Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
02-11-2004 | 05:41 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
Hi Bill,
Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
couldn’t break".
It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> The carrier, why do you think Dana changed the ring gear positions,
> at 3.73? It doesn't take much of an imagination to picture a "U" shaped
> bar, and the longer it is the easier it is for the strongman to pull it
> apart.
> I've bent Ford nine inch carriers, usually when you find a great
> deal on a locker that's why. But, look at Ford's third member, it's
> support webs, even an extra pinion bearing support:
> http://i16.ebayimg.com/02/i/01/51/0d/b1_1.JPG
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>That sounds pretty grim. When you say crack the housing do you mean the
>>locker/carrier or the pumpkin?
>>
>>Ford doesn't use carrier breaks in most of their rear ends. Would they
>>be vulnerable to similar cracking?
>>
>>Everything I've read on the topic is that carrier breaks are used solely
>>to reduce the cost of extra steel required to manufacture thicker ring
>>gears. Wouldn't the progressively smaller pinion head be a greater
>>concern than any increased leverage through a thicker ring gear?
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Steve,
>>> Well, I'm still not believing Daimler would be so stupid. If this
>>>Tru-Lok: http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg really is for the 3.73,
>>>then I wouldn't want it because there would be too much leverage just to
>>>one side of the housing causing it to crack like an egg. And the bones
>>>of the Rubicon will litter the trail.
>>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>>>mailto:--------------------
>>>
>>>Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Bill,
>>>>
>>>>My best information is the Tru-Lok sitting on my bench beside an open
>>>>carrier that I pulled from an XJ D44 with 3.54 ratio. Same flange depth.
>>>>
>>>>Read this blurb from Randy's R&P:
>>>>
>>>>( http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/aboutyukondana.html )
>>>>
>>>>"Randy's Ring & Pinion, a leading supplier of truck and off-road
>>>>differential parts, announces their distribution of the new Yukon Dana
>>>>44 4.88 thick gear sets for the 2003 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon"
>>>>
>>>>"Yukon Gear engineered the 4.88 thick gear to mesh seamlessly with the
>>>>existing Rubicon lockers, the top-of-the-line Tru-Loc ™ air lockers.
>>>>With the computer-designed 4.88, Rubicon owners can push beyond the
>>>>limits of the standard 4.10 gear and can move from the 31" stock tires
>>>>up to beefy 37" tires. The thick ring gear set, made from high-quality
>>>>8620 steel, also works well in older Dana 44 rear-ends with a 3.73 &
>>>>down carrier case, eliminating the need for a new carrier case or locker."
>>>>
>>>>The only disadvantage I can see with the need for a thick ring gear is
>>>>that they cost a bit more new and are harder to find used. Hassle factor
>>>>aside, I don't think there are any performance concerns that rank with
>>>>the C-clip.
>>>>
>>>>Steve
Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
couldn’t break".
It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> The carrier, why do you think Dana changed the ring gear positions,
> at 3.73? It doesn't take much of an imagination to picture a "U" shaped
> bar, and the longer it is the easier it is for the strongman to pull it
> apart.
> I've bent Ford nine inch carriers, usually when you find a great
> deal on a locker that's why. But, look at Ford's third member, it's
> support webs, even an extra pinion bearing support:
> http://i16.ebayimg.com/02/i/01/51/0d/b1_1.JPG
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>That sounds pretty grim. When you say crack the housing do you mean the
>>locker/carrier or the pumpkin?
>>
>>Ford doesn't use carrier breaks in most of their rear ends. Would they
>>be vulnerable to similar cracking?
>>
>>Everything I've read on the topic is that carrier breaks are used solely
>>to reduce the cost of extra steel required to manufacture thicker ring
>>gears. Wouldn't the progressively smaller pinion head be a greater
>>concern than any increased leverage through a thicker ring gear?
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Steve,
>>> Well, I'm still not believing Daimler would be so stupid. If this
>>>Tru-Lok: http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg really is for the 3.73,
>>>then I wouldn't want it because there would be too much leverage just to
>>>one side of the housing causing it to crack like an egg. And the bones
>>>of the Rubicon will litter the trail.
>>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>>>mailto:--------------------
>>>
>>>Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Bill,
>>>>
>>>>My best information is the Tru-Lok sitting on my bench beside an open
>>>>carrier that I pulled from an XJ D44 with 3.54 ratio. Same flange depth.
>>>>
>>>>Read this blurb from Randy's R&P:
>>>>
>>>>( http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/aboutyukondana.html )
>>>>
>>>>"Randy's Ring & Pinion, a leading supplier of truck and off-road
>>>>differential parts, announces their distribution of the new Yukon Dana
>>>>44 4.88 thick gear sets for the 2003 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon"
>>>>
>>>>"Yukon Gear engineered the 4.88 thick gear to mesh seamlessly with the
>>>>existing Rubicon lockers, the top-of-the-line Tru-Loc ™ air lockers.
