Front Dana 44s for a TJ questions

BigClay

BigClay

Knower of useless ZJ things
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Location
Winston-Salem
So some time in the future (well maybe) I may consider a dana 44 for the front of my TJ to replace the 30. I had a waggy 44 in the front of my ZJ, and it worked great. Is a waggy the only real option? What about a 44 from a bronco (besides the wrong bolt pattern)? Is a rubicon TJ D44 really an upgrade? Any other options?
 
There's a F250 full width d44 slowly making its way into the front of my TJ, with the stock 5 link setup. Bronco actually should have the same bolt pattern, but not sure about width. The JK 44 has a stronger gear, but weaker housing (funny how things evolve). There's a way to put JK44 gears in the F250 44 housing, but because of the spacers required, I don't think it's that much stronger. The biggest question is what width do you want? If full width, go D44 from a 70s F250/9" from something full width (f150?) or 8.8. Convert D44 to match rear. If staying narrow Bronco or JK stuff is your best bet.
 
HP 44 up front and 9" in the rear, both out of a 78 Bronco. As previously said, cast-Cs. Not sure what you are running in the rear now, but the Bronco axles are wider than stock TJ axles.
 
If you're trying to save money, wait till you find a set of axles that is already set up the way you want.
Bite the bullet and bolt them in. It takes patience to score a decent deal though...

If money is not an issue, then it's hard to say, cause your possibilities are basically endless.

What rear are you running?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I am running a 8.8 in the rear, and I would like to keep that axle for the foreseeable future.
 
Then you're stuck with a 5 on 4.5" pattern, and not much in the way of upgrades other than a Rubi 44.
 
I had six lugs on my last 8.8 to match the waggy front. I will just reverse the process this go round.
 
I have a 8.8 in the rear of my TJ and Waggy Front. Did a set of waggy axles in my dad's TJ. for stock width waggy is really the best way to go. If i were to do it again, i may consider doing a HP 44 and just re-tubing it for waggy width... that or just going d60's and H1s to tuck them back in since i dont like to be too wide.

the waggy can be converted to a 5 on 5.5 which i did on mine and ran spacers on my 8.8 to get the 5x5.5 bp. If you go with a c-clip eliminator it should give you a dual pattern shaft so the 5x5.5 can be achieved without spacer.

another cool thing with the waggy axle, you can run a JK big pinion/ring-gear kit. Nitro makes the most affordable kit, but it gives you a 8.875" ring gear and a d60 size pinion shank for some pretty serious strength over the standard 44 internals.
 
Jakemd98 said:
I have a 8.8 in the rear of my TJ and Waggy Front. Did a set of waggy axles in my dad's TJ. for stock width waggy is really the best way to go. If i were to do it again, i may consider doing a HP 44 and just re-tubing it for waggy width... that or just going d60's and H1s to tuck them back in since i dont like to be too wide.

the waggy can be converted to a 5 on 5.5 which i did on mine and ran spacers on my 8.8 to get the 5x5.5 bp. If you go with a c-clip eliminator it should give you a dual pattern shaft so the 5x5.5 can be achieved without spacer.

another cool thing with the waggy axle, you can run a JK big pinion/ring-gear kit. Nitro makes the most affordable kit, but it gives you a 8.875" ring gear and a d60 size pinion shank for some pretty serious strength over the standard 44 internals.
Click to expand...

great info, thanks!
 
Jakemd98 said:
another cool thing with the waggy axle, you can run a JK big pinion/ring-gear kit. Nitro makes the most affordable kit, but it gives you a 8.875" ring gear and a d60 size pinion shank for some pretty serious strength over the standard 44 internals.
Click to expand...
A lot of the strength gained is compromised by the use of a very large spacer for the pinion bearing. The ring gear itself is stronger, but the pinion is cantilevered out further, which reduces the stiffness of the pinion shaft, which allows greater deflection at the pinion head, which potentially negates any strength gained. If I had the dimensions of everything, I would run the calculations, but I don't, so all I can do is speculate based on my own research and some info I got from a guy who wears crocs. I contemplated doing the Jana44 gears when I regeared the front D44 I'm currently putting in the jeep, but I couldn't justify the cost since I already had a locker.
 
