Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
06-29-2004, 11:42 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
it's impossible to affordably build them out...
I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
Thanks a bunch,
Greg
were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
it's impossible to affordably build them out...
I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
Thanks a bunch,
Greg
06-30-2004, 12:12 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
Hi Greg,
I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
4.09 thicker than all others.
You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
sh*t.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Greg Allen wrote:
>
> Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
> were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
> locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
> one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>
> The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
> understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
> it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>
> I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
> Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>
> Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>
> Thanks a bunch,
> Greg
I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
4.09 thicker than all others.
You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
sh*t.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Greg Allen wrote:
>
> Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
> were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
> locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
> one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>
> The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
> understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
> it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>
> I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
> Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>
> Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>
> Thanks a bunch,
> Greg
06-30-2004, 12:12 AM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
Hi Greg,
I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
4.09 thicker than all others.
You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
sh*t.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Greg Allen wrote:
>
> Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
> were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
> locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
> one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>
> The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
> understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
> it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>
> I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
> Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>
> Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>
> Thanks a bunch,
> Greg
I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
4.09 thicker than all others.
You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
sh*t.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Greg Allen wrote:
>
> Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
> were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
> locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
> one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>
> The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
> understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
> it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>
> I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
> Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>
> Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>
> Thanks a bunch,
> Greg
06-30-2004, 12:12 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
Hi Greg,
I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
4.09 thicker than all others.
You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
sh*t.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Greg Allen wrote:
>
> Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
> were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
> locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
> one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>
> The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
> understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
> it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>
> I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
> Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>
> Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>
> Thanks a bunch,
> Greg
I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
4.09 thicker than all others.
You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
sh*t.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Greg Allen wrote:
>
> Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
> were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
> locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
> one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>
> The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
> understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
> it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>
> I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
> Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>
> Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>
> Thanks a bunch,
> Greg
06-30-2004, 12:12 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
Hi Greg,
I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
4.09 thicker than all others.
You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
sh*t.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Greg Allen wrote:
>
> Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
> were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
> locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
> one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>
> The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
> understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
> it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>
> I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
> Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>
> Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>
> Thanks a bunch,
> Greg
I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
4.09 thicker than all others.
You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
sh*t.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Greg Allen wrote:
>
> Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
> were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
> locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
> one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>
> The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
> understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
> it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>
> I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
> Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>
> Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>
> Thanks a bunch,
> Greg
06-30-2004, 12:03 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
Hi Greg,
I'm the someone of whom Bill speaks. I recently put a used Rubicon
Tru-Lok airlocker/LSD in a rear XJ Dana 44. To my knowledge there are
only four differences between the Rubicon D44 and a standard D44 and
these are limited to the R&P and carrier:
1. The OEM Dana Spicer gears in the Rubicon have 41 teeth on the ring
gear and 10 on the pinion for a ratio of 4.10 whereas comparable
standard D44 gears are 45/11 = 4.09.
2. The Rubicon uses 4.10 gears on a carrier that has the same ring gear
mounting surface altitude as a 3.73-down carrier.
3. The Rubicon 4.10 ring gear is 'thick' so it can reach the pinion from
the 3.73-down carrier.
4. The Rubicon's ring gear bolts are thicker and longer than those found
on a standard Dana 44 ring gear.
Bill earlier pointed out that a thicker ring gear will exert more
leverage on the carrier and possibly crack it. Mine's been locked and
offroaded pretty hard and no sign of trouble on last inspection. Perhaps
the Tru-Lok carrier is designed to handle it - I dunno. It looks like a
real tough carrier. On the plus side, the beefier ring gear with its
stronger bolts would be less likely to fail.
When I built my D44, I found an ample supply of 4.10 gears from Rubicon
owners who had regeared. I got two sets, barely used, for $20 each. The
gears set up real nice for me and they run perfectly quiet on both coast
and drive.
'Extra thick' R&P sets in other ratios are available from several
manufacturers. These will fit a Rubicon carrier (or any other 3.73-down
carrier), but you must use the smaller, standard ring gear bolts along
with some spacer sleeves to fit the bolts in the wider bolt holes on the
Rubicon carrier. These after market thick gears cost more, and to my
knowledge, nobody makes them tapped for the thicker bolts in order to
avoid spacer sleeves.
