33s and 4.10s

Hi Steve,
I wouldn't remember saying anything about the thickness of the ring
gear, that's the way the old Chevys made up their differences, too.
Maybe, to tweak you a little.
I believe the bigger problem will be the fewer teeth, even though
it on the same diameter pinion will prove weaker than their forties'
design. But probably only behind a V8 like a it's use in the old Ford,
Chevy and Dodge pickups
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Steve wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Only the TruLok is Japanese. The gears are genuine Dana Spicer.
>
> I don't think the TruLok is 'crap'. In the past year I logged thousands
> of road miles and hundreds of trail hours on the one I put in my XJ,
> sometimes stressing it to the point of snapping ujoints, with no
> differential problems whatsoever.
>
> I recall you predicted extra leverage on the taller ring gear would
> cause the carrier to bend or 'crack like an egg' and that the 'bones
> of the Rubicon will litter the trail' (great imagery). I haven't heard
> of chronic diff failures in Rubicons. Have you?
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
> L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> > Geez, I didn't catch the tooth change the last time you showed me
> > this Japanese crap.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > http://www.billhughes.com/
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> >>Mr. Strickland is correct. The Rubicon Dana 44 TruLok carrier is an odd
> >>duck with a 'thick' ring gear (no carrier break), hence a smaller 10
> >>tooth pinion on a 41 tooth ring:
> >>
> >> http://xjeep.dyndns.org/trulok/slides/IMG_7878.html
> >>
> >>Steve
> >>http://xjeep.dyndns.org

So did it tweak you?
Of course, you're welcome to tell me it's stronger than a 1946 Dana
44.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Steve wrote:
> http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.au...88a44976a9c21f

Probably is, war steel was pretty crap.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> So did it tweak you?
> Of course, you're welcome to tell me it's stronger than a 1946 Dana
> 44.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
>
> Steve wrote:
> >
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.au...88a44976a9c21f

I think that depends on what the metallurgist designed the metal to
do, transport Daimler/Japanese crap, or fly tourist around Los Angeles:
http://www.centercomp.com/cgi-bin/dc3/gallery?1902 Jeepers are using
Rockwell differentials straight out a W.W.II Deuces:
http://www.jpmagazine.com/techarticl...on/index1.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Probably is, war steel was pretty crap.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

FWIW, the Jeep engineers said "We tried them all and the Jap one was the
only one we couldn't break"
n.

"L.W. ("ßill") Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Steve,
> Geez, I didn't catch the tooth change the last time you showed me
> this Japanese crap.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
>
> Steve wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Strickland is correct. The Rubicon Dana 44 TruLok carrier is an odd
>> duck with a 'thick' ring gear (no carrier break), hence a smaller 10
>> tooth pinion on a 41 tooth ring:
>>
>> http://xjeep.dyndns.org/trulok/slides/IMG_7878.html
>>
>> Steve
>> http://xjeep.dyndns.org

Would these be the same engineers that OK'd the Dana 35c?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Nathan Otis wrote:
>
> FWIW, the Jeep engineers said "We tried them all and the Jap one was the
> only one we couldn't break"
> n.

No, the engineers that approved the Dana 35c were with AMC Bill, the
same ones that also approved the use of the French POS BA/10 transmission..

L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:
> Would these be the same engineers that OK'd the Dana 35c?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
>
> Nathan Otis wrote:
>
>>FWIW, the Jeep engineers said "We tried them all and the Jap one was the
>>only one we couldn't break"
>>n.

--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

American Motors Corp. didn't use "C" clips:
http://www.californiajeeper.com/axle.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> No, the engineers that approved the Dana 35c were with AMC Bill, the
> same ones that also approved the use of the French POS BA/10 transmission..

Who mentioned c-clips? I just said it was AMC who started using the
weaker Dana 35c axle in the YJ Wrangler. Besides, Dana 35c axle
shafts held in with c-clips are no weaker than Dana 35c axles without
c-clips. It's just that c-clip design will let the axle shaft slide out
if a shaft breaks. But both have the same exact axle shaft strength.
It was AMC who downsized the axle to the smaller diameter Dana 35c axle
shafts and it was Chrysler who reintroduced the rear Dana 44 as an
option. AMC didn't even offer a stronger rear axle for the AMC-designed
Wrangler like Chrysler does with the Chrysler-Jeep designed Wrangler TJ.

Jerry

L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:
> American Motors Corp. didn't use "C" clips:
> http://www.californiajeeper.com/axle.htm
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
>
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
>>No, the engineers that approved the Dana 35c were with AMC Bill, the
>>same ones that also approved the use of the French POS BA/10 transmission..

--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

There is NO "C" in American Motors Corp. nomenclature.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> Who mentioned c-clips? I just said it was AMC who started using the
> weaker Dana 35c axle in the YJ Wrangler. Besides, Dana 35c axle
> shafts held in with c-clips are no weaker than Dana 35c axles without
> c-clips. It's just that c-clip design will let the axle shaft slide out
> if a shaft breaks. But both have the same exact axle shaft strength.
> It was AMC who downsized the axle to the smaller diameter Dana 35c axle
> shafts and it was Chrysler who reintroduced the rear Dana 44 as an
> option. AMC didn't even offer a stronger rear axle for the AMC-designed
> Wrangler like Chrysler does with the Chrysler-Jeep designed Wrangler TJ.
>
> Jerry