front dana 44 need a translator

[Pete M]

so the discussion has popped up on faceybooky about the front 44 controversy and someone has replied with this link from Venezuela full of words I don't understand:

 

http://zona-xj.activoforo.com/t625-dana-44

 

 

[ftpiercecracker1]

Basically they're trying to figure out whether or not Comanches ever came with Dana 44s in the front, from the factory. Some are saying their Cherokees (84-01) have Dana 44 in the front, only in South America and even there its rare. Its unclear whether or not they were installed from the factory or done by the Importer, probably to improve sales.

 

It does seem pretty clear that Comanches never had them. Aftermarket or otherwise.

 

 

[Eagle]

XJs and MJs in Chile were built in the U.S. and had Dana 35 front axles. Those in Venezuela were built in Venezuela and had dana 44 front axles. What these guys are talking about is a combination of lift and big tires (33s) often resulting in bent axle tubes.

 

Sound familiar. Same problem the new Wranglers have with their so-called "Dana 44" front axles.

 

[Incommando]

I think that the D44 front axle under the JL Wrangler Rubicon is a true D44 and not a "hybrid" like what was under the TJ. 

[Eagle]

1 hour ago, Incommando said:

I think that the D44 front axle under the JL Wrangler Rubicon is a true D44 and not a "hybrid" like what was under the TJ. 

 

Possibly -- but it was the JL axles that created the aftermarket industry for tube sleeves and 'C' gussets.

[thecodemonk]

I think it was the JK axles that did that (that's where I started really seeing an explosion of those parts in the aftermarket)...the tubes were not dana 30 thin, but not near thick enough for the weight and width, especially of the 4-doors. Those JKUs are stupid heavy stock (around 4500lbs curb weight *before* adding armor, winch, etc).  My XJ fully armored up on heavy 35s and steel wheels (with welded on beadlocks) weighed only ~4100lbs by comparison.

[derf]

1 hour ago, Eagle said:

 

Possibly -- but it was the JL axles that created the aftermarket industry for tube sleeves and 'C' gussets.

 

The Rubicon D44 in the TJ and JK were the "Dana 30 with a Dana 44 pumpkin" axles that need tons of reinforcement.  The axle tubes, inner C's, knuckles, unit bearings, brakes, etc. are all D30 no matter which axle you get.  The TJ is even a low pinion but they did switch to a high pinion for the JK.  So that's been going on for a good long while.

 

The JL axles have seen the return of the Center Axle Disconnect system and people are swapping them out left and right.  I don't know if they are "true" 44's or just a continuation of the D30 with a D44 differential.  But no one like the big gaping hole in the axle tube and none of the aftermarket companies are using JL based axles.  They're using the JK version with different brackets.

 

the JT Gladiator has a max tow package with heavy duty axles.  I don't know if those are "true" 44's in the front or not.

[Pete M]

4 minutes ago, thecodemonk said:

I think it was the JK axles that did that (that's where I started really seeing an explosion of those parts in the aftermarket)...the tubes were not dana 30 thin, but not near thick enough for the weight and width, especially of the 4-doors. Those JKUs are stupid heavy stock (around 4500lbs curb weight *before* adding armor, winch, etc).  My XJ fully armored up on heavy 35s and steel wheels (with welded on beadlocks) weighed only ~4100lbs by comparison.

 

oh, it gets even worse.  a fully decked out Rubi JK is knocking on the door of 5k.  

 

Xjs are sooooo friggin' light.   my Libby weighs in at ~4100 stock.       Hooray for... safety?

[derf]

4 minutes ago, Pete M said:

 

oh, it gets even worse.  a fully decked out Rubi JK is knocking on the door of 5k.  

 

Xjs are sooooo friggin' light.   my Libby weighs in at ~4100 stock.       Hooray for... safety?

 

Safety is a part of it.  But the Wrangler is a body-on-frame vehicle.  And those always weigh more than a similar size unibody vehicle. 

 

Beyond that, every generation of the Jeep keeps getting bigger.  The CJ5 was bigger than the 3, the 7 was bigger than the 5.  The YJ wasn't dramatically bigger but it wasn't any smaller.  The TJ was a little bigger here and there.  The JK was a bit bigger.  The JL is bigger still.  And bigger = more weight.  The CJ2A was 2,120 pounds.  The 2dr JK was at least 3,760.  The 2dr JL tips the scales at 4,076.  We're getting to the point where the base 2 door Jeep is double the weight of the original.

[thecodemonk]

5 minutes ago, Pete M said:

 

oh, it gets even worse.  a fully decked out Rubi JK is knocking on the door of 5k.  

 

Xjs are sooooo friggin' light.   my Libby weighs in at ~4100 stock.       Hooray for... safety?

 

almost 5k?!  No wonder V8 and axle swaps are so popular with those rigs.  Looks like the Gladiator Rubicon is a hair OVER 5k too.  

 

 

[DirtyComanche]

People need to stop with the "real D44" nonsense.

 

"Real D44"s were their own tradeoff and are not really stronger than what is found in a JK or newer.

 

The JK D44 front suffers from undersized axle tubes, which a bunch of the early D44s actually did too.  The reason you don't hear about the early ones failing is because they all already did, or were never put through the abuse that a pig heavy JK with 37"+ tires subjects them to.  Keep in mind JK owners will regularly run a 37" tire on the D30 front, and often will run a 40" tire on the D44 front, and defend these actions as being perfectly sensible, when they already started out with a 5000lb curb weight and then threw the entire Smittybuilt catalog at the thing.  The only good D44s for axle tubes were found in 3/4 ton trucks, not that it really mattered because at that point the center section wasn't as strong as the tubes and they would regularly break the cuff off the center section if you got too sporty.  The JK ring and pinion is actually stronger than any of the earlier D44s, and the center section casting is better in some key areas, not to say either is infallible, but it is the reason that you actually see them surviving for at least a period of time with 37"+ tires and significant horsepower levels (keep in mind they are throwing 100HP more at the axles than a 4.0L, and that's without a supercharger or Hemi swap, both of which are quite popular).  The early D44s have less ball joint separation, yet use the same sized ball joints as the later D44 (or D30), the lack of separation meaning that they're subject to more leverage in the early axles, and meaning that you have less space for a u-joint.  Also the early D44 axles used 19 spline outer shafts, which is considerably smaller than anything ever used in a JK (D30 or D44), plus unit bearing outer stub shafts tend to inherently be stronger for some reason (I believe how they're fully engaged in the hub, but not sure, failures of the outer stubs are rare on all UB axles, be it Ford, Jeep, Dodge, etc).  Early D44s did tend to save themselves because most of the selectable hubs available for them are junk and would grenade before other things did, unfortunately they would also grenade and take out the outer stub and sometimes even the spindle at the same time.

 

The main thing to take away here is that most of the old axle versus new axle "real world experience" were apples to bananas comparisons and therefore are skewing the picture.  You put an old D44 front in a 3200lb trail weight CJ with 130HP and 35s, and it holds up fine.  If you put that same axle in a 6200lb JK with 300HP and 35s, I can guarantee you it would break very quickly.  The actual JK variant of this axle will hold up to that for some time, in fact likely for far longer than most people would guess, with lots of people not even doing the axle sleeves until they go over 35s.

 

I don't know anything real world about JL/JT axles yet.  I don't own one, don't really care too, and think they might have gone a little too far with the weight savings on them.  Weight savings was the reason for the undersized axle tubes on the JK D44s, and it is the biggest drawback to those axles (which the aftermarket has fairly well addressed at this point), so I suspect the JL will have lots of issues from decisions made with that in mind.