>>>>With the computer-designed 4.88, Rubicon owners can push beyond the
>>>>limits of the standard 4.10 gear and can move from the 31" stock tires
>>>>up to beefy 37" tires. The thick ring gear set, made from high-quality
>>>>8620 steel, also works well in older Dana 44 rear-ends with a 3.73 &
>>>>down carrier case, eliminating the need for a new carrier case or locker."
>>>>
>>>>The only disadvantage I can see with the need for a thick ring gear is
>>>>that they cost a bit more new and are harder to find used. Hassle factor
>>>>aside, I don't think there are any performance concerns that rank with
>>>>the C-clip.
>>>>
>>>>Steve
02-11-2004 | 06:09 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
Hi Steve,
I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
wrong size carrier.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
> engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>
> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>
> quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
> Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
> couldn’t break".
>
> It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
> get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
> smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
> 44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>
> Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
> standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
> Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
> for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>
> I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>
> Steve
I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
wrong size carrier.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
> engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>
> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>
> quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
> Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
> couldn’t break".
>
> It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
> get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
> smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
> 44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>
> Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
> standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
> Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
> for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>
> I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>
> Steve
02-11-2004 | 06:09 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
Hi Steve,
I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
wrong size carrier.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
> engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>
> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>
> quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
> Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
> couldn’t break".
>
> It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
> get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
> smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
> 44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>
> Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
> standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
> Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
> for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>
> I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>
> Steve
I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
wrong size carrier.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
> engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>
> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>
> quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
> Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
> couldn’t break".
>
> It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
> get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
> smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
> 44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>
> Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
> standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
> Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
> for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>
> I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>
> Steve
02-11-2004 | 06:09 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
Hi Steve,
I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
wrong size carrier.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
> engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>
> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>
> quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
> Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
> couldn’t break".
>
> It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
> get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
> smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
> 44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>
> Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
> standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
> Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
> for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>
> I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>
> Steve
I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
wrong size carrier.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
> engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>
> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>
> quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
> Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
> couldn’t break".
>
> It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
> get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
> smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
> 44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>
> Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
> standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
> Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
> for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>
> I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>
> Steve
02-12-2004 | 01:17 AM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
Hi Bill,
This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
http://tinyurl.com/yux58
http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
http://tinyurl.com/2374s
http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
threads in the ring gear.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
> wrong size carrier.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
>>engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>>
>> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>>
>>quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
>>Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
>>couldn’t break".
>>
>>It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
>>get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
>>smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
>>44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>>
>>Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
>>standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
>>Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
>>for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>>
>>I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>>
>>Steve
This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
http://tinyurl.com/yux58
http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
http://tinyurl.com/2374s
http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
threads in the ring gear.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
> wrong size carrier.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
>>engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>>
>> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>>
>>quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
>>Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
>>couldn’t break".
>>
>>It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
>>get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
>>smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
>>44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>>
>>Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
>>standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
>>Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
>>for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>>
>>I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>>
>>Steve
02-12-2004 | 01:17 AM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
Hi Bill,
This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
http://tinyurl.com/yux58
http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
http://tinyurl.com/2374s
http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
threads in the ring gear.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
> wrong size carrier.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
>>engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>>
>> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>>
>>quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
>>Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
>>couldn’t break".
>>
>>It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
>>get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
>>smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
>>44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>>
>>Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
>>standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
>>Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
>>for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>>
>>I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>>
>>Steve
This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
http://tinyurl.com/yux58
http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
http://tinyurl.com/2374s
http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
threads in the ring gear.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
> wrong size carrier.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
>>engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>>
>> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>>
>>quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
>>Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
>>couldn’t break".
>>
>>It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
>>get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
>>smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
>>44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>>
>>Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
>>standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
>>Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
>>for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>>
>>I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>>
>>Steve
02-12-2004 | 01:17 AM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
Hi Bill,
This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
http://tinyurl.com/yux58
http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
http://tinyurl.com/2374s
http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
threads in the ring gear.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
> wrong size carrier.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
>>engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>>
>> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>>
>>quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
>>Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
>>couldn’t break".
>>
>>It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
>>get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
>>smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
>>44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>>
>>Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
>>standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
>>Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
>>for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>>
>>I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>>
>>Steve
This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
http://tinyurl.com/yux58
http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
http://tinyurl.com/2374s
http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
threads in the ring gear.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> I still haven't found where you think Tochigi Fuji Sangyo uses the
> wrong size carrier.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>Well, I guess I can only hope that the Tru-Lok is sufficiently
>>engineered to withstand the thicker ring gear. This article:
>>
>> http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/77698/
>>
>>quotes Jeep engineer Jim Repp as saying that the Tochigi Fuji Sanjyo
>>Tru-Lok was chosen for the Rubicon "because they were the only ones we
>>couldn’t break".