The carrier and pinion were a perfect fit for my XJ D44 housing and
axles. Well, almost perfect. I had to grind a slight depression in the
edge of the right carrier cap to make room for the air line.
I'll second Bill's recommendation to avoid the Tru-Lok differential
unless you get a good deal on one and are content with the 4.10 ratio. I
saved many hundreds on my XJ rear over what I would have paid for a new
ARB and R&P set. I did all my own labor and learned alot as I went. My
gears, air locker, junkyard housing/axles, seals, shims, & bearings came
in under US$450. Works for me.
As far as I know, Rubicon D44 housings are fully compatible with
standard D44 axles, bearings, seals, shims, carriers/lockers, and R&P
sets. A Rubicon D44 front would make a good bolt-in upgrade for your 01
TJ. Any D44 differential will work inside. I see no problem with the
odd-ball Tru-Lok if you want an air locker and plan to stay at 4.10.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
> http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
> said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
> using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
> 4.09 thicker than all others.
> You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
> sh*t.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Greg Allen wrote:
>
>>Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
>>were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
>>locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
>>one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>>
>>The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
>>understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
>>it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>>
>>I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
>>Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>>
>>Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>>
>>Thanks a bunch,
>>Greg
I'm the someone of whom Bill speaks. I recently put a used Rubicon
Tru-Lok airlocker/LSD in a rear XJ Dana 44. To my knowledge there are
only four differences between the Rubicon D44 and a standard D44 and
these are limited to the R&P and carrier:
1. The OEM Dana Spicer gears in the Rubicon have 41 teeth on the ring
gear and 10 on the pinion for a ratio of 4.10 whereas comparable
standard D44 gears are 45/11 = 4.09.
2. The Rubicon uses 4.10 gears on a carrier that has the same ring gear
mounting surface altitude as a 3.73-down carrier.
3. The Rubicon 4.10 ring gear is 'thick' so it can reach the pinion from
the 3.73-down carrier.
4. The Rubicon's ring gear bolts are thicker and longer than those found
on a standard Dana 44 ring gear.
Bill earlier pointed out that a thicker ring gear will exert more
leverage on the carrier and possibly crack it. Mine's been locked and
offroaded pretty hard and no sign of trouble on last inspection. Perhaps
the Tru-Lok carrier is designed to handle it - I dunno. It looks like a
real tough carrier. On the plus side, the beefier ring gear with its
stronger bolts would be less likely to fail.
When I built my D44, I found an ample supply of 4.10 gears from Rubicon
owners who had regeared. I got two sets, barely used, for $20 each. The
gears set up real nice for me and they run perfectly quiet on both coast
and drive.
'Extra thick' R&P sets in other ratios are available from several
manufacturers. These will fit a Rubicon carrier (or any other 3.73-down
carrier), but you must use the smaller, standard ring gear bolts along
with some spacer sleeves to fit the bolts in the wider bolt holes on the
Rubicon carrier. These after market thick gears cost more, and to my
knowledge, nobody makes them tapped for the thicker bolts in order to
avoid spacer sleeves.
The carrier and pinion were a perfect fit for my XJ D44 housing and
axles. Well, almost perfect. I had to grind a slight depression in the
edge of the right carrier cap to make room for the air line.
I'll second Bill's recommendation to avoid the Tru-Lok differential
unless you get a good deal on one and are content with the 4.10 ratio. I
saved many hundreds on my XJ rear over what I would have paid for a new
ARB and R&P set. I did all my own labor and learned alot as I went. My
gears, air locker, junkyard housing/axles, seals, shims, & bearings came
in under US$450. Works for me.
As far as I know, Rubicon D44 housings are fully compatible with
standard D44 axles, bearings, seals, shims, carriers/lockers, and R&P
sets. A Rubicon D44 front would make a good bolt-in upgrade for your 01
TJ. Any D44 differential will work inside. I see no problem with the
odd-ball Tru-Lok if you want an air locker and plan to stay at 4.10.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
> http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
> said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
> using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
> 4.09 thicker than all others.
