JLUR FAD delete kit

[Jtphoto]

The one piece axle replacement is stronger especially the RCV but I haven’t heard of anyone really having issues with the Mopar lock plate or the the Spicer delete kit.

Sponsored

 

[roaniecowpony]

Removing a system because you had a failure isn't a good reason, IMO.

FAD "delete" methods run from just putting the FAD in the connected position and pulling the control module electrical connector, to replacing the actuator on the axle with a fixed shift fork cover, adding a longer non-movable shaft coupling, one piece shafts, and ultimately to replacing the entire housing and shafts.

IMO, if the housing isn't replaced with one that eliminates the FAD casting on the tube, the "FAD delete" method misses the whole point of the main FAD weakness. Failure to actuate on the trail can be dealt with.

 

[roaniecowpony]

The one piece axle replacement is stronger especially the RCV but I haven’t heard of anyone really having issues with the Mopar lock plate or the the Spicer delete kit.

Again, I haven't seen a failure of the shafts at the coupling, nor coupling failures.

For my uses, I replaced all the shafts and coupling with 4340. I retained the FAD functionality.

 

[jadmt]

Removing a system because you had a failure isn't a good reason, IMO.

FAD "delete" methods run from just putting the FAD in the connected position and pulling the control module electrical connector, to replacing the actuator on the axle with a fixed shift fork cover, adding a longer non-movable shaft coupling, one piece shafts, and ultimately to replacing the entire housing and shafts.

IMO, if the housing isn't replaced with one that eliminates the FAD casting on the tube, the "FAD delete" method misses the whole point of the main FAD weakness. Failure to actuate on the trail can be dealt with.

too bad there was not some kind of reinforcement a person could do without replacing the entire housing..dumb design for sure.

 

[Jtphoto]

IMO, if the housing isn't replaced with one that eliminates the FAD casting on the tube, the "FAD delete" method misses the whole point of the main FAD weakness. Failure to actuate on the trail can be dealt with.

Sure You can deal with a FAD failure on the trail if you choose to. But personally I’m not keen on crawling into mud or snow to address a simple system that can be bypassed beforehand that has no benefit. In my case I do run 4Auto in winter so any driveline vibes would have to be dealt with.
I do agree that for harder wheelers replacing the housing is the stronger method BUT then your starting to talk $$$ may as well just step up to a 44/60 hybrid then.

 

[Jtphoto]

too bad there was not some kind of reinforcement a person could do without replacing the entire housing..dumb design for sure.

There is.
A front axle truss will support the FAD weakness.
I haven’t seen any failures in the FAD housing on the heavier XR housing so I wonder if that casting is built stronger then the standard housing.

 

[roaniecowpony]

There is.
A front axle truss will support the FAD weakness.
I haven’t seen any failures in the FAD housing on the heavier XR housing so I wonder if that casting is built stronger then the standard housing.

The top mounted truss is a poor design, from a structural perspective. I get that the goal is clearance from trail obstacles. It does provide some benefit, but it still leaves the FAD casting in tension, which is a casting's weakness, and puts all that relatively thin upper truss in compression, which is its weakness.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Removing a system because you had a failure isn't a good reason, IMO.

FAD "delete" methods run from just putting the FAD in the connected position and pulling the control module electrical connector, to replacing the actuator on the axle with a fixed shift fork cover, adding a longer non-movable shaft coupling, one piece shafts, and ultimately to replacing the entire housing and shafts.

IMO, if the housing isn't replaced with one that eliminates the FAD casting on the tube, the "FAD delete" method misses the whole point of the main FAD weakness. Failure to actuate on the trail can be dealt with.

This is 100% correct. I have never seen an axle shaft, FAD collar, or FAD motor fail--I have seen the axle housing break at the FAD location when impacted.

I kept the FAD, but installed Dana Spicer CrMo axles that massively strengthened the u-joints and u-joint yokes (as you did).

Solution looking for a problem IMHO.

 

[CarbonSteel]

The top mounted truss is a poor design, from a structural perspective. I get that the goal is clearance from trail obstacles. It does provide some benefit, but it still leaves the FAD casting in tension, which is a casting's weakness, and puts all that relatively thin upper truss in compression, which is its weakness.

Agree; I trussed my front axle too, but still had concerns about the axle housing breaking. The only way that would have been "solid" is to truss both upper and undersides of the housing--which completely defeats the purpose of ground clearance.

 

[andy29847]

I thought that the front drive shaft does not spin on my JL in 2-wheel drive because of the FAD. If you remove the FAD, then the complete front drive line will be rotation regardless of the transfer case selection. Saving wear and tear on the fo9rnt driveshaft, especially if your Jeep is lifted, is a good thing.

 

[Wabujitsu]

5 is barely over stock and may or may not be enough to stop the wandering that happens on JLs. I ran 6.5 which was about the limit, but it was very stable.

6.7 was better, but in 4H at highway speeds, I could feel the vibration starting to happen and had to stay at 6.5.

FWIW, I’m at 7.4-7.6 on caster, 2.5” lift on my JLUR with 35” MTs. No issues on the freeways.

 

[CarbonSteel]

FWIW, I’m at 7.4-7.6 on caster, 2.5” lift on my JLUR with 35” MTs. No issues on the freeways.

If every Jeep was the same, it would be a non-issue, but...

I would have loved for mine to not have the issues that it did, but FCA's $hit quality and design all but ensured it.

 

[Jtphoto]

I thought that the front drive shaft does not spin on my JL in 2-wheel drive because of the FAD. If you remove the FAD, then the complete front drive line will be rotation regardless of the transfer case selection. Saving wear and tear on the fo9rnt driveshaft, especially if your Jeep is lifted, is a good thing.

I really doesn’t make that much difference in wear really. If it’s always turning is always lubricating and not going dry. No different then the back that is always turning and under stress.

 

[grimmjeeper]

I really doesn’t make that much difference in wear really. If it’s always turning is always lubricating and not going dry. No different then the back that is always turning and under stress.

Yep. The axle shafts are still spinning. The spider gears get a hell of a workout where they wouldn't before. You save wear on carrier and pinion bearings as well as the gear teeth. And the front output shaft of the transfer case with maybe some other bits on that side.

It's probably all a wash in the end.

 

[Jtphoto]

Yep. The axle shafts are still spinning. The spider gears get a hell of a workout where they wouldn't before. You save wear on carrier and pinion bearings as well as the gear teeth. And the front output shaft of the transfer case with maybe some other bits on that side.

It's probably all a wash in the end.

Ive never had an issue with excessive wear on a full time front drive. The only true way to totally stop front parts movement is unlocking hubs but even those require to be engaged once a month for so many miles to lube the front diff components.
But, at the end of the day, no matter what, the front doesn’t wear any faster then the rear as long as fluids are clean and changed as required.

Sponsored