JimG

I, (from the old school) stand corrected. :-)

JimG

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40284E74.E6D3856@***.net...
> Hi Jim,
> That's the way I've learned it, except Steve here, pointed me to
> this no name manufacturer making a thicker ring gear. I guess hoping to
> sell it to TJ buyers that mistakenly bought the 3.73s and it's carrier:
> http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/4.8...hlightsweb.pdf I
> wouldn't buy it unless someone like Richmond made it.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> JimG wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure where you are going with this, but a 4.09 for a 44 is a
> > 4.09... there is no thick or thin version. They (ring gear) have to be
> > matched to the pinion and carrier... there is no mix/match strategy.
> >
> > --
> > JimG
> > 80' CJ-7 258 CID
> > 35" BFG MT on 15x10 Centerlines
> > D44 Rear, Dana 30 Front. SOA
> > 4.56 Gears, LockRight F&R
> > Dana 300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
> > Warn X8000i w/ dual batteries

JimG

I, (from the old school) stand corrected. :-)

JimG

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40284E74.E6D3856@***.net...
> Hi Jim,
> That's the way I've learned it, except Steve here, pointed me to
> this no name manufacturer making a thicker ring gear. I guess hoping to
> sell it to TJ buyers that mistakenly bought the 3.73s and it's carrier:
> http://www.ring-pinion.com/about/4.8...hlightsweb.pdf I
> wouldn't buy it unless someone like Richmond made it.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> JimG wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure where you are going with this, but a 4.09 for a 44 is a
> > 4.09... there is no thick or thin version. They (ring gear) have to be
> > matched to the pinion and carrier... there is no mix/match strategy.
> >
> > --
> > JimG
> > 80' CJ-7 258 CID
> > 35" BFG MT on 15x10 Centerlines
> > D44 Rear, Dana 30 Front. SOA
> > 4.56 Gears, LockRight F&R
> > Dana 300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
> > Warn X8000i w/ dual batteries

Steve

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

Steve

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

Steve

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

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

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

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

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

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

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

Steve

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

Steve

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