> You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
> sh*t.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Greg Allen wrote:
>
>>Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
>>were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
>>locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
>>one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>>
>>The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
>>understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
>>it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>>
>>I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
>>Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>>
>>Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>>
>>Thanks a bunch,
>>Greg
06-30-2004, 12:03 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
Hi Greg,
I'm the someone of whom Bill speaks. I recently put a used Rubicon
Tru-Lok airlocker/LSD in a rear XJ Dana 44. To my knowledge there are
only four differences between the Rubicon D44 and a standard D44 and
these are limited to the R&P and carrier:
1. The OEM Dana Spicer gears in the Rubicon have 41 teeth on the ring
gear and 10 on the pinion for a ratio of 4.10 whereas comparable
standard D44 gears are 45/11 = 4.09.
2. The Rubicon uses 4.10 gears on a carrier that has the same ring gear
mounting surface altitude as a 3.73-down carrier.
3. The Rubicon 4.10 ring gear is 'thick' so it can reach the pinion from
the 3.73-down carrier.
4. The Rubicon's ring gear bolts are thicker and longer than those found
on a standard Dana 44 ring gear.
Bill earlier pointed out that a thicker ring gear will exert more
leverage on the carrier and possibly crack it. Mine's been locked and
offroaded pretty hard and no sign of trouble on last inspection. Perhaps
the Tru-Lok carrier is designed to handle it - I dunno. It looks like a
real tough carrier. On the plus side, the beefier ring gear with its
stronger bolts would be less likely to fail.
When I built my D44, I found an ample supply of 4.10 gears from Rubicon
owners who had regeared. I got two sets, barely used, for $20 each. The
gears set up real nice for me and they run perfectly quiet on both coast
and drive.
'Extra thick' R&P sets in other ratios are available from several
manufacturers. These will fit a Rubicon carrier (or any other 3.73-down
carrier), but you must use the smaller, standard ring gear bolts along
with some spacer sleeves to fit the bolts in the wider bolt holes on the
Rubicon carrier. These after market thick gears cost more, and to my
knowledge, nobody makes them tapped for the thicker bolts in order to
avoid spacer sleeves.
The carrier and pinion were a perfect fit for my XJ D44 housing and
axles. Well, almost perfect. I had to grind a slight depression in the
edge of the right carrier cap to make room for the air line.
I'll second Bill's recommendation to avoid the Tru-Lok differential
unless you get a good deal on one and are content with the 4.10 ratio. I
saved many hundreds on my XJ rear over what I would have paid for a new
ARB and R&P set. I did all my own labor and learned alot as I went. My
gears, air locker, junkyard housing/axles, seals, shims, & bearings came
in under US$450. Works for me.
As far as I know, Rubicon D44 housings are fully compatible with
standard D44 axles, bearings, seals, shims, carriers/lockers, and R&P
sets. A Rubicon D44 front would make a good bolt-in upgrade for your 01
TJ. Any D44 differential will work inside. I see no problem with the
odd-ball Tru-Lok if you want an air locker and plan to stay at 4.10.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
> http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
> said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
> using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
> 4.09 thicker than all others.
> You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
> sh*t.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Greg Allen wrote:
>
>>Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
>>were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
>>locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
>>one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>>
>>The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
>>understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
>>it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>>
>>I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
>>Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>>
>>Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>>
>>Thanks a bunch,
>>Greg
I'm the someone of whom Bill speaks. I recently put a used Rubicon
Tru-Lok airlocker/LSD in a rear XJ Dana 44. To my knowledge there are
only four differences between the Rubicon D44 and a standard D44 and
these are limited to the R&P and carrier:
1. The OEM Dana Spicer gears in the Rubicon have 41 teeth on the ring
gear and 10 on the pinion for a ratio of 4.10 whereas comparable
standard D44 gears are 45/11 = 4.09.
2. The Rubicon uses 4.10 gears on a carrier that has the same ring gear
mounting surface altitude as a 3.73-down carrier.
3. The Rubicon 4.10 ring gear is 'thick' so it can reach the pinion from
the 3.73-down carrier.
4. The Rubicon's ring gear bolts are thicker and longer than those found
on a standard Dana 44 ring gear.
Bill earlier pointed out that a thicker ring gear will exert more
leverage on the carrier and possibly crack it. Mine's been locked and
offroaded pretty hard and no sign of trouble on last inspection. Perhaps
the Tru-Lok carrier is designed to handle it - I dunno. It looks like a
real tough carrier. On the plus side, the beefier ring gear with its
stronger bolts would be less likely to fail.
