Dana 44 Rear Swap

[Eagle]

On 10/30/2018 at 11:39 PM, Pete M said:

it's the rarer one for sure, but car-part.com shows some.  long live the internet  

 

edit: you have to search for a few different years.  and 4.10s were phased out by 05.

 

Yeah. Car-part.com. Several years ago a friend in NAXJA found a yard about two hours from home that claimed to have TWO Cherokee D44 rear axles. We hooked my trailer onto his XJ and we high-tailed out out there. The yard's policy was that we had to pay first, so we paid up, THEN they took us out to the loading dock ... where we found two Dana 35 axles. Then they broke our stones about refunding the money.

 

Idjits.

[ValpoManche]

On 10/30/2018 at 7:29 PM, Pete M said:

4.5"

 

to match your current rear axle you'll need the right width, bolt pattern, and ratio.  without using spacers to change the pattern or paying for regearing you're more or less limited to the:

MJ/XJ 44 (rare and mostly 3.07, 3.55)

TJ Rubicon 44 (rare and expensive and only came in 4.10 but had an e-locker)

97+ XJ 8.25 (3.07, 3.55, some 4.10)

03-07 KJ 8.25 (3.55, 3.73, 4.10 and disks)

96-01 Explorer 8.8 (3.55, 3.73, 4.10 and disks)

did I miss anything?

 

I prefer the 03-07 Liberty because it's a couple inches wider than the stock MJ axle (as opposed to the 8.8 which is narrower) and that works well with the MJ's wide butt (the bed is wider than an XJ body which is why the tires looked so tucked-in back there).  you'll still need perches welded on and to shorten the driveshaft, but that's the case with any upgrade axle.  dana 35s have a bit of a short snout.

 

Pete, how about Dodge Nitro 8.25 with discs and with locker? 

[Pete M]

I don't know for sure.  it's the right bolt pattern for sure, but I haven't measured the width.  considering all the other commonalities with the first gen Liberty, I'd say you're good to go.    Just measure before you buy.   

[ghetdjc320]

You do know dana 35’s are the base model axles in JLs and JTs now too right? They are a bit upgraded though. The one I still dislike as a swap candidate is the ford 8.8 lol especially for 33’s or even 35’s. These axle threads are never ending

[ValpoManche]

16 hours ago, Pete M said:

I don't know for sure.  it's the right bolt pattern for sure, but I haven't measured the width.  considering all the other commonalities with the first gen Liberty, I'd say you're good to go.    Just measure before you buy.   

Thanks Pete! 

[BeatCJ]

On 6/5/2020 at 12:15 AM, ghetdjc320 said:

The one I still dislike as a swap candidate is the ford 8.8 lol especially for 33’s or even 35’s.

Anything other than the size of the pumpkin? And C Clips?

 

At least it's not a 14 bolt. " 'cause TONS!"

[BeatCJ]

On 10/30/2018 at 5:29 PM, Pete M said:

03-07 KJ 8.25 (3.55, 3.73, 4.10 and disks)

What about the older Liberty?

 

If I can find an 8.25 that's the right width and 4.10s, I wouldn't mind swapping from drum to disk. That's really pretty simple. Actually, I could live a long time with drums. I really didn't have that big an issue with 4 wheel drums, I guess it's just what you learned.

[Pete M]

02s had drums. 

[ghetdjc320]

2 hours ago, BeatCJ said:

Anything other than the size of the pumpkin? And C Clips?

 

At least it's not a 14 bolt. " 'cause TONS!"

Thin axle tubes, faulty plug welds (sometimes no plug welds) so the tubes spin, has a Dana 35 shape but is much fatter and gets hung up on rocks/mud, relatively tiny brakes, adds a lot of unsprung weight, it’s narrower which is really pronounced on an mj, ring and pinion are still not up to par with newer d44 components, cost in most places has skyrocketed, doesn’t have a dropout center section or preload adjusters which would help with gear swaps. Stock axle bearings aren’t that great either. If these axles could handle 37’s and 40’s in stock form I think they would be a good option. However, most people only throw on 33’s or 35’s which just isn’t enough to compensate for the cons in my mind. In stock form, they can’t handle 37’s. C clips are not really that big of a problem unless your snapping axle shafts. A super 8.8 handles 37’s but at that point just upgrade. 