D44HP out of 75-77 F150, and the 9" rear to match. Should be able to find the pair for $300-$400. Anyone asking more is living in fantasy land. Then sell the current axles.
 
jeepinmatt said:
A lot of the strength gained is compromised by the use of a very large spacer for the pinion bearing.
Click to expand...

You used an awful lot of words to say "buy a JK44".

No more 760 u-joints, bigger brakes, bigger R&P, bigger shafts, selectable electric lockers...

Cyd's TJ is fine like it is, but I'd seriously consider putting JK stuff under it, too. Or swapping a JK width set under mine and putting the TJ width set under hers....
 
jeepinmatt said:
A lot of the strength gained is compromised by the use of a very large spacer for the pinion bearing. The ring gear itself is stronger, but the pinion is cantilevered out further, which reduces the stiffness of the pinion shaft, which allows greater deflection at the pinion head, which potentially negates any strength gained. If I had the dimensions of everything, I would run the calculations, but I don't, so all I can do is speculate based on my own research and some info I got from a guy who wears crocs. I contemplated doing the Jana44 gears when I regeared the front D44 I'm currently putting in the jeep, but I couldn't justify the cost since I already had a locker.
Click to expand...

No spacer was used when i did the install on my dad's 44's. just different bearings and a crush sleeve eliminator that came in the kit. Keep in mind that the ring gear is larger, meaning the pinion head would need to be closer to the housing and bearings rather than spaced out to meet it.
 
Jakemd98 said:
No spacer was used when i did the install on my dad's 44's. just different bearings and a crush sleeve eliminator that came in the kit. Keep in mind that the ring gear is larger, meaning the pinion head would need to be closer to the housing and bearings rather than spaced out to meet it.
Click to expand...

Let me edit this one... there was one spacer used under the inner pinion race, however the race was still fully encased in the housing and the bearing was seated all the way to the pinion head. So deflection should not be an issue.
 
Jakemd98 said:
No spacer was used when i did the install on my dad's 44's. just different bearings and a crush sleeve eliminator that came in the kit. Keep in mind that the ring gear is larger, meaning the pinion head would need to be closer to the housing and bearings rather than spaced out to meet it.
Click to expand...

Jakemd98 said:
Let me edit this one... there was one spacer used under the inner pinion race, however the race was still fully encased in the housing and the bearing was seated all the way to the pinion head. So deflection should not be an issue.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. I've tried to rationalize how it could have a bigger ring gear in the same housing, and still space the pinion out further. But its not spaced out further. Since the pinion shaft is bigger, but the hole in the housing is the same size, the rollers on the bearing cone have to be smaller. Since the rollers are at an angle, they also have to be shorter. Since they are smaller and shorter, the overall length of the bearing cone is shorter, thereby requiring a spacer to compensate for the difference. While the smaller bearing may technically be rated for less load, I don't see it as an issue, since most pinion bearing failures are due to lack of oil or not enough preload.
 
You really sent me on an internet search mission and (after about an hour of intense digging) here are the results:
Standard D44 pinion bearing on left, JK conversion bearing on right. Really not much difference except the thrust load.
upload_2016-11-23_17-18-40.png
upload_2016-11-23_17-14-56.png


And links for when I come back to this thread in 3 years because I want to find this info again:
Timken Part Number 31594 - 31520-B, Tapered Roller Bearings - TSF (Tapered Single with Flange) Imperial On The Timken Company
Timken Part Number 26882 - 26823, Tapered Roller Bearings - TS (Tapered Single) Imperial On The Timken Company
 
I've done a few JK D44 gear installs into older D44 housings.
The final pinion depth measurement ended up being between 0.285" and 0.295" each time as compared to the typical 0.040"-0.050" the older style usually take.
You could use a 0.250" spacer under the bearing or race along with the usual shim to accomplish the needed shim thickness.

Nothing to add aside from my been there done that experience :beer:
 
Jody Treadway said:
I've done a few JK D44 gear installs into older D44 housings.
The final pinion depth measurement ended up being between 0.285" and 0.295" each time as compared to the typical 0.040"-0.050" the older style usually take.
You could use a 0.250" spacer under the bearing or race along with the usual shim to accomplish the needed shim thickness.

Nothing to add aside from my been there done that experience :beer:
Click to expand...
Did you shim under the bearing, or under the race? If the race, is the bearing race still inside the bore in the housing?
 
you have to shim under the race otherwise the bearing itself will hit the housing due to the race being skinnier.
 
Back
Top