Axle Info: NEW Front and Rear Axles for 2018 JL Wrangler Sport, Sahara & Rubicon

[The Great Grape Ape]

Yeah, and also to consider, that option may be linked to improved towing or payload so that it may be unrelated to the diesel alone, but more of a towing setup, like the previously optional features of the transmission cooler and sway control on the JK that were only available as Max Tow Package options on the Sahara until 2013 when they were added as standard. I hope that's the case, because I don't want a diesel for my use case in Winter, but I do want the most capable setup possible for off-road snow going.

And.. hopefully that optional axle configuration is not related to that export-only Sahara Overlanding variant, because I'm very interested in the Selec-Trac Sahara and would like to get it with the most capable rear-end too if possible for getting to and then into the mountain backcountry in Winter.

Sponsored

 

[whatroads]

My 2002 Grand Cherokee LTD had an aluminum housing in it's rear D44. The Nissan Titan uses a rear aluminum housing D44. My main concern are the axle tube thickness for both front and rear axles. Are the front knuckles reinforced enough not to need additional bracing for running 35's. And my biggest concern.....Are we only going to have 3.73's with the Rubicon 8 speed auto. Please keep the Rubicon 4.10 option. Nothing like buying a 40K Jeep that needs an immediate $1200 R&P change

 

[WXman]

My 2002 Grand Cherokee LTD had an aluminum housing in it's rear D44. The Nissan Titan uses a rear aluminum housing D44. My main concern are the axle tube thickness for both front and rear axles. Are the front knuckles reinforced enough not to need additional bracing for running 35's. And my biggest concern.....Are we only going to have 3.73's with the Rubicon 8 speed auto. Please keep the Rubicon 4.10 option. Nothing like buying a 40K Jeep that needs an immediate $1200 R&P change

Yep, and in both of those cases the manufacturers had tons of warranty claims on those designs. The WJ D44A was so poor that guys actually preferred the standard axles when building offroad rigs, and the Titan D44A overheated and broke so often that I think there were class action lawsuits brought against Nissan over it. Next thing you know, Titans are being equipped with new diff covers with cooling fins and internal improvements just to keep them alive.

I remember the KJ guys breaking front axles often because the center section on those was aluminum also.

There's a place for aluminum, but driveline components ain't it.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Range $2K-$8K? Dude, we're talking about slight improvement comparable to stock not going mental. If you were going the $8K route you were going to be swapping that DU44 anyways, so be real.
Even so, compared to an engine @ 3-10 times the price and time, again cheaper & easier. But sure... yeah, it's not a tyre change, but as I said in the part you specifically omitted, easy enough that it is extremely common vs engine / transfer case / transmission swaps... so not a nearly insurmountable barrier the way a diesel or Hemi has been for the past decade.

I expect a Rubicon to have an axle that has the headroom to handle larger tires on tougher trails.

I expect a Rubicon Recon or Red Rock to have a Hemi... but we all learn to accept the things we aren't willing to change and pay for those that we are.

And you still don't know what the new axles have or lack, but sure get all worried about it before they even reveal a product that is already set in stone for a launch 2 months away, and that will surely have future upgrades and after-market support for the Red Hard Recon Rockers out there, worry... because...

No it's not, because worrying doesn't change anything, nor is it productive when you don't even know what you're worrying about and basing it exactly on the opposite assumptions of prior history of Jeep not putting in just a standard implementation of anything, in their top Wranglers be it the D44HD or the NV241OR. That they have even taken lifts, and larger stock tires into the planning of the Wrangler drivetrain and suspension shows they've taken a lot of the not-so-average users' wants & needs into consideration.

Stop worrying about it, it's unwarranted based on Jeep's history with the Wrangler.

In the end nothing is more Jeep than: If it doesn't meet your needs, keep your current Wrangler, or get/buy an upgrade, or buy something else.

 

[digitalbliss]

Yeah, I have always thought worrying about something like a vehicle that you want to buy, is stupid. I mean really.... If it doesnt meet your needs and/or wants, dont buy it. Leave the worrying for things that matter. I can guarantee there are people in Texas, Florida, South Carolina, etc... that could care less about the potential off roading impacts of a new axle in a new vehicle that they dont even own. 1st world problems.

 

[four low]

The whole point of these threads is to Speculate, Worry, offer Opinions, both Real and Memorex ; they serve as a Safety Valve , a pleasant diversion from Matter and Events beyond our Control.
I find the question, at what point does weight saving sacrifice strength, to be an relevant one ; examples of failed "testing" on the end users is not to be dismissed as " worry", in my opinion.