[BeatCJ]

OK, food for thought. I'm not of the opinion that a current generation D35 is worth the effort to swap in, though.  I don't see myself ever going bigger than 35" tires. I have a couple other rigs for that, someday I will get to them...

 

My goal is to avoid adding a failure point. But my AMC 20 in the CJ survived just fine on 33s, with one piece axles and stitch welds and an Aussie Locker.

[Eagle]

10 hours ago, BeatCJ said:

OK, food for thought. I'm not of the opinion that a current generation D35 is worth the effort to swap in, though.  I don't see myself ever going bigger than 35" tires. I have a couple other rigs for that, someday I will get to them...

 

My goal is to avoid adding a failure point. But my AMC 20 in the CJ survived just fine on 33s, with one piece axles and stitch welds and an Aussie Locker.

 

The AMC Model 20 is FAR stronger and better than the Dana 35. The AMC Model 20 was the optional, heavy-duty axle under XJs and MJs from 1984 through 1986.

[ghetdjc320]

49 minutes ago, Eagle said:

 

The AMC Model 20 is FAR stronger and better than the Dana 35. The AMC Model 20 was the optional, heavy-duty axle under XJs and MJs from 1984 through 1986.

Just to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that anyone swap in a d35. It was just a side point that they are still producing them. 

[ghetdjc320]

Grab a liberty 8.25 as @Pete M suggests. Especially if you only planning to run 33’s.
 

     That being said, I run 33’s on my d35 with revolution shafts, Detroit truetrac and TNT truss. Love the clearance and performance but I also know where the d35 weak points are. There was a custom rig I saw in an article featured a few years back running a built d35 and 37’s and he’d been running it for years. He had phenomenal clearance. The whole build was a super lightweight lcg concept rig. After having built and swapped several axles (d44’s, 8.8’s & 9”), I started to think that maybe he was onto something. The weakness of the d35 ultimately will come down to the ring and pinion. There is an aftermarket solution to pretty much every other shortfall of that axle. Chryo treating a good new revolution, motive or Richmond gear set increases the strength quite a bit. 30 spline chromo shafts are pretty stout. A good girdle cover will help relieve stress from the bearing caps. A nice truss will greatly reduce flex which tends to be the root cause of many failures. 

[BeatCJ]

I know the AMC 20 is better than a D35, but I wasn't suggesting I use it. In many ways, it's a better axle than a D44. But, for me, it's too narrow in CJ form, and too wide from a FSJ, and 6 lug, to boot. It's an axle that probably was given a bad rap, but also has some weaknesses.

 

Thanks for the discussion, and it all confirms my thinking. I suspect I will have to look long and hard to find a 4.10 Liberty 8.25. Evidently the 4 cylinder models were rare, at least around here? I'll probably find the best one I can, and re-gear it. I have friend that can do it, so no labor cost.

[Pete M]

16 hours ago, BeatCJ said:

Thanks for the discussion, and it all confirms my thinking. I suspect I will have to look long and hard to find a 4.10 Liberty 8.25. Evidently the 4 cylinder models were rare, at least around here?

 

car-part.com found me mine.   you might have to search for various years since the part numbers may have changed through the run.

 

[Sir Sam]

On 6/5/2020 at 1:15 AM, ghetdjc320 said:

You do know dana 35’s are the base model axles in JLs and JTs now too right? They are a bit upgraded though. The one I still dislike as a swap candidate is the ford 8.8 lol especially for 33’s or even 35’s. These axle threads are never ending

 

They are not used at all. The new Axles in the JLs and JTs share nothing with the previous generations of D30, D35, and D44.  They still get referred to that way because people sort of know the name, but they are not. The standard front duty axle is the Dana M186. The Standard Duty Rear is the Dana M200. The Heavy Duty front is the Dana M210, and the Heavy Duty rear is the Dana M220.

 

But thats not all! 

 

Quote

 

The Rubi is the wide track. It's about 1.5" wider than the standard version. 

JL Rubicon gets all wide track D44s. Sport and Sahara are all narrow track, all D30 front and some D44 rear(if properly equipped).
JT all get D44 front and rear. Rubicon and Sport Max Tow get wide track and 4.10s, Overland and standard Sport get narrow track.
And I'm of course talking about the next gen axles, not the traditional style that's been used for decades. The new D44 equivalent is actually called the Dana M220.

