392 Dana 44 axles beefed up for 392?

sourdough

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ben
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2,340
Location
93013
Vehicle(s)
'19 JLR dingy, Ram3500 diesel 4x4 Tiger RV
Build Thread
Link
Occupation
union sheet metal worker (retired 2008)
Vehicle Showcase
4
With all the HP and torque increase have upgrades been made to the 392's axles ?





Advertisement

 

Comac90

Well-Known Member
First Name
Teak
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
91
Reaction score
145
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
392s on order
With all the HP and torque increase have upgrades been made to the 392's axles ?
maybe someone can confirm, but as I understand it, the front axle is from the Mojave with the cast-iron knuckles and thicker tubes. Rear brakes are the larger brakes from the 4xe.
 

richk225

Well-Known Member
First Name
Rich
Joined
Jan 16, 2018
Messages
431
Reaction score
248
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle(s)
2018 Jeep Wrangler JL Unlimited Rubicon. 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland
Occupation
retired due to broken back
I heard early talk of the Mojave housing which sounds like a good upgrade all Rubicons could use. I guess the JT Mojave rear axle width is the same as a JL's. 4xe brakes are news to me. Was anything done to axle shafts? Folks are twisting the splines on rear shafts and breaking joints.
From what I have been told and have also read the front axle tubes are thicker and the front and rear brakes are larger in diameter, why they didn't just go with the Jeep performance upgrade kit may be due to the 17" wheels. It is hard to get a straight answer from most dealers, they didn't even know about Jeep using the Gladiator grille on the 392 due to having a higher flow rate because there is more "open area" on a Gladiator grille than there is on a stock JL grill
Note that the 392 boasts enhanced whoa to match the added go, with larger vented (13.8 x 0.9-inch versus 13.4 x 0.6-inch solid units) rear rotors clamped by larger single-piston calipers (2.0- versus 1.9-inch diameter).
 

JeepinJason33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
405
Reaction score
363
Location
Denver
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU Rubicon V6 with Etorque - just starting build. 2019 Grand Cherokee SRT, 2001 XJ mild build, 97 TJ supercharged, Atlas, cage, 1 tons, OBA etc. 83 Cherokee Chief Restored
Just the eyeball check from my neighbors next to mine and they look the exact same.
 

Comac90

Well-Known Member
First Name
Teak
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
91
Reaction score
145
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
392s on order
Just the eyeball check from my neighbors next to mine and they look the exact same.
It’s the wall thickness that’s different... 10mm vs 7.3mm or something close to that.
 

JeepinJason33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
405
Reaction score
363
Location
Denver
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU Rubicon V6 with Etorque - just starting build. 2019 Grand Cherokee SRT, 2001 XJ mild build, 97 TJ supercharged, Atlas, cage, 1 tons, OBA etc. 83 Cherokee Chief Restored
It’s the wall thickness that’s different... 10mm vs 7.3mm or something close to that.
I have not seen any documentation on that yet. Would almost have to cut one up unless Jeep releases that it is a different thickness and if it was, I think they would have advertised it.
 

Arterius2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jerry
Joined
Dec 29, 2018
Messages
3,482
Reaction score
4,420
Location
Vancouver, BC
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Sahara 2.0L
I have not seen any documentation on that yet. Would almost have to cut one up unless Jeep releases that it is a different thickness and if it was, I think they would have advertised it.
The likes of Jalopnik and almost every major publication has reported that it’s using the thicker “Mojave” style axles.

My money is on that it is.
 

Comac90

Well-Known Member
First Name
Teak
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
91
Reaction score
145
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
392s on order
I have not seen any documentation on that yet. Would almost have to cut one up unless Jeep releases that it is a different thickness and if it was, I think they would have advertised it.
Google is your friend - Jalopnik, Four Wheeler, Motor Trend, and several others have all reported on it and Jeep talked about it at EJS.

Bottom line: The 392 uses the entire front axle from the Mojave including the larger brakes, thicker tubes, and cast-iron knuckles ... and the rear brakes are the larger ones from the 4xe.

T
 

BCMgunner

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eli
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
225
Reaction score
417
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
392 on 37” KO2s
I’ve heard all the above.

I havea MetalCloak rear diff skid coming in this week. If it fits, rear tubes are same diameter as standard JLUR but still possibly thicker walls (but same diameter). If they don’t, the tubes are thicker in diameter.
 

Comac90

Well-Known Member
First Name
Teak
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
91
Reaction score
145
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
392s on order
I’ve heard all the above.

I havea MetalCloak rear diff skid coming in this week. If it fits, rear tubes are same diameter as standard JLUR but still possibly thicker walls (but same diameter). If they don’t, the tubes are thicker in diameter.
Keep us posted. I watched (or read?) somewhere the OD is the same, just wall thickness increased. I’ll see if I can re-find where I saw that...
 

Comac90

Well-Known Member
First Name
Teak
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
91
Reaction score
145
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
392s on order
CV joints are a plus over stock u-joints. Any info on axle shaft diameters or splines front and rear.
same as the Rubicon 44, but FAB has been deleted. Someone on here said the front shaft on the FAB side was still collared, but that doesn’t make sense to me.

Who’s gonna be first to throw in some RCVs and see if that stock shaft isn’t collared? 😉
 

jessedacri

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jesse
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
599
Reaction score
853
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Bright White 2dr JL Rubicon 3.6
same as the Rubicon 44, but FAB has been deleted. Someone on here said the front shaft on the FAB side was still collared, but that doesn’t make sense to me.

Who’s gonna be first to throw in some RCVs and see if that stock shaft isn’t collared? 😉

The FAD has been deleted but only symbolically, really. They just removed the electronic bit and put a cover plate instead - and its now a one piece axle shaft, but the weak cast FAD housing is still there in the axle assembly.
 

No IFS

Well-Known Member
First Name
Rob
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
418
Reaction score
539
Location
Southern California
Vehicle(s)
2019 JL Rubicon 2 Door / 2022 V8 JT Gladiator Mojave
The Dana 44 axle’s aren’t any stronger. They use full-time four-wheel-drive to distribute the power and save the axles.
 

MARSHMELLA

Well-Known Member
First Name
Kirt
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
439
Reaction score
750
Location
FL
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR
Occupation
Military
I want to play too.......

My babies momma’s cousin said she heard someone at the grocery say that the 392 is beefed up in some places but not in other places. Basically they are kind of the same, but with some differences. 🤪
 
Last edited:

Comac90

Well-Known Member
First Name
Teak
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
91
Reaction score
145
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
392s on order
The FAD has been deleted but only symbolically, really. They just removed the electronic bit and put a cover plate instead - and its now a one piece axle shaft, but the weak cast FAD housing is still there in the axle assembly.
thanks for the clarification. That’s kinda what I meant ... although I wouldn’t use the word ‘symbolically’. the 392 does not have the FAD system at all - it is deleted. But, to your point, the hole in the housing is still there. Not sure it’s weak, though. Weaker than a full tube? I would think .. relative. I’d certainly rather it be a solid tube.

That said, I haven’t researched failures of the housing at the FAD opening. Maybe that’s an issue I’m unaware of???

great to know it is actually a one piece axle and not collared. That was one of the big questions I’d wondered since it was brought up earlier.
 

Advertisement




Gibson Leatherworks
 



Advertisement
Top