When I built my D44, I found an ample supply of 4.10 gears from Rubicon
owners who had regeared. I got two sets, barely used, for $20 each. The
gears set up real nice for me and they run perfectly quiet on both coast
and drive.
'Extra thick' R&P sets in other ratios are available from several
manufacturers. These will fit a Rubicon carrier (or any other 3.73-down
carrier), but you must use the smaller, standard ring gear bolts along
with some spacer sleeves to fit the bolts in the wider bolt holes on the
Rubicon carrier. These after market thick gears cost more, and to my
knowledge, nobody makes them tapped for the thicker bolts in order to
avoid spacer sleeves.
The carrier and pinion were a perfect fit for my XJ D44 housing and
axles. Well, almost perfect. I had to grind a slight depression in the
edge of the right carrier cap to make room for the air line.
I'll second Bill's recommendation to avoid the Tru-Lok differential
unless you get a good deal on one and are content with the 4.10 ratio. I
saved many hundreds on my XJ rear over what I would have paid for a new
ARB and R&P set. I did all my own labor and learned alot as I went. My
gears, air locker, junkyard housing/axles, seals, shims, & bearings came
in under US$450. Works for me.
As far as I know, Rubicon D44 housings are fully compatible with
standard D44 axles, bearings, seals, shims, carriers/lockers, and R&P
sets. A Rubicon D44 front would make a good bolt-in upgrade for your 01
TJ. Any D44 differential will work inside. I see no problem with the
odd-ball Tru-Lok if you want an air locker and plan to stay at 4.10.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
> http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
> said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
> using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
> 4.09 thicker than all others.
> You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
> sh*t.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Greg Allen wrote:
>
>>Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
>>were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
>>locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
>>one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>>
>>The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
>>understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
>>it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>>
>>I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
>>Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>>
>>Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>>
>>Thanks a bunch,
>>Greg
06-30-2004, 12:03 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
Hi Greg,
I'm the someone of whom Bill speaks. I recently put a used Rubicon
Tru-Lok airlocker/LSD in a rear XJ Dana 44. To my knowledge there are
only four differences between the Rubicon D44 and a standard D44 and
these are limited to the R&P and carrier:
1. The OEM Dana Spicer gears in the Rubicon have 41 teeth on the ring
gear and 10 on the pinion for a ratio of 4.10 whereas comparable
standard D44 gears are 45/11 = 4.09.
2. The Rubicon uses 4.10 gears on a carrier that has the same ring gear
mounting surface altitude as a 3.73-down carrier.
3. The Rubicon 4.10 ring gear is 'thick' so it can reach the pinion from
the 3.73-down carrier.
4. The Rubicon's ring gear bolts are thicker and longer than those found
on a standard Dana 44 ring gear.
Bill earlier pointed out that a thicker ring gear will exert more
leverage on the carrier and possibly crack it. Mine's been locked and
offroaded pretty hard and no sign of trouble on last inspection. Perhaps
the Tru-Lok carrier is designed to handle it - I dunno. It looks like a
real tough carrier. On the plus side, the beefier ring gear with its
stronger bolts would be less likely to fail.
When I built my D44, I found an ample supply of 4.10 gears from Rubicon
owners who had regeared. I got two sets, barely used, for $20 each. The
gears set up real nice for me and they run perfectly quiet on both coast
and drive.
'Extra thick' R&P sets in other ratios are available from several
manufacturers. These will fit a Rubicon carrier (or any other 3.73-down
carrier), but you must use the smaller, standard ring gear bolts along
with some spacer sleeves to fit the bolts in the wider bolt holes on the
Rubicon carrier. These after market thick gears cost more, and to my
knowledge, nobody makes them tapped for the thicker bolts in order to
avoid spacer sleeves.
The carrier and pinion were a perfect fit for my XJ D44 housing and
axles. Well, almost perfect. I had to grind a slight depression in the
edge of the right carrier cap to make room for the air line.