>>
>>It does get worse though. I just got off the phone with Randy's R&P to
>>get a quote on aftermarket thick gears. It seems the Tru-Lok uses
>>smaller diameter ring gear bolts than what are found on a standard Dana
>>44 carrier. Sounds like another weak point.
>>
>>Unfortunately for me, the aftermarket thick gears are threaded for the
>>standard size bolts and require bolt thread adapters to fit the smaller
>>Tru-Lok bolts. Grief. They do supply a thick 4.88 gear that is threaded
>>for Rubicon bolts, but their thick 4.09 and 4.55 gears are not.
>>
>>I'll avoid the aftermarkets and look for original Rubicon gears.
>>
>>Steve
02-12-2004 | 01:53 AM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
Hi Steve,
Yes, you've directed me the that site that indicates this NO NAME
manufacturer: Yukon makes the the thicker ring gears for the Dana 44,
before.
And the hearsay of these forums that their writers call themselves,
Rubi Noobie, and Rubi that tells me all I need to know about their
experience in performance parts.
But, hay don't let this stop you from buying a set.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
> the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
>
> http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
>
> Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yux58
> http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
> http://tinyurl.com/2374s
> http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
>
> I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
> thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
> it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
> checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
> wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
> that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
> threads in the ring gear.
>
> Steve
Yes, you've directed me the that site that indicates this NO NAME
manufacturer: Yukon makes the the thicker ring gears for the Dana 44,
before.
And the hearsay of these forums that their writers call themselves,
Rubi Noobie, and Rubi that tells me all I need to know about their
experience in performance parts.
But, hay don't let this stop you from buying a set.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
> the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
>
> http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
>
> Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yux58
> http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
> http://tinyurl.com/2374s
> http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
>
> I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
> thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
> it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
> checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
> wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
> that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
> threads in the ring gear.
>
> Steve
02-12-2004 | 01:53 AM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
Hi Steve,
Yes, you've directed me the that site that indicates this NO NAME
manufacturer: Yukon makes the the thicker ring gears for the Dana 44,
before.
And the hearsay of these forums that their writers call themselves,
Rubi Noobie, and Rubi that tells me all I need to know about their
experience in performance parts.
But, hay don't let this stop you from buying a set.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
> the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
>
> http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
>
> Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yux58
> http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
> http://tinyurl.com/2374s
> http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
>
> I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
> thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
> it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
> checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
> wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
> that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
> threads in the ring gear.
>
> Steve
Yes, you've directed me the that site that indicates this NO NAME
manufacturer: Yukon makes the the thicker ring gears for the Dana 44,
before.
And the hearsay of these forums that their writers call themselves,
Rubi Noobie, and Rubi that tells me all I need to know about their
experience in performance parts.
But, hay don't let this stop you from buying a set.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
> the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
>
> http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
>
> Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yux58
> http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
> http://tinyurl.com/2374s
> http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
>
> I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
> thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
> it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
> checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
> wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
> that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
> threads in the ring gear.
>
> Steve
02-12-2004 | 01:53 AM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dana 44 4.09 ring gear thickness
Hi Steve,
Yes, you've directed me the that site that indicates this NO NAME
manufacturer: Yukon makes the the thicker ring gears for the Dana 44,
before.
And the hearsay of these forums that their writers call themselves,
Rubi Noobie, and Rubi that tells me all I need to know about their
experience in performance parts.
But, hay don't let this stop you from buying a set.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
> the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
>
> http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
>
> Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yux58
> http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
> http://tinyurl.com/2374s
> http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
>
> I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
> thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
> it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
> checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
> wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
> that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
> threads in the ring gear.
>
> Steve
Yes, you've directed me the that site that indicates this NO NAME
manufacturer: Yukon makes the the thicker ring gears for the Dana 44,
before.
And the hearsay of these forums that their writers call themselves,
Rubi Noobie, and Rubi that tells me all I need to know about their
experience in performance parts.
But, hay don't let this stop you from buying a set.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> This link from an earlier post on this thread states pretty clearly that
> the Rubicon diff is sized 3.73 & down:
>
> http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/abo...page=yukondana
>
> Can't find any official documentation. Rubi owners do mention it:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yux58
> http://tinyurl.com/3ab3h
> http://tinyurl.com/2374s
> http://home.earthlink.net/~lmats/
>
> I should correct a statement I made in my last post regarding bolt
> thickness. When I said the Tru-Lok needs thinner ring gear bolts, I got
> it backwards. It actually needs thicker bolts. I hadn't noticed til I
> checked right now, but the bolt holes on the flange of my Tru-Lok are
> wider than those on my stock open carrier. So, the adapters (spacers)
> that the R&P vendor told me about are for the flange holes, not the bolt
> threads in the ring gear.
>
> Steve
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Richard J Kinch
Jeep Mailing List
0
01-22-2007 05:02 PM
JeePenn
Jeep Mailing List
6
01-06-2005 06:01 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)