In article <nLlAb.27814$Bk1.27043@fed1read05>, "Jerry Bransford"
<jerrypb@mecox.net> writes:

>> MTR's are very good offroad. They do wear a bit faster.
>
>But not enough to worry about. My MT/Rs seem to be wearing very slowly,
>more slowly than I thought they would. Their sidewall strength and offroad
>traction on the rocks is nothing shy of outstanding.
>
>Jerry

Agreed. Tire wear is probably only an issue for a daily driver with long
commutes. I put my 31" MTR's on my Cherokee, which has since been sold because
it didn't see a lot of use :-(
* * *
Matt Macchiarolo
www.townpeddler.com
www.wolverine4wd.org
http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html

 

In article <nLlAb.27814$Bk1.27043@fed1read05>, "Jerry Bransford"
<jerrypb@mecox.net> writes:

>> MTR's are very good offroad. They do wear a bit faster.
>
>But not enough to worry about. My MT/Rs seem to be wearing very slowly,
>more slowly than I thought they would. Their sidewall strength and offroad
>traction on the rocks is nothing shy of outstanding.
>
>Jerry

Agreed. Tire wear is probably only an issue for a daily driver with long
commutes. I put my 31" MTR's on my Cherokee, which has since been sold because
it didn't see a lot of use :-(
* * *
Matt Macchiarolo
www.townpeddler.com
www.wolverine4wd.org
http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html

 

In article <nLlAb.27814$Bk1.27043@fed1read05>, "Jerry Bransford"
<jerrypb@mecox.net> writes:

>> MTR's are very good offroad. They do wear a bit faster.
>
>But not enough to worry about. My MT/Rs seem to be wearing very slowly,
>more slowly than I thought they would. Their sidewall strength and offroad
>traction on the rocks is nothing shy of outstanding.
>
>Jerry

Agreed. Tire wear is probably only an issue for a daily driver with long
commutes. I put my 31" MTR's on my Cherokee, which has since been sold because
it didn't see a lot of use :-(
* * *
Matt Macchiarolo
www.townpeddler.com
www.wolverine4wd.org
http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html

 

Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Dana 44 axles are only expensive if you buy them later, not if you order a
> new Wrangler Sport with the optional Dana 44 upgrade for less than $300.
> You cannot buy the far better/stronger Dana 44 rear axle upgrade with the
> 'X' Wrangler though.
>
> Even "weekend" warriors break the factory Dana 35c axle, it's CHEAP
> insurance to upgrade to the stronger/better Dana 44 at the time the Wrangler
> is bought new. It cost me $1200 to upgrade my breakage-prone Dana 35c to a
> used Dana 44.
>

OK, someone please enlighten this newbie: why is it that the Dana 44
axle upgrade is only in the rear? Or, put another way, what is it about
the rear axle that justifies the upgrade there first? It would seem to
me that on a 4WD vehicle with an even 50/50 front/rear weight
distribution and the same size tires on both axles, that both axles
would benefit from the upgrade...naturally I understand that in 2WD mode
the wrangler is rear wheel drive, but... well, you get my drift.

Just curious

 

Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Dana 44 axles are only expensive if you buy them later, not if you order a
> new Wrangler Sport with the optional Dana 44 upgrade for less than $300.
> You cannot buy the far better/stronger Dana 44 rear axle upgrade with the
> 'X' Wrangler though.
>
> Even "weekend" warriors break the factory Dana 35c axle, it's CHEAP
> insurance to upgrade to the stronger/better Dana 44 at the time the Wrangler
> is bought new. It cost me $1200 to upgrade my breakage-prone Dana 35c to a
> used Dana 44.
>

OK, someone please enlighten this newbie: why is it that the Dana 44
axle upgrade is only in the rear? Or, put another way, what is it about
the rear axle that justifies the upgrade there first? It would seem to
me that on a 4WD vehicle with an even 50/50 front/rear weight
distribution and the same size tires on both axles, that both axles
would benefit from the upgrade...naturally I understand that in 2WD mode
the wrangler is rear wheel drive, but... well, you get my drift.

Just curious

 

Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Dana 44 axles are only expensive if you buy them later, not if you order a
> new Wrangler Sport with the optional Dana 44 upgrade for less than $300.
> You cannot buy the far better/stronger Dana 44 rear axle upgrade with the
> 'X' Wrangler though.
>
> Even "weekend" warriors break the factory Dana 35c axle, it's CHEAP
> insurance to upgrade to the stronger/better Dana 44 at the time the Wrangler
> is bought new. It cost me $1200 to upgrade my breakage-prone Dana 35c to a
> used Dana 44.
>

OK, someone please enlighten this newbie: why is it that the Dana 44
axle upgrade is only in the rear? Or, put another way, what is it about
the rear axle that justifies the upgrade there first? It would seem to
me that on a 4WD vehicle with an even 50/50 front/rear weight
distribution and the same size tires on both axles, that both axles
would benefit from the upgrade...naturally I understand that in 2WD mode
the wrangler is rear wheel drive, but... well, you get my drift.

