sourdough
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Threads
- 175
- Messages
- 1,560
- Reaction score
- 3,315
- Location
- left coast
- Vehicle(s)
- JL
- Thread starter
- #1
With all the HP and torque increase have upgrades been made to the 392's axles ?
Sponsored
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.With all the HP and torque increase have upgrades been made to the 392's axles ?
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 grillI 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.
Itās the wall thickness thatās different... 10mm vs 7.3mm or something close to that.Just the eyeball check from my neighbors next to mine and they look the exact same.
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.Itās the wall thickness thatās different... 10mm vs 7.3mm or something close to that.
The likes of Jalopnik and almost every major publication has reported that itās using the thicker āMojaveā style axles.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.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.
Keep us posted. I watched (or read?) somewhere the OD is the same, just wall thickness increased. Iāll see if I can re-find where I saw that...Iāve 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 donāt, the tubes are thicker in diameter.
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 doesnāt make sense to me.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 doesnāt make sense to me.
Whoās gonna be first to throw in some RCVs and see if that stock shaft isnāt collared?
thanks for the clarification. Thatās kinda what I meant ... although I wouldnāt use the word āsymbolicallyā. 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 itās weak, though. Weaker than a full tube? I would think .. relative. Iād certainly rather it be a solid tube.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.