I'll second Bill's recommendation to avoid the Tru-Lok differential
unless you get a good deal on one and are content with the 4.10 ratio. I
saved many hundreds on my XJ rear over what I would have paid for a new
ARB and R&P set. I did all my own labor and learned alot as I went. My
gears, air locker, junkyard housing/axles, seals, shims, & bearings came
in under US$450. Works for me.
As far as I know, Rubicon D44 housings are fully compatible with
standard D44 axles, bearings, seals, shims, carriers/lockers, and R&P
sets. A Rubicon D44 front would make a good bolt-in upgrade for your 01
TJ. Any D44 differential will work inside. I see no problem with the
odd-ball Tru-Lok if you want an air locker and plan to stay at 4.10.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
> http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
> said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
> using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
> 4.09 thicker than all others.
> You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
> sh*t.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Greg Allen wrote:
>
>>Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
>>were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
>>locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
>>one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>>
>>The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
>>understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
>>it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>>
>>I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
>>Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>>
>>Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>>
>>Thanks a bunch,
>>Greg
I'm the someone of whom Bill speaks. I recently put a used Rubicon
Tru-Lok airlocker/LSD in a rear XJ Dana 44. To my knowledge there are
only four differences between the Rubicon D44 and a standard D44 and
these are limited to the R&P and carrier:
1. The OEM Dana Spicer gears in the Rubicon have 41 teeth on the ring
gear and 10 on the pinion for a ratio of 4.10 whereas comparable
standard D44 gears are 45/11 = 4.09.
2. The Rubicon uses 4.10 gears on a carrier that has the same ring gear
mounting surface altitude as a 3.73-down carrier.
3. The Rubicon 4.10 ring gear is 'thick' so it can reach the pinion from
the 3.73-down carrier.
4. The Rubicon's ring gear bolts are thicker and longer than those found
on a standard Dana 44 ring gear.
Bill earlier pointed out that a thicker ring gear will exert more
leverage on the carrier and possibly crack it. Mine's been locked and
offroaded pretty hard and no sign of trouble on last inspection. Perhaps
the Tru-Lok carrier is designed to handle it - I dunno. It looks like a
real tough carrier. On the plus side, the beefier ring gear with its
stronger bolts would be less likely to fail.
When I built my D44, I found an ample supply of 4.10 gears from Rubicon
owners who had regeared. I got two sets, barely used, for $20 each. The
gears set up real nice for me and they run perfectly quiet on both coast
and drive.
'Extra thick' R&P sets in other ratios are available from several
manufacturers. These will fit a Rubicon carrier (or any other 3.73-down
carrier), but you must use the smaller, standard ring gear bolts along
with some spacer sleeves to fit the bolts in the wider bolt holes on the
Rubicon carrier. These after market thick gears cost more, and to my
knowledge, nobody makes them tapped for the thicker bolts in order to
avoid spacer sleeves.
The carrier and pinion were a perfect fit for my XJ D44 housing and
axles. Well, almost perfect. I had to grind a slight depression in the
edge of the right carrier cap to make room for the air line.
I'll second Bill's recommendation to avoid the Tru-Lok differential
unless you get a good deal on one and are content with the 4.10 ratio. I
saved many hundreds on my XJ rear over what I would have paid for a new
ARB and R&P set. I did all my own labor and learned alot as I went. My
gears, air locker, junkyard housing/axles, seals, shims, & bearings came
in under US$450. Works for me.
As far as I know, Rubicon D44 housings are fully compatible with
standard D44 axles, bearings, seals, shims, carriers/lockers, and R&P
sets. A Rubicon D44 front would make a good bolt-in upgrade for your 01
TJ. Any D44 differential will work inside. I see no problem with the
odd-ball Tru-Lok if you want an air locker and plan to stay at 4.10.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
> http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
> said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
> using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
> 4.09 thicker than all others.
> You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
> sh*t.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Greg Allen wrote:
>
>>Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
>>were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
>>locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
>>one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>>
>>The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
>>understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
>>it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>>
>>I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
>>Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>>
>>Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>>
>>Thanks a bunch,
>>Greg
06-30-2004, 12:03 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
Hi Greg,
I'm the someone of whom Bill speaks. I recently put a used Rubicon
Tru-Lok airlocker/LSD in a rear XJ Dana 44. To my knowledge there are
only four differences between the Rubicon D44 and a standard D44 and
these are limited to the R&P and carrier:
1. The OEM Dana Spicer gears in the Rubicon have 41 teeth on the ring
gear and 10 on the pinion for a ratio of 4.10 whereas comparable
standard D44 gears are 45/11 = 4.09.
