Jeep axles
- Thread starter northcountryre
- Start date
robertf said:
read it again you moron... I have been putting 360* clips in the yokes of Dana axles...
you wanna debate you fucking poser...I actually do what I talk about and have been doing it for decades.
I know of what I post because of that, not because I read it on the internet.
want pics?
Sorry I mentioned 44's. And thank-you for the posts that were informative, I see I'm not the only one interested in improving their vehicle.
northcountryre said:
D44's is not a improvement
want to improve it...do the toy conversion or install some spider 9's
just swapping to a jeep D44 really gets you almost nothing for the work needed to do it.
one thing to keep in mind is that unles you are going to use a CV instead of the outer u-joints you will end up with the herky jerky turning of a front u-joint.
at this point you are just better going D60 where a true CV outer is available in the market.
Well, it wasn't intended that way, Frank!Mongo said:
Trailing arms are awesome. I didn't realize how much rear steer I had with stock arms until I swapped them out - now I only need to change the A-arm ball joint.
alright with all this R&P shit, first, most of the rover R&P failures are due to the halfshaft breaking and therefore causing the ring to break loose and go crazy. This is eliminated with a locker of somesort, like and ARB, TT or a DT. Now, you got those and it's going to be extremely rare for a stock 3.55 R&P to break but it can happen.
As for the 44 argument, we've been here before. A 44 is a waste of time, especially in a rover due to the extra fabrication. You can have a stronger setup going a full 30 spline toy front and rear or even FJ80 axles. If your doing fab work and want improve strength you go with a 60. Cost is the only downside. But if you go 44, you will end up going a 60 anyway if you are breaking rover shit even now, because you?ll still be breaking 44 junk too.
bottom line:
stock rover axle < stock 44
built rover axle > stock 44
built rover axle < built 44
built rover w/ toy parts > built 44
built rover w/ toy parts < built fj80 axles
built fj80 axles > built 44
d60 > than any combo
that's my rating and if you don't like it fine!
As for the 44 argument, we've been here before. A 44 is a waste of time, especially in a rover due to the extra fabrication. You can have a stronger setup going a full 30 spline toy front and rear or even FJ80 axles. If your doing fab work and want improve strength you go with a 60. Cost is the only downside. But if you go 44, you will end up going a 60 anyway if you are breaking rover shit even now, because you?ll still be breaking 44 junk too.
bottom line:
stock rover axle < stock 44
built rover axle > stock 44
built rover axle < built 44
built rover w/ toy parts > built 44
built rover w/ toy parts < built fj80 axles
built fj80 axles > built 44
d60 > than any combo
that's my rating and if you don't like it fine!
9
97Rover
Guest
It takes a lot to break a Land Rover axel, unless you plan on being a professional rock crawler or building a buggy, then there is no need for Dana 60's. I would bet that a Land Rover axel is stronger and will last a whole hell of a lot longer than a Dana 44. If you want beefy then get a Salisbury. Land Rover's are the best, and don't forget it.
97Rover said:
Really, and from the vast experience you've had please tell the magic that's needed to keep a front cv from poppin while pushing a 33" tire (285/75)...
Peter, don't you know that's what you get when sprinkle fairy dust on a rover front...
fucking clueless