 

So Its even more complex! Gladiator gets the M210/M220 combo, but the rubicon gets the Wide track M210 front, and so does the sport max tow. 

 

So buying a gladiator sport with max tow gets you the rubicon axles, without the other rubicon stuff, for a bit cheaper.

 

Gonna confusing for parts in the future making sure to get the right axles shafts.

[Sir Sam]

I also throw my hat in the ring for the C8.25 out of a 2003+ KJ. I just finished swapping mine in the stroker project and I have to say I think its about as easy as it comes. The brake cables work with the factory parking brake splitter/adjuster. The soft line mounted to the rear frame rails easily. The bracket to hold the soft line to the caliper worked perfectly to bolt to my perch. All in all about as easy as come for an axle with disk brakes. 

 

However the ford 8.8 is stronger, and does seem to have more aftermarket support, and is more readily available with 4.10s. So if you want 4.10s from the get go you don't have to mess with gears. Most KJs you will find have 3.55, the diesel XJs and diesel KJs had 3.73, and the 4 cyl KJs had 4.10s. 4 cyl KJs are fairly rare.

[Pete M]

3.73 is by far the most common ratio in KJs since that was the v6/auto.    I believe 3.55 was stickshifts in ~05+

[ghetdjc320]

13 hours ago, Sir Sam said:

 

They are not used at all. The new Axles in the JLs and JTs share nothing with the previous generations of D30, D35, and D44.  They still get referred to that way because people sort of know the name, but they are not. The standard front duty axle is the Dana M186. The Standard Duty Rear is the Dana M200. The Heavy Duty front is the Dana M210, and the Heavy Duty rear is the Dana M220.

 

But thats not all! 

 

So Its even more complex! Gladiator gets the M210/M220 combo, but the rubicon gets the Wide track M210 front, and so does the sport max tow. 

 

So buying a gladiator sport with max tow gets you the rubicon axles, without the other rubicon stuff, for a bit cheaper.

 

Gonna confusing for parts in the future making sure to get the right axles shafts.

 

Ok, it’s different.  At least it’s still called a Dana 35 😆. A lot of these “new” axles are previous model axles though. Think about all the different iterations of the Dana 35’s. Exploder ifs front axles, and some 07 JK’s also got a rear 35 which may be more similar to the current gen JL 35’s. When the jk’s came out everyone was talking about the all new Dana axles and the HD 44. Turns out that axle was in existence in various forms at least a decade before. I haven’t looked into the new 35’s very much but it will be interesting to see what becomes of them

[JMO413]

On 6/11/2020 at 5:03 PM, Sir Sam said:

 

They are not used at all. The new Axles in the JLs and JTs share nothing with the previous generations of D30, D35, and D44.  They still get referred to that way because people sort of know the name, but they are not. The standard front duty axle is the Dana M186. The Standard Duty Rear is the Dana M200. The Heavy Duty front is the Dana M210, and the Heavy Duty rear is the Dana M220.

 

But thats not all! 

 

So Its even more complex! Gladiator gets the M210/M220 combo, but the rubicon gets the Wide track M210 front, and so does the sport max tow. 

 

So buying a gladiator sport with max tow gets you the rubicon axles, without the other rubicon stuff, for a bit cheaper.

 

Gonna confusing for parts in the future making sure to get the right axles shafts.

Fun note in that you can't get a manual work max tow. I just want the bigger axles in a cheap sport model with a stick! 

[Sir Sam]

1 hour ago, JMO413 said:

Fun note in that you can't get a manual work max tow. I just want the bigger axles in a cheap sport model with a stick! 

 

Ya its because they are going for the Max Tow rating, putting in a manual would mean a lower tow rating since the manuals cannot hold up to the task.

 

Its also why the Manual Trans Diesel KJs were detuned to make less torque, so they wouldn't tear up the drivetrain. For better or worse, automatic transmissions have surpassed manuals in everything except fun-ness.