2. The Rubicon uses 4.10 gears on a carrier that has the same ring gear
mounting surface altitude as a 3.73-down carrier.
3. The Rubicon 4.10 ring gear is 'thick' so it can reach the pinion from
the 3.73-down carrier.
4. The Rubicon's ring gear bolts are thicker and longer than those found
on a standard Dana 44 ring gear.
Bill earlier pointed out that a thicker ring gear will exert more
leverage on the carrier and possibly crack it. Mine's been locked and
offroaded pretty hard and no sign of trouble on last inspection. Perhaps
the Tru-Lok carrier is designed to handle it - I dunno. It looks like a
real tough carrier. On the plus side, the beefier ring gear with its
stronger bolts would be less likely to fail.
When I built my D44, I found an ample supply of 4.10 gears from Rubicon
owners who had regeared. I got two sets, barely used, for $20 each. The
gears set up real nice for me and they run perfectly quiet on both coast
and drive.
'Extra thick' R&P sets in other ratios are available from several
manufacturers. These will fit a Rubicon carrier (or any other 3.73-down
carrier), but you must use the smaller, standard ring gear bolts along
with some spacer sleeves to fit the bolts in the wider bolt holes on the
Rubicon carrier. These after market thick gears cost more, and to my
knowledge, nobody makes them tapped for the thicker bolts in order to
avoid spacer sleeves.
The carrier and pinion were a perfect fit for my XJ D44 housing and
axles. Well, almost perfect. I had to grind a slight depression in the
edge of the right carrier cap to make room for the air line.
I'll second Bill's recommendation to avoid the Tru-Lok differential
unless you get a good deal on one and are content with the 4.10 ratio. I
saved many hundreds on my XJ rear over what I would have paid for a new
ARB and R&P set. I did all my own labor and learned alot as I went. My
gears, air locker, junkyard housing/axles, seals, shims, & bearings came
in under US$450. Works for me.
As far as I know, Rubicon D44 housings are fully compatible with
standard D44 axles, bearings, seals, shims, carriers/lockers, and R&P
sets. A Rubicon D44 front would make a good bolt-in upgrade for your 01
TJ. Any D44 differential will work inside. I see no problem with the
odd-ball Tru-Lok if you want an air locker and plan to stay at 4.10.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
> http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
> said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
> using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
> 4.09 thicker than all others.
> You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
> sh*t.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Greg Allen wrote:
>
>>Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
>>were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
>>locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
>>one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>>
>>The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
>>understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
>>it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>>
>>I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
>>Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>>
>>Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>>
>>Thanks a bunch,
>>Greg
I'm the someone of whom Bill speaks. I recently put a used Rubicon
Tru-Lok airlocker/LSD in a rear XJ Dana 44. To my knowledge there are
only four differences between the Rubicon D44 and a standard D44 and
these are limited to the R&P and carrier:
1. The OEM Dana Spicer gears in the Rubicon have 41 teeth on the ring
gear and 10 on the pinion for a ratio of 4.10 whereas comparable
standard D44 gears are 45/11 = 4.09.
2. The Rubicon uses 4.10 gears on a carrier that has the same ring gear
mounting surface altitude as a 3.73-down carrier.
3. The Rubicon 4.10 ring gear is 'thick' so it can reach the pinion from
the 3.73-down carrier.
4. The Rubicon's ring gear bolts are thicker and longer than those found
on a standard Dana 44 ring gear.
Bill earlier pointed out that a thicker ring gear will exert more
leverage on the carrier and possibly crack it. Mine's been locked and
offroaded pretty hard and no sign of trouble on last inspection. Perhaps
the Tru-Lok carrier is designed to handle it - I dunno. It looks like a
real tough carrier. On the plus side, the beefier ring gear with its
stronger bolts would be less likely to fail.
When I built my D44, I found an ample supply of 4.10 gears from Rubicon
owners who had regeared. I got two sets, barely used, for $20 each. The
gears set up real nice for me and they run perfectly quiet on both coast
and drive.
