KNIPEX crimp die for Molex KK 254?

[onesixright]

Hi,

Anyone crimping Molex KK 254 with a KNIPEX die?

Would love to know which P/N that is (searched, but couldn't find anything). I'm using a Knipex 97 43 200 plier.

Thanks!

[tooki]

From a quick look at the dies, the only one that looks like it maaaaybe could work is the one for D-sub contacts, 97 49 44. I think there's a chance it won't do the insulation crimp properly. (D-Sub contacts have an insulation crimp narrower than the conductor crimp, while KK254's insulation crimp is about the same width as the conductor crimp.)

Otherwise, consider trying the tool Reichelt sells for its PSK series connectors (which are a KK254 clone): "CRIMPZANGE PSK". I've used one of those before on the clone contacts, and it works fine. For just 20 euros, it's worth a shot. The dimensions of the PSK contacts and genuine KK254 are the same, so tooling is generally interchangeable. (Every tool I've used with clone contacts and originals has worked equally well on both.)

Generally speaking, the KK254 is a fairly forgiving contact, so in addition to the aforementioned, there are many cheap crimp tools that will do the job OK. I've done them with the Toozo SN-4228B described here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/affordable-crimp-tools-for-small-connectors-(dupont-etc-)/

I routinely crimp KK254 contacts with a top-quality tool (169481-1) made for AMPMODU MOD IV contacts (which crimp similarly to Mini-PV, the "original" DuPont connector), which produces superb results with ease. I recently got an original Molex tool (63819-1000) for 22-28AWG Mini-Fit Jr. contacts, and with the locator removed, it does a quite good job as well, though it's more fiddly to operate than the MOD IV tool. In either case, these tools can be bought used for a fraction of their original price. I've considered looking for a used original Molex KK254 tool (63811-8200, 11-01-0185, or 63823-6900) and honestly, I'd suggest doing the same!

[onesixright]

@tooki thanks for the feedback! Awesome.

Good idea to look for a used version, will do that fore sure.

I also wrote to KNIPEX, they told me Rennsteig is (full daughter of Knipex) the ones producing the pliers. The question is being sent there....

Surprising that such a popular connector has no die (well looks like it). Guess they want to make it exclusive   

[tooki]

Surprising that such a popular connector has no die (well looks like it).

I don't think it's that popular anymore. Yeah, hobbyists like them, but you rarely see them in commercial products, other than the PC fan connector.

Guess they want to make it exclusive   

Huh? What you do mean? Who wants to make what exclusive to whom?

[onesixright]

Surprising that such a popular connector has no die (well looks like it).

I don't think it's that popular anymore. Yeah, hobbyists like them, but you rarely see them in commercial products, other than the PC fan connector.

Guess they want to make it exclusive   

Huh? What you do mean? Who wants to make what exclusive to whom?

More of a J/K meaning, MOLEX making the pliers in the USD 400+ range....

[tooki]

Yeah, um, that's how ALL real crimp tools are. In fact, if anything, Molex's are about the cheapest original tools.

[onesixright]

Yeah, it's incredible.

Maybe any suggestion for similar connector, that can be crimped with the knipex (2.54 pitch) ?

I like the KK, they are a bit bigger and interlock

[tooki]

Honestly, Knipex/Rennsteig doesn’t seem to make dies for small connectors for that handle.

I like the KK, too, but use JST XH more and more, because the mated connectors are significantly shorter. I’ve considered going smaller, depending on what crimp tool I can find inexpensively.


As for the cost: once you use the real crimp tools for small connectors, you start to understand why they’re so expensive. The dies are polished, yet the entire system has to be accurate to 1/100mm or so. Those tools basically have zero slop, no wiggling or imprecision whatsoever.

I just wish there was something in between the $300+ original tools and the $25 Chinese junk. Some of the latter are surprisingly close to decent, but fail because they a) try to flog the same few models for all kinds of contacts they’re not suited for at all, and b) lack a locator/positioner, making them faaaar slower to use and with less consistent results. I think they could make something for $50-75 that would really be satisfying to use and could be a true alternative to original tools, for hobby or maintenance use.

[wraper]

Surprising that such a popular connector has no die (well looks like it).

I don't think it's that popular anymore. Yeah, hobbyists like them, but you rarely see them in commercial products, other than the PC fan connector.

Those are not KK254, but xx 2510 produced by various manufacturers (sometimes with different number). They look similar but usually do not mate well in combination of male 2510 and female KK254, the other way around they mate fine.

[tooki]

Those are not KK254, but xx 2510 produced by various manufacturers (sometimes with different number).

Weeeellll, I wouldn't be so sure.

The Chinese manufacturers can't even agree on what pitch a "2510" connector is (2.50 or 2.54), never mind all the other details. Who knows who first coined the "2510" name for these connectors. Heck, who knows which of the big Western connector manufacturers actually invented the original of these style of connectors. Was it Molex KK? AMP CST? Which was the clone of which? And which Western clone were the Chinese clones based on? (Based on the contacts, which are very different, I suspect KK was the original the Chinese clones are based on. But I can't be sure.)

Regardless, the situation on the PC fan connector is clear: the standard is maintained by Intel (attached). The header drawing, including the title block formatting, closely matches that of the (now obsolete) AMP part. So whether CST-100 is a clone of KK254, or KK254 is a clone of CST-100, it's extremely likely that it was TE/AMP that drew the header drawing reproduced in the Intel spec. However, given that other Intel standards from the same era generally specify "Molex XXXXX-YYYY or equivalent", and that the design of the Intel spec crimp housing more closely resembles Molex KK than AMP CST-100, my hunch is that Molex actually designed the thing.

The Molex part numbers are expressly named as KK254 series.
The Wieson part number starts with 2510.
The AMP part is listed as an AMPMODU series, though it very clearly has no relation to the rest of the AMPMODU series, much more closely resembling CST-100/MTA-100 headers.
Foxconn's part number seems unrelated.

Is it possible that Foxconn or Wieson, the other two manufacturers listed, designed the modified connector? Perhaps.

Or maybe it was really Intel itself, making something based on a mix of Molex and AMP's designs.

Of the 4 header part numbers listed in the Intel spec, two are still available: Molex and Foxconn. Of the two crimp housings, only Molex is still made. But without doubt they've been unofficially cloned gazillions of times.

They look similar but usually do not mate well in combination of male 2510 and female KK254, the other way around they mate fine.