1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:408DC9E1.A86D1310@***.net...
> Just think TJ = puny, Real Jeep Dana 44 axle sized universal
> joints. ever hear of a Dana 25 or 27 breaking a U-J?
Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
(D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
any torque!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:408DC9E1.A86D1310@***.net...
> Just think TJ = puny, Real Jeep Dana 44 axle sized universal
> joints. ever hear of a Dana 25 or 27 breaking a U-J?
Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
(D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
any torque!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:408DC9E1.A86D1310@***.net...
> Just think TJ = puny, Real Jeep Dana 44 axle sized universal
> joints. ever hear of a Dana 25 or 27 breaking a U-J?
Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
(D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
any torque!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
Your right the stock 350" Buick wasn't strong enough, to break the
Dana 25, 27 or 44 axles. Of course, most of us are using four hundred
plus horse power on the same axles. Tell me again why the TJs break so
many axle U-Js.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
>
> (D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
> any torque!)
Dana 25, 27 or 44 axles. Of course, most of us are using four hundred
plus horse power on the same axles. Tell me again why the TJs break so
many axle U-Js.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
>
> (D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
> any torque!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
Your right the stock 350" Buick wasn't strong enough, to break the
Dana 25, 27 or 44 axles. Of course, most of us are using four hundred
plus horse power on the same axles. Tell me again why the TJs break so
many axle U-Js.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
>
> (D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
> any torque!)
Dana 25, 27 or 44 axles. Of course, most of us are using four hundred
plus horse power on the same axles. Tell me again why the TJs break so
many axle U-Js.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
>
> (D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
> any torque!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
Your right the stock 350" Buick wasn't strong enough, to break the
Dana 25, 27 or 44 axles. Of course, most of us are using four hundred
plus horse power on the same axles. Tell me again why the TJs break so
many axle U-Js.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
>
> (D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
> any torque!)
Dana 25, 27 or 44 axles. Of course, most of us are using four hundred
plus horse power on the same axles. Tell me again why the TJs break so
many axle U-Js.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
>
> (D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
> any torque!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
Your right the stock 350" Buick wasn't strong enough, to break the
Dana 25, 27 or 44 axles. Of course, most of us are using four hundred
plus horse power on the same axles. Tell me again why the TJs break so
many axle U-Js.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
>
> (D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
> any torque!)
Dana 25, 27 or 44 axles. Of course, most of us are using four hundred
plus horse power on the same axles. Tell me again why the TJs break so
many axle U-Js.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry McG wrote:
>
> Actually, Bill, he HAS Dana 44-sized u-joints, as do all D30s after '94.
>
> (D25s & 27s didn't break u-joints because their powerplants didn't generate
> any torque!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
To answer your question about the front driveshaft, no, you didn't get
"freak drive shaft". Obviously Napa's book is leaving a lot to be
desired in the realm of accuracy. The front driveshaft on all the TJs
I've seen is always a CV driveshaft. Only the rear driveshaft comes
stock as a U-joint only driveshaft. And man, that front driveshaft
ain't cheap to replace if you damage it on the trail :( but at least
since it properly has the slip in the shaft rather than at the yoke,
an unmodified stocker can still remove it and drive home without
losing the transfer case fluid. ;-)
"Tqm" <tqmfun@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Uxjjc.14072$e4.5381@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net>...
> I'm installing some new axle joints on my D30 and had trouble getting the
> correct axle joints (u-joints?). The first set was to small on the caps and
> I had to return them (after wasting a day waiting for a ride) to try and get
> the correct size. I took the old joint to Napa and they matched it up and
> found that what mine needed (according to their book) the u-joint for
> anti-lock brakes. Since I have no anti-lock brakes I thought this was odd.
> Did Jeep use anti-lock axles when the standards ran out on the line?
> Also, their book was incorrect for the front drive shaft. Mine has a
> constant velocity type universal joint at the transfer case (3 u-joints
> total) instead of just two standard u-joints like their book calls out for.