'Extra thick' R&P sets in other ratios are available from several
manufacturers. These will fit a Rubicon carrier (or any other 3.73-down
carrier), but you must use the smaller, standard ring gear bolts along
with some spacer sleeves to fit the bolts in the wider bolt holes on the
Rubicon carrier. These after market thick gears cost more, and to my
knowledge, nobody makes them tapped for the thicker bolts in order to
avoid spacer sleeves.
The carrier and pinion were a perfect fit for my XJ D44 housing and
axles. Well, almost perfect. I had to grind a slight depression in the
edge of the right carrier cap to make room for the air line.
I'll second Bill's recommendation to avoid the Tru-Lok differential
unless you get a good deal on one and are content with the 4.10 ratio. I
saved many hundreds on my XJ rear over what I would have paid for a new
ARB and R&P set. I did all my own labor and learned alot as I went. My
gears, air locker, junkyard housing/axles, seals, shims, & bearings came
in under US$450. Works for me.
As far as I know, Rubicon D44 housings are fully compatible with
standard D44 axles, bearings, seals, shims, carriers/lockers, and R&P
sets. A Rubicon D44 front would make a good bolt-in upgrade for your 01
TJ. Any D44 differential will work inside. I see no problem with the
odd-ball Tru-Lok if you want an air locker and plan to stay at 4.10.
Steve
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
> http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
> said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
> using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
> 4.09 thicker than all others.
> You are right the "C" clip, aluminum housing Dana 44 is a piece of
> sh*t.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Greg Allen wrote:
>
>>Someone was telling me they heard that the Rubicon's Dana 44 axles
>>were non-standard -- ie, parts are not readially availible. So the
>>locker from my '01 TJ Dana 44 wouldn't go into a Rubicon's Dana 44 (if
>>one were so inclined to do such a swap.)
>>
>>The newer Grand Cherokees' aluminum "Dana 44" is an example: I
>>understand the carrier, axleshafts and so on are non-standard, and
>>it's impossible to affordably build them out...
>>
>>I ask since I want to replace my front Dana 30 with a Dana 44 from a
>>Rubicon. I've been led to beleive that it's a bolt-in replacement.
>>
>>Any comments/rebuttals/confirmations???
>>
>>Thanks a bunch,
>>Greg
06-30-2004, 02:16 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Are the Rubicon Dana 44s difficult to find parts for?
Bill, I'm a little confused ... I thought that the carrier and center
housing would be the same for a Dana 44, and wouldn't differ for
standard gear ratios, like a a carrier for a 3.73 would be identical
to a carrier for a 4.10. Isn't the ring and pinion all that's
changing? The difference isn't obvious to me, sorry.
My real question is:
If I get my hands on a Rubicon front Dana 44 housing, am I going to
have dificulties finding a carrier/ring/pinion/axleshafts for it?
I'd be inclined to use a complete Dana 44 front axle out of a Rubicon
(with the TrueLock)if they are reliable. I've not heard of problems
with them thus far...
It sounds like I wouldn't need to do any fabrication, cause it should
bolt right into my 01 TJ.
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<40E23DB2.B0C3A83B@***.net>...
> Hi Greg,
> I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
> http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
> said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
> using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
> 4.09 thicker than all others.
housing would be the same for a Dana 44, and wouldn't differ for
standard gear ratios, like a a carrier for a 3.73 would be identical
to a carrier for a 4.10. Isn't the ring and pinion all that's
changing? The difference isn't obvious to me, sorry.
My real question is:
If I get my hands on a Rubicon front Dana 44 housing, am I going to
have dificulties finding a carrier/ring/pinion/axleshafts for it?
I'd be inclined to use a complete Dana 44 front axle out of a Rubicon
(with the TrueLock)if they are reliable. I've not heard of problems
with them thus far...
It sounds like I wouldn't need to do any fabrication, cause it should
bolt right into my 01 TJ.
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<40E23DB2.B0C3A83B@***.net>...
> Hi Greg,
> I would steer clear of the Ruby differentials:
> http://www.----------.com/TruLok.jpg someone in this group after I had
> said all Dana 44 ring and pinions were the same, convinced me they're
> using the 3.73 carrier, in some Japanese deal, which will make their
> 4.09 thicker than all others.