Just curious

 

>Jerry Bransford wrote:
> > Dana 44 axles are only expensive if you buy them later, not if you order
a
> > new Wrangler Sport with the optional Dana 44 upgrade for less than $300.
> > You cannot buy the far better/stronger Dana 44 rear axle upgrade with
the
> > 'X' Wrangler though.
> >
> > Even "weekend" warriors break the factory Dana 35c axle, it's CHEAP
> > insurance to upgrade to the stronger/better Dana 44 at the time the
Wrangler
> > is bought new. It cost me $1200 to upgrade my breakage-prone Dana 35c
to a
> > used Dana 44.
> >
>
> OK, someone please enlighten this newbie: why is it that the Dana 44
> axle upgrade is only in the rear? Or, put another way, what is it about
> the rear axle that justifies the upgrade there first? It would seem to
> me that on a 4WD vehicle with an even 50/50 front/rear weight
> distribution and the same size tires on both axles, that both axles
> would benefit from the upgrade...naturally I understand that in 2WD mode
> the wrangler is rear wheel drive, but... well, you get my drift.>

In offroad situations, the rear axle is the one that sees the vast majority
of the stress due to the weight transfer to the rear that happens whenever
you're climbing up and over obstacles. The rear axle can (and normally
does) see 100% of the stress and torque from the engine while the front axle
rarely sees more than 50% of the stress from offroading and torque from the
engine.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

>Jerry Bransford wrote:
> > Dana 44 axles are only expensive if you buy them later, not if you order
a
> > new Wrangler Sport with the optional Dana 44 upgrade for less than $300.
> > You cannot buy the far better/stronger Dana 44 rear axle upgrade with
the
> > 'X' Wrangler though.
> >
> > Even "weekend" warriors break the factory Dana 35c axle, it's CHEAP
> > insurance to upgrade to the stronger/better Dana 44 at the time the
Wrangler
> > is bought new. It cost me $1200 to upgrade my breakage-prone Dana 35c
to a
> > used Dana 44.
> >
>
> OK, someone please enlighten this newbie: why is it that the Dana 44
> axle upgrade is only in the rear? Or, put another way, what is it about
> the rear axle that justifies the upgrade there first? It would seem to
> me that on a 4WD vehicle with an even 50/50 front/rear weight
> distribution and the same size tires on both axles, that both axles
> would benefit from the upgrade...naturally I understand that in 2WD mode
> the wrangler is rear wheel drive, but... well, you get my drift.>

In offroad situations, the rear axle is the one that sees the vast majority
of the stress due to the weight transfer to the rear that happens whenever
you're climbing up and over obstacles. The rear axle can (and normally
does) see 100% of the stress and torque from the engine while the front axle
rarely sees more than 50% of the stress from offroading and torque from the
engine.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

>Jerry Bransford wrote:
> > Dana 44 axles are only expensive if you buy them later, not if you order
a
> > new Wrangler Sport with the optional Dana 44 upgrade for less than $300.
> > You cannot buy the far better/stronger Dana 44 rear axle upgrade with
the
> > 'X' Wrangler though.
> >
> > Even "weekend" warriors break the factory Dana 35c axle, it's CHEAP
> > insurance to upgrade to the stronger/better Dana 44 at the time the
Wrangler
> > is bought new. It cost me $1200 to upgrade my breakage-prone Dana 35c
to a
> > used Dana 44.
> >
>
> OK, someone please enlighten this newbie: why is it that the Dana 44
> axle upgrade is only in the rear? Or, put another way, what is it about
> the rear axle that justifies the upgrade there first? It would seem to
> me that on a 4WD vehicle with an even 50/50 front/rear weight
> distribution and the same size tires on both axles, that both axles
> would benefit from the upgrade...naturally I understand that in 2WD mode
> the wrangler is rear wheel drive, but... well, you get my drift.>

In offroad situations, the rear axle is the one that sees the vast majority
of the stress due to the weight transfer to the rear that happens whenever
you're climbing up and over obstacles. The rear axle can (and normally
does) see 100% of the stress and torque from the engine while the front axle
rarely sees more than 50% of the stress from offroading and torque from the
engine.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

Under full power the full weight of the vehicle is transferred to
the rear axle, that's why there are no front wheel drive race cars,
except in there own little Japanese sponsored categories. We can see
these cars don't even need a front axle:
http://www.nhra.com/2003/gallery/tf/...me=Larry_Dixon and:
http://www.atving.com/atvconnection/...jeepup.jpg.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

thomas wrote:
>
> OK, someone please enlighten this newbie: why is it that the Dana 44
> axle upgrade is only in the rear? Or, put another way, what is it about
> the rear axle that justifies the upgrade there first? It would seem to
> me that on a 4WD vehicle with an even 50/50 front/rear weight
> distribution and the same size tires on both axles, that both axles
> would benefit from the upgrade...naturally I understand that in 2WD mode
> the wrangler is rear wheel drive, but... well, you get my drift.
>
> Just curious