> I looked online and didn't see any other mention of this type of drive shaft
> on a TJ. Did I get a freak drive shaft???
> Anyway, the different sized axle joints might be something to watch out for
> when your stocking up spare parts for the trails.
>
> Tqm
> 97 TJ (Mystery Dana 30)
"freak drive shaft". Obviously Napa's book is leaving a lot to be
desired in the realm of accuracy. The front driveshaft on all the TJs
I've seen is always a CV driveshaft. Only the rear driveshaft comes
stock as a U-joint only driveshaft. And man, that front driveshaft
ain't cheap to replace if you damage it on the trail :( but at least
since it properly has the slip in the shaft rather than at the yoke,
an unmodified stocker can still remove it and drive home without
losing the transfer case fluid. ;-)
"Tqm" <tqmfun@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Uxjjc.14072$e4.5381@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net>...
> I'm installing some new axle joints on my D30 and had trouble getting the
> correct axle joints (u-joints?). The first set was to small on the caps and
> I had to return them (after wasting a day waiting for a ride) to try and get
> the correct size. I took the old joint to Napa and they matched it up and
> found that what mine needed (according to their book) the u-joint for
> anti-lock brakes. Since I have no anti-lock brakes I thought this was odd.
> Did Jeep use anti-lock axles when the standards ran out on the line?
> Also, their book was incorrect for the front drive shaft. Mine has a
> constant velocity type universal joint at the transfer case (3 u-joints
> total) instead of just two standard u-joints like their book calls out for.
> I looked online and didn't see any other mention of this type of drive shaft
> on a TJ. Did I get a freak drive shaft???
> Anyway, the different sized axle joints might be something to watch out for
> when your stocking up spare parts for the trails.
>
> Tqm
> 97 TJ (Mystery Dana 30)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
To answer your question about the front driveshaft, no, you didn't get
"freak drive shaft". Obviously Napa's book is leaving a lot to be
desired in the realm of accuracy. The front driveshaft on all the TJs
I've seen is always a CV driveshaft. Only the rear driveshaft comes
stock as a U-joint only driveshaft. And man, that front driveshaft
ain't cheap to replace if you damage it on the trail :( but at least
since it properly has the slip in the shaft rather than at the yoke,
an unmodified stocker can still remove it and drive home without
losing the transfer case fluid. ;-)
"Tqm" <tqmfun@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Uxjjc.14072$e4.5381@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net>...
> I'm installing some new axle joints on my D30 and had trouble getting the
> correct axle joints (u-joints?). The first set was to small on the caps and
> I had to return them (after wasting a day waiting for a ride) to try and get
> the correct size. I took the old joint to Napa and they matched it up and
> found that what mine needed (according to their book) the u-joint for
> anti-lock brakes. Since I have no anti-lock brakes I thought this was odd.
> Did Jeep use anti-lock axles when the standards ran out on the line?
> Also, their book was incorrect for the front drive shaft. Mine has a
> constant velocity type universal joint at the transfer case (3 u-joints
> total) instead of just two standard u-joints like their book calls out for.
> I looked online and didn't see any other mention of this type of drive shaft
> on a TJ. Did I get a freak drive shaft???
> Anyway, the different sized axle joints might be something to watch out for
> when your stocking up spare parts for the trails.
>
> Tqm
> 97 TJ (Mystery Dana 30)
"freak drive shaft". Obviously Napa's book is leaving a lot to be
desired in the realm of accuracy. The front driveshaft on all the TJs
I've seen is always a CV driveshaft. Only the rear driveshaft comes
stock as a U-joint only driveshaft. And man, that front driveshaft
ain't cheap to replace if you damage it on the trail :( but at least
since it properly has the slip in the shaft rather than at the yoke,
an unmodified stocker can still remove it and drive home without
losing the transfer case fluid. ;-)
"Tqm" <tqmfun@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Uxjjc.14072$e4.5381@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net>...