[Sir Sam]

12 hours ago, ghetdjc320 said:

 

Ok, it’s different.  At least it’s still called a Dana 35 😆. A lot of these “new” axles are previous model axles though. Think about all the different iterations of the Dana 35’s. Exploder ifs front axles, and some 07 JK’s also got a rear 35 which may be more similar to the current gen JL 35’s. When the jk’s came out everyone was talking about the all new Dana axles and the HD 44. Turns out that axle was in existence in various forms at least a decade before. I haven’t looked into the new 35’s very much but it will be interesting to see what becomes of them

 

The Dana 35 was only in the 2doors in 07......which to be fair there were more 2 doors sold in 07 than any other year before Jeep wised up an realized that the 4 door was the bigger seller and to switch around production.

 

Still, the 35 had no business in the TJ, especially when the 8.25 was available. In all seriousness the 8.25 for all TJs in the rear would have been great, and a decent 44 front option for the rubicon would have been nice. As is the TJ 44 front is barely anything about a D30, and commands just stupid high prices. The JK D44 front is far better.....but just not a bolt in to a TJ/XJ.

[ghetdjc320]

1 hour ago, Sir Sam said:

 

The Dana 35 was only in the 2doors in 07......which to be fair there were more 2 doors sold in 07 than any other year before Jeep wised up an realized that the 4 door was the bigger seller and to switch around production.

 

Still, the 35 had no business in the TJ, especially when the 8.25 was available. In all seriousness the 8.25 for all TJs in the rear would have been great, and a decent 44 front option for the rubicon would have been nice. As is the TJ 44 front is barely anything about a D30, and commands just stupid high prices. The JK D44 front is far better.....but just not a bolt in to a TJ/XJ.

Agreed the low pinion Dana 44 in tjr’s weren’t super stout and were probably on par with HP d30’s. If the TJ got the 8.25 and HP 30 that would have been a nice combo. The JK d44 however, was nothing new. They had that same gearset and housings ends a available about 10 years earlier at least. They just weren’t in Jeeps. As for the m220, they are also in Chevy pickups. 

[gogmorgo]

19 hours ago, Sir Sam said:

 

Ya its because they are going for the Max Tow rating, putting in a manual would mean a lower tow rating since the manuals cannot hold up to the task.

 

Its also why the Manual Trans Diesel KJs were detuned to make less torque, so they wouldn't tear up the drivetrain. For better or worse, automatic transmissions have surpassed manuals in everything except fun-ness.

Until the torque converter locks up at low speeds it’ll still be behind in my book. For bumping along slow trails in low range you still can’t beat a stick. 
I think it’s less that the transmission won’t hold up to the work and more that it’s hard on the clutch. I’ve had 5500lbs behind my AX15 ZJ, hauled it up and down a few long 10% grades over and along the continental divide, no issues, didn’t seem like there was any excess heat out of it, but getting the whole thing rolling with the nose pointed uphill was a different story entirely. Part of the SAE tow rating is repeatability of hill starts within a given time frame, and you’ll either be cooking the clutch or shock loading the drivetrain (it not both) just to do it once, let alone over and over again. HD diesels get away with this with a granny gear low enough to be useless without a heavy load, and tuning that rolls into boost more slowly so you don’t roast the clutch so bad, but you don’t really get that with a gas engine and without a separate towing transmission which is a big ask for what’s already a less popular option.

 

The base JT with a manual is good for 4000lbs, and the Rubicon with a stick is only good for 4500. I’m guessing that’s more down to the gear ratio than anything else, given the base with an automatic and the standard 3.73 axle is also only good for 4500 while the rubicon/max tow axles are 4.10’s. The tow rating number may be brought back down by the rubicon weighing a few hundred pounds more, but I doubt it. Lower gears just make for better hill starts. 

[JMO413]

20 hours ago, Sir Sam said:

 

Ya its because they are going for the Max Tow rating, putting in a manual would mean a lower tow rating since the manuals cannot hold up to the task.

 

Its also why the Manual Trans Diesel KJs were detuned to make less torque, so they wouldn't tear up the drivetrain. For better or worse, automatic transmissions have surpassed manuals in everything except fun-ness.

Fun-ness and nobody wants to borrow it. I just enjoy the driving experience with a stick. The control you have with a manual you can't have with an automatic. IMHO 

I just want to be able to order a manual trans the good axles with 4.10. If about company would let you do this you would think Jeep would.