought the last 1354m he had over a decade ago. He'd want 200 for a unit I've gotta pull myself, if he had one. An entire 1996 with 112k on it popped up for 300 on marketplace, now I've got the transfer case I need, the shifter, boots, an entire front axle assembly for parts and a couple other odds and ends before it goes to scrap. The math doesn't math on junkyard stuff anymore...

 

[Shran]

Paying a junkyard a core charge is just complete utter nonsense, they just want more scrap to come in and pad their wallet. If you have no core then that's just free money for them. I have had them waive it a couple times because I said "I don't have a core, I'm using this for a transmission swap" which was the truth. Fortunately most of the yards don't play that stupid game.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

Most yards around here have a core charge on things like engines, transmission and such. It’s annoying, but a lot of them will tell you that it just has to be the right category. Like I traded a junk 7.5” minus axle shafts rear as a core for an F-150 8.8” complete. They were just worried about losing some scrap weight, not getting an actual rebuildable core. I’ve turned engine cores in minus the heads and everything attached. They would have preferred getting the heads too, but whatever. I said I didn’t have the heads.

 

[PlumCrazy]

Most yards around here have a core charge on things like engines, transmission and such. It’s annoying, but a lot of them will tell you that it just has to be the right category. Like I traded a junk 7.5” minus axle shafts rear as a core for an F-150 8.8” complete. They were just worried about losing some scrap weight, not getting an actual rebuildable core. I’ve turned engine cores in minus the heads and everything attached. They would have preferred getting the heads too, but whatever. I said I didn’t have the heads.

It's dumb. Just build that "weight" into the price....which IMO it's already built in. Lol

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

It's dumb. Just build that "weight" into the price....which IMO it's already built in. Lol

I don’t disagree

 

[Jim Oaks]

While looking through the info we have and looking for anything that can be updated, I found that an issue people have ran into is not having enough room between the transfer case and the fuel tank (gas tank) when you add an additional 6-7 inches with a Doubler in front of the transfer case. I began digging into that to clarify if the tank is always in the way, and if there is more room between the transfer case and fuel tank on a regular cab vs SuperCab Ranger. Does the tank sit farther back on a SuperCab (extended cab) than a regular cab, and are all the tanks the same length?

I've read that there's only 4-inches between the transfer case and the fuel tank. That person has a standard cab truck, so I crawled under my SuperCab and took a look.

It looks like there is 4" to 4.5" of space between the fuel tank and my electric shift transfer case, but without the shift motor (manual case), it looks like there would be about 7-inches of space between the transfer case and fuel tank. So, a doubler may squeeze in there if the rear case is a manual case and not an electronic shift case.

A shorter fuel tank would give me more room. I know several people have swapped to a Bronco II tank, but is that really necessary? What if you don't want to give up your spare tire location?

I had trouble finding any information listing actual dimensions of showing any size comparisons between Ford Ranger fuel tanks.

The owner's manual for 2000 Ford Ranger lists (3) fuel tank capacities:

Regular cab (Short wheelbase) 62.4L (16.5gallons)
Regular cab (Long wheelbase) 75.7L (20.0gallons)
SuperCab 73.8L (19.5gallons)

I found an eBay seller (77radrich_newoldstock4sale) that had a small variety of Ford Ranger fuel tanks listed and actually had the lengths listed for each one.

I'm pretty sure what you're looking at in that photo is a 16.5-gallon (AKA 17-gallon) fuel tank (top) and a 19.5-gallon (usually just called a 20-gallon) fuel tank (bottom).

From what I could see, if you had a SuperCab and replaced the 19.5-gallon 58-inch tank with a 47-inch 16.5-inch tank, it should give you plenty of space for a doubler at the cost of 3-gallons of gas.

I posted more about fuel tanks here:

INFO Thread 'Fuel Tank Dimensions'

Yesterday at 5:01 PM

As mentioned in the thread below:


I have been looking at the old BW1350/1354 Doubler pages to update them and searching to see if there's anything new, I can add to them.

An issue that people have run into is not having enough room between the transfer case and the fuel tank (gas tank) when you add an additional 6-7 inches with a Doubler in front of the transfer case. I began digging into that to clarify if the tank is always in the way, and if there is more room between the transfer case and fuel tank on...

• Jim Oaks
• fuel capicity fuel tank gallons gas tank gas tank length length
• Replies: 3
• Forum: 4WD Suspensions & Frames

• 

 

[4x4junkie]

Seems like it's easier to find a manual 1354 than a 1350.

As was said, manual 1350s are much easier to find.

Reason for this: By the time Ford switched over to the 1354 (forget about the 6-planet gear), they had also already made the automatic hub/electric-shift system standard equipment (looks like for the 1990 model year). The manual-shift stuff then became a "Delete" option for the auto system.
This means there were only a select few trucks who's owners (or the dealerships that sold them) were aware of this option when they ordered them, and is where the tiny number of 1354 manuals we have come from.

×2, I also cannot recall anyone having had issues with the 4-planet t-cases, even with V8 swaps in front of them. Not sure why Ford felt the need to change it.


Also just FYI (slightly offtopic):
While checking the year the auto hubs became standard, I found the 1990 & 1989 .pdf brochures on your brochure page wouldn't load when I clicked on them (page just stayed blank), so I right-clicked and selected "Save file as..." to use my .pdf reader... The files it gave me were 305MB (!!) and 377MB (!!!) respectively (I didn't check any others because they took so long to download).
Can those be made smaller?

 

[Jim Oaks]

As was said, manual 1350s are much easier to find.

Reason for this: By the time Ford switched over to the 1354 (forget about the 6-planet gear), they had also already made the automatic hub/electric-shift system standard equipment (looks like for the 1990 model year). The manual-shift stuff then became a "Delete" option for the auto system.
This means there were only a select few trucks who's owners (or the dealerships that sold them) were aware of this option when they ordered them, and is where the tiny number of 1354 manuals we have come from.

×2, I also cannot recall anyone having had issues with the 4-planet t-cases, even with V8 swaps in front of them. Not sure why Ford felt the need to change it.


Also just FYI (slightly offtopic):
While checking the year the auto hubs became standard, I found the 1990 & 1989 .pdf brochures on your brochure page wouldn't load when I clicked on them (page just stayed blank), so I right-clicked and selected "Save file as..." to use my .pdf reader... The files it gave me were 305MB (!!) and 377MB (!!!) respectively (I didn't check any others because they took so long to download).
Can those be made smaller?

What??

The 1989 and 1990 pdfs open for me, and when I clicked and saved the 1990 pdf it was 291 MB.

It just takes long for the information to get to CA.