 

[digitalbliss]

The whole point of these threads is to Speculate, Worry, offer Opinions, both Real and Memorex ; they serve as a Safety Valve , a pleasant diversion from Matter and Events beyond our Control.
I find the question, at what point does weight saving sacrifice strength, to be an relevant one ; examples of failed "testing" on the end users is not to be dismissed as " worry", in my opinion.

Are you also implying that I (or others here) am dismissing a true problem as a simple "worry" in order to discredit a legitimate problem? So far, on this thread, no one has actually provided any examples of failed testing and as far as I can tell, no one here has discredited anything. Also, no one has actually provided any info that would indicate the new JL set ups to be inferior to the JK.

 

[JeepinOutfitters]

I highly doubt they'd use an aluminum center housing in any of the JL axles. And based on the JT axle CAD drawings the front axle has tubes that are both thicker and larger OD than the current JK axles. The outer C's also look beefier than the current JK axle parts.

All in all it appears that the new widetrack JL Rubicon axles will be a nice upgrade over what's currently used in the JK (even the Recon). The only thing I'm really wondering about is if they're using beefier ball joints (I'm assuming they are).

Gear ratios are very much still up in the air due to new axles, new transmissions, and new tire sizes. The 4.10 ratio is, IMHO at least, part of the Rubicon's DNA, so I'd be surprised if they strayed to far from it. 3.73s, or something similar, could very well be used with the new 8sp auto as standard though.

 

[four low]

Are you also implying that I (or others here) am dismissing a true problem as a simple "worry" in order to discredit a legitimate problem? So far, on this thread, no one has actually provided any examples of failed testing and as far as I can tell, no one here has discredited anything. Also, no one has actually provided any info that would indicate the new JL set ups to be inferior to the JK.

Please read Post # 33 ; then you " might" understand my post . Or Not.

 

[digitalbliss]

Please read Post # 33 ; then you " might" understand my post . Or Not.

So post #33 was about problems with Aluminum diff covers from a Jeep GC and a Nissan that used axles and diffs that the new JL isnt going to use? Post #24 and #26 are the fist to mention Aluminum and say that it MAY BE used for the housing. What DO we even know about these new axles anyway? Secondly, no one dismissed the GC and Titan claims... so to reiterate my original question, that you didnt seem to read or understand.

Are you also implying that I (or others here) am dismissing a true problem as a simple "worry" in order to discredit a legitimate problem?

and the other satement...

no one has actually provided any info that would indicate the new JL set ups to be inferior to the JK

Now you "might" understand why i think a worry over something that "may be" used is a waste of time.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

The whole point of these threads is to Speculate, Worry, offer Opinions, both Real and Memorex ; they serve as a Safety Valve , a pleasant diversion from Matter and Events beyond our Control.

No. The point of 'These Threads' created by the ADMIN is to share specific details, not get your panties in a bunch over FUD.

The threads for hand-wringing and worry are titled "Anyone else worried that something we know nothing about is gonna ruin the Wrangler, OMG NOES !!111!!one1!!! " and usually include a Poll.

I find the question, at what point does weight saving sacrifice strength, to be an relevant one ; examples of failed "testing" on the end users is not to be dismissed as " worry", in my opinion.

So what's your answer to that question? What are your parameters and your factual basis that there is a sacrifice? The higher input/output torque? Or assumptions based on non-Wrangler implementations? Again it's FUD not facts.

It's not just dismissing as '''worry' he stated he was "Concerned" and " Worried" about something he has no way of influencing with that worry at this point, and has no prior history of Jeep acting that way (in fact the opposite as the D44HD and DU44 have shown), and most importantly he doesn't even know the specifics about what he's worrying about, yet adding the typical ".. or this will be my last Jeep/Wrangler" type threat to go along with it, which discounts any genuine concern.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Or to put it clearly a 2.75% difference in size, or to put it simillarly to your FUDy statement "almost more than 1/4" smaller" (when it's less than 1/4" difference), soo.. almost less than 2% difference. Yeah, that whopping ~3% difference would be almost more than un-possible to overcome with metallurgy or design sciences that it must be "compromised".

I mean how would an axle with a 220mm ring gear possibly be as strong as one with a 226mm ring gear... even if the manufacturer stated just that very thing themselves...

http://spicerparts.com/parts/axle/automotive/advantek-axles

Plus it's not like there's a history of Jeep/Dana doing more than the typical implementation with the Wrangler for the D44 Advantek.. hmm...

...so yeah, forget things like larger & thicker axle tubes & larger Cs plus unknowns like axle shaft diameter, and instead focus & worry about that 2.75% difference in the ring gear size that even Dana says is not an issue.

Sponsored