> I'm installing some new axle joints on my D30 and had trouble getting the
> correct axle joints (u-joints?). The first set was to small on the caps and
> I had to return them (after wasting a day waiting for a ride) to try and get
> the correct size. I took the old joint to Napa and they matched it up and
> found that what mine needed (according to their book) the u-joint for
> anti-lock brakes. Since I have no anti-lock brakes I thought this was odd.
> Did Jeep use anti-lock axles when the standards ran out on the line?
> Also, their book was incorrect for the front drive shaft. Mine has a
> constant velocity type universal joint at the transfer case (3 u-joints
> total) instead of just two standard u-joints like their book calls out for.
> I looked online and didn't see any other mention of this type of drive shaft
> on a TJ. Did I get a freak drive shaft???
> Anyway, the different sized axle joints might be something to watch out for
> when your stocking up spare parts for the trails.
>
> Tqm
> 97 TJ (Mystery Dana 30)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 1997 TJ Dana 30 Axle Joints
To answer your question about the front driveshaft, no, you didn't get
"freak drive shaft". Obviously Napa's book is leaving a lot to be
desired in the realm of accuracy. The front driveshaft on all the TJs
I've seen is always a CV driveshaft. Only the rear driveshaft comes
stock as a U-joint only driveshaft. And man, that front driveshaft
ain't cheap to replace if you damage it on the trail :( but at least
since it properly has the slip in the shaft rather than at the yoke,
an unmodified stocker can still remove it and drive home without
losing the transfer case fluid. ;-)
"Tqm" <tqmfun@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Uxjjc.14072$e4.5381@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net>...
> I'm installing some new axle joints on my D30 and had trouble getting the
> correct axle joints (u-joints?). The first set was to small on the caps and
> I had to return them (after wasting a day waiting for a ride) to try and get
> the correct size. I took the old joint to Napa and they matched it up and
> found that what mine needed (according to their book) the u-joint for
> anti-lock brakes. Since I have no anti-lock brakes I thought this was odd.
> Did Jeep use anti-lock axles when the standards ran out on the line?
> Also, their book was incorrect for the front drive shaft. Mine has a
> constant velocity type universal joint at the transfer case (3 u-joints
> total) instead of just two standard u-joints like their book calls out for.
> I looked online and didn't see any other mention of this type of drive shaft
> on a TJ. Did I get a freak drive shaft???
> Anyway, the different sized axle joints might be something to watch out for
> when your stocking up spare parts for the trails.
>
> Tqm
> 97 TJ (Mystery Dana 30)
"freak drive shaft". Obviously Napa's book is leaving a lot to be
desired in the realm of accuracy. The front driveshaft on all the TJs
I've seen is always a CV driveshaft. Only the rear driveshaft comes
stock as a U-joint only driveshaft. And man, that front driveshaft
ain't cheap to replace if you damage it on the trail :( but at least
since it properly has the slip in the shaft rather than at the yoke,
an unmodified stocker can still remove it and drive home without
losing the transfer case fluid. ;-)
"Tqm" <tqmfun@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Uxjjc.14072$e4.5381@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net>...
> I'm installing some new axle joints on my D30 and had trouble getting the
> correct axle joints (u-joints?). The first set was to small on the caps and
> I had to return them (after wasting a day waiting for a ride) to try and get
> the correct size. I took the old joint to Napa and they matched it up and
> found that what mine needed (according to their book) the u-joint for
> anti-lock brakes. Since I have no anti-lock brakes I thought this was odd.
> Did Jeep use anti-lock axles when the standards ran out on the line?
> Also, their book was incorrect for the front drive shaft. Mine has a
> constant velocity type universal joint at the transfer case (3 u-joints
> total) instead of just two standard u-joints like their book calls out for.
> I looked online and didn't see any other mention of this type of drive shaft
> on a TJ. Did I get a freak drive shaft???
> Anyway, the different sized axle joints might be something to watch out for
> when your stocking up spare parts for the trails.
>
> Tqm
> 97 TJ (Mystery Dana 30)
