ghetdjc320

Corrected that one for you lol

Awesome thanks for those specs

Yeah agreed. I just used the level on the tube to make sure my axle itself was level before taking the measurements. The camber was taken from the machined face of the knuckle where the unit bearing bolts in and the caster was taken from both the ball joint and the inner C just behind the ball joint. Both give the same reading and are in good spec. It’s primarily the camber angle that has me concerned. I’m getting a lot of premature tire wear on the outer half of the passenger tire and I would venture to guess that the positive camber isn’t helping. Granted, that figure may change with the weight on the ground so I’ll have to try that. It drives and tracks excellent but I’m tracking down some accelerated tire wear and a light clanking noise when the truck shifts weight around corners. New tires will be in order once this is fixed

Yep those are the measurements I took. Camber off the knuckle unit bearing surface, caster off of the top of the inner c. Are the actual figure I’m shooting for looking right though? At this point I need a 2* offset upper ball joint to get my camber back to between .5-1* negative camber. Going to also reinforce the C’s. I didn’t realize how much flex there was there. If camber is tested with full weight on the axle then perhaps I can lift that corner by the knuckle or some good point that would simulate that weight.

Somehow you got the trim off with that screw still in there so why remove it . You can just bash it back on.

Just wanted to get some input regarding the numbers were shooting for in alignment. Caster 5-7* Camber 1-2* negative Toe .000-.125 inward Are these figures about right? Currently i have a lot of wear on the outer half of the tread of my passenger tire and have attributed this to the 1* of positive caster I’m seeing at the knuckle to unit bearing surface. This was checked with the axle adjusted dead level with the jack and the passenger wheel off so there was no weight on the inner C.

SYE output seal replaced. It had started a slow leak. Replaced with SKF seal and all is good. It’s the little projects like that which are the most satisfying anymore it seems.

The ability to disconnect and keep from spinning axle shafts, ring and pinion, front driveshaft and front tcase output are nice features. Remember the YJ, MJ and XJ all started with a vacuum disconnect axle to keep from spinning the front shaft and tcase output among other things. That front tcase output rear pilot bearing is a real pain to replace. Many who go from cad to solid shafts have to balance the front driveshaft as well. In addition I did pickup about 1-1.5mpg average over a few thousand miles of driving while unlocked. That’s all I can say regarding the pros of locking hubs. But it is absolutely true that they can be a real pain to get engaged and disengaged. Looks stupid trying to rock your Jeep back and forth to get the hubs to engage or dealing with ice or mud seizing them up. I feel like the wheel bearings are definitely more maintenance than unit bearings also but maybe that just my experience with them.

Do you have experience with them? Locking hubs are a neat concept and can lessen some wear as well as provide slightly less drag. They can also be a royal pain to get engaged or disengaged. The later model grand waggys did not have a locking hubs and we’re just locked all the time. Some had a vacuum disconnect though which if it wasn’t for the vacuum actuator itself failing, is not a bad idea. Old school is not always cool. There was a lot of crap made in almost all of automobile history and it continues today.

@Minuit Were the oem speakers 8ohm?

I’m assuming you have a 3/4” snout on the ax15 going into a renix 4.0 crank?

Sweet! The pilot bearing you need should be an off the shelf item at the auto parts store.

Very very true. Really nothing to be gained going to an LP44 vs an HP30 given the complexity and expense of the swap. I sure did like my locking hubs on my waggy D44 but when your hubs are frozen or full of mud and your trying to get them engaged it truly is miserable.

That’s a great deal! There may be some big screws your going to have to replace. Lol, just messing with you @Jesse J

With much effort yes. You’ll need all new brackets and wheels. Lots of suspension fab work and welding. Plus not all Wagoneers have the drivers drop 44 that is not a disconnect axle. The rear 98+ rodeo/passport axle is stronger than the wagoneer rear though.

Was there coolant in the oil (was it milky looking)?

I’ll check mine in a bit

The scoring on the journal doesn’t look bad but it’s always very hard to tell from pictures. Not to much work to pull the crank though at this point. Definitely recommend replacing the rear main anytime your that far into the engine and it has more than 100k or so on it.

We should either sticky it or delete it. Either would be done for posterity’s sake. Or maybe we could post this article in the DIY section: https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/toolmanship-how-to-use-a-screwdriver/

And the “hot topic” label

Yikes, tough working conditions! Try to get some longer spring perches for soa to prevent axle wrap. Especially if your springs are sagging

Like how to remove a Phillips screw...