Sponsored

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

Billy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Threads
15
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
87,443
Location
Bend, OR
Vehicle(s)
1997 TJ, 2022 JTRD
Vehicle Showcase
1
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... :movember:

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. :facepalm:


IMG_1185.jpg
Wow, Mr. Grumpy Pants...
Sponsored

 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
2,840
Reaction score
4,122
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Wow, Mr. Grumpy Pants...
Grumpy perhaps, but not sewing a lot of FUD over nothing.
People come here for information not fear creation.
 

Indio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Threads
4
Messages
399
Reaction score
387
Location
Chicagoland
Vehicle(s)
1998 Jeep TJ, 1985 Jeep CJ-7, 1972 Series III Land Rover
Occupation
Procrastinator
This has been an interesting thread and I appreciate the axle data provided by posters. We will see how the axle situation pans out but yes, I would generally not like to see a reduction in ring gear size. I've owned a number of Jeeps over the years and Jeep has made some good (Dana 44) and not so good (Dana 20) axle decisions in those Jeeps. Probably Jeep did not intend at those times to include a component more prone to issues, but it worked out that way. Interestingly I recall the Dana 20 had a larger ring gear than the Dana 44. But the Dana 20 had those crummy two piece splined axles and some issues with weak axle tubes spinning. So the Dana 44 was the preferred axle. I've actually still got a pair of IH Scout Dana 44s sitting in my garage for a CJ swap that didn't materialize. A number of things go into the component success/failure, hope Jeep gets it right for the various models.
 

jeepney123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Threads
5
Messages
64
Reaction score
27
Location
Canada
Vehicle(s)
Toy Train Set
Somewhat off topic, but does anyone know what the Dana equivalent would be of the legendary Toyota Landcruiser (J40) axles?
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
2,840
Reaction score
4,122
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
No that's you trying to spin your own statement that there are compromises in strength and a "step backwards" in the JL that made it less capable and needed to be worried/concerned about, to now moaning about what might have been in an alternate universe has they solely focus on your one aspect.

Instead they are equal in your one focused area, improved in many other areas without compromises, all while not only improving the base options for the rest of the world, but improving the drivetrain and tyre options of stock JLs Rubicons as well.

So again your assumptions were incorrect, but you can try and backtrack in whatever way you think causes you less binding.
 

Sponsored

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
2,840
Reaction score
4,122
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Somewhat off topic, but does anyone know what the Dana equivalent would be of the legendary Toyota Landcruiser (J40) axles?
If you do the proper updates they are in the D44 ballpark, some even prefering them of JK D44HDs, but stock they are weaker.

An old article in FourWheeler went throug a basic comparison of the old options after the 2007 JK refresh of the prior D44HD refresh;

http://www.fourwheeler.com/how-to/154-0708-weakest-to-strongest-axles/

Of course opinions vary because one group will focus on one aspect for their needs and another will focus on another aspect/needs... kinda similar to some recent discussions. ;)
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Threads
159
Messages
8,404
Reaction score
11,073
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR, 18JLUR, 08JKUR, 15 Renegade, 04 WJ
Vehicle Showcase
2
The many variables that go into development of a new and improved design can't be just brushed off. One can't assume to know the weak link in the Dana 44 used in the JK Rubicon better than Jeep and their engineers, or Dana. This is anecdotal, but the JK axles I've seen broken on the trail did not break at the ring and pinion. They broke either the axles or bent axle tubes. I've never seen one break at the ring and pinion, unless water intrusion was involved (and the water had been in there awhile.) Interestingly, none of the ones I've seen break were D44's. They were all D30's. I'm sure people break D44 rings and pinions, especially with extremely large tires, but it sure seems to not be the weakest link.

I'm far less concerned about an updated ring and pinion that is barely smaller than the one it replaces, when it is rated at the same strength. I'm more concerned to see improvement in the strength of the axle tubes.

Hopefully, we'll get details on why they made the change. The Rubicon is the ultimate off-road expression of the Wrangler from the factory, and it commands a premium price. It is their baby. I don't see them compromising its abilities, but in fact, improving it.
 

WaltA

Well-Known Member
First Name
Walt
Joined
May 11, 2017
Threads
2
Messages
316
Reaction score
182
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
2014 Wrangler Rubicon X, 2003 Mustang GT, 2003 MINI Cooper
dana-44-axles-jeep-wrangler-jl-jlu.jpg


So, I can continue to use my current jack stands on the rear axle, but I will need to find/buy new fancy ones for the front axle? :giggle:
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Threads
159
Messages
8,404
Reaction score
11,073
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR, 18JLUR, 08JKUR, 15 Renegade, 04 WJ
Vehicle Showcase
2
I don't know much about the Recon, so I wasn't comparing to it. There's a lot of harping on that smaller ring gear, but again, we're talking 2% and I don't think it was the weak link. The tubes and ends were the weak link. Also, if it is rated by Dana at the same strength, then I don't understand the worry and all the fuss.

I believe they'll do it right. They did so on my JK. I've not broken anything. I'm also not planning on going bigger than 33" tires. That's been the sweet spot on my JK with a 2" lift. I'm hoping the Rubi doesn't even need the lift. Why? I've NEVER seen a broken D44 on the trail with a stock or near stock set-up, in my 25 years of off roading with Jeeps. Not one. (Dana 30's are another story.) Every D44 I've seen with a bent/broken tube, end forging, or axle had 35" tires or larger, and I've seen lots of them. That's why I'm not worried about the ring/pinion being a whopping 2% smaller. I also understand metalurgy, which as the GreatGrapeApe said, can more than make up for 2%.
 

wanderer

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ralph
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Threads
122
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
772
Location
Carlsbad CA
Vehicle(s)
2018 jlu rubicon. Surfboard. Bare feet, moose drawn air sled, Interstellar time warp space transport fighter
Occupation
Engineering Geologist
in a lot of ways it makes no sense to decrease the ring gear size on the rubicon. I think anti is just my opinion that of all the jeep modes sold the rubicon is the one where people are going to increase tire size. It should be larger and stronger not smaller. IMHO
 

Sponsored

wanderer

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ralph
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Threads
122
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
772
Location
Carlsbad CA
Vehicle(s)
2018 jlu rubicon. Surfboard. Bare feet, moose drawn air sled, Interstellar time warp space transport fighter
Occupation
Engineering Geologist
and another though if it were larger and you did increase tire size which I will It will make up for the slight decrease in ground clearance
 

Closure

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Threads
5
Messages
62
Reaction score
35
Location
MISSOURI
Vehicle(s)
Scion tc
To counter that though wanderer Jeep might be wanting the Rubicon to be more attractive to the off road type who buy a base model then add wheels and large tires ect.

If they can make the ground clearance more without increasing their cost much and coming standard with 33s it might make ppl more likely to put wheel and tire money towards a higher trim and also to get better overall axles.

I personally would be one of those people so I would have good ground clearance without the need for larger than 33s and a large lift. As mine will be my only vehicle so daily plus some off road. It will decrease the likelihood of me needing or wanting a lift thought still would like a small one most likely
Sponsored

 
 



Top