Super Duty Axles

ord.sgt.26NC said:
why did I just read this thread?
Click to expand...

Bc you're itching to put some won tons under the willys... might need another squirrel or two to turn them though. Lol
 
Kamel said:
Apparently you and I thought the same thing....... This has to get to some good info, somewhere........
Click to expand...
Read the pirate thread, it'll take a month

Sent from my SM-G925R4 using Tapatalk
 
If you head over to Pirate and have any questions, bring this with you.
download (1).jpg
 
mcutler said:
Maybe it's just my brain. But I've often reasoned that bigger isn't always better regarding joints be it axle or driveshaft.

Think of a four way wrench breaking lug nuts loose. Imagine the fourway with 12" legs is a 1480-1550 what have you...and think of the stuck lug nut as the axle shaft or ears... of course it breaks the lug nut loose with ease - or in our case the axle shaft snapped. Because of the increased leverage of the cross length... nevermind cap diameter.

Now picture a stock size kp Dana 60 (sorry I don't recall the number designation) joint or a 1350 drive shaft (versus the extra leverage of 1410)... Imagine the legs of this fourway are 8" rather than 12 like above. Takes a bit more force but the lack of leverage didn't break anything in rotation, or the lug nuts loose.
- especially 1350/1410, same cap, same cross diameter, longer legs for leverage...

(And with the pictures above... it further adds to my reasoning considering like shaft material with the larger joints of the 05 up units).


All this may just be my simple reasoning, and I'm sure no one will agree with my logic... but it has worked for me for many years.

Simply stated, this is why I only use 1350 driveshaft joints, and dana 60 ctm axle joints. Since doing so, with quality chromoly shafts no more breakage. Even made it 4 years before finally wearing out a 1350 joint on my rear shaft on the buggy.


Someone will likely say I drive like a granny or don't push my rig, but my group can tell you otherwise. I certainly don't drive with total disregard though, and I take excellent care of my equipment on the trail and off.

We'll save the strength of Toyota driveshaft joints for a later discussion...[emoji6]


... side note...i always want my driveshaft to be the fuseable link I'm my drivetrain , but that's just me.

Sent from my SM-G925R4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I agree with your logic until you factor beefier crosses into consideration.

I believe that whoever stated pushing 1350s in driveshaft joints was only in it to make a buck. 1350s have a max angular travel of 20* vs 35* for a 1410/1480.

I agree that for most a chromo 1480 joint is plenty for 35spline axles, but if you want to push the limit 1550s are a safer bet. Also 1550s are designed for 45-50* of angular travel, which means you can get more steering without overstepping the joints design limits. Can you do it with 1480? Yes, but they were designed to handle it, so you likely have to use $$$ joints.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
I gotta say, this 06 SD axle I picked up for my Duramax is freaking massive. I have a king pin 60 inner C and it fits inside of the inner on the ball joint axle. The unit bearings are massive also. I'm pretty excited to get this project started.
 
@iwaxmyjimmy Best part is...it was 500 bucks! Also, where do you find the 256 or other number on the axle? Is it on that sticker that's on the axle tube? My wasn't legible. Not that I really care what diameter the ring gear is, I'm just curious.

Oh...and any regular Dana 60 lunch box locker will fit these, right?
 
Croatan_Kid said:
@iwaxmyjimmy Best part is...it was 500 bucks! Also, where do you find the 256 or other number on the axle? Is it on that sticker that's on the axle tube? My wasn't legible. Not that I really care what diameter the ring gear is, I'm just curious.

Oh...and any regular Dana 60 lunch box locker will fit these, right?
Click to expand...

51008f07d2d038cf264844574087d7bf.jpg
.

Yeah it's on the sticker if you looking at the pinion side of the housing. And really I checked into regearing it and the R&P is $450 for a 5.38 gear set. You get more than just a gear set when you buy it, shims/crush sleeve, ring gear bolts and pinion nut. That still has me under $1000 in it. And yes typical HP 60 carriers work. The 10" ring gear, from what I read on the SD thread on pirate has more tooth engage meant supposedly. There were a few vendor/people with connections that said it's a damn good upgrade. But they couldn't share too many specifics. It used to be a Ford specific number and you could only get them through Ford a few years ago. It's still the 29 spline pinion, but I believe Currie makes a 35 spline pinion gear set. Personally I really don't think I'll beat on this axle enough to warrant that. Even if I do swap a L33 5.3 in it.
 
paradisePWoffrd said:
I agree with your logic until you factor beefier crosses into consideration.

I believe that whoever stated pushing 1350s in driveshaft joints was only in it to make a buck. 1350s have a max angular travel of 20* vs 35* for a 1410/1480.

I agree that for most a chromo 1480 joint is plenty for 35spline axles, but if you want to push the limit 1550s are a safer bet. Also 1550s are designed for 45-50* of angular travel, which means you can get more steering without overstepping the joints design limits. Can you do it with 1480? Yes, but they were designed to handle it, so you likely have to use $$$ joints.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
But I have had zero problem grinding for more angularity with 1350. Same joint as mentioned above that lived 4-5 years.



Sent from my SM-G925R4 using Tapatalk
 
mcutler said:
But I have had zero problem grinding for more angularity with 1350. Same joint as mentioned above that lived 4-5 years.



Sent from my SM-G925R4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I agree, many have clearanced the yoke for more travel. You mentioned ctms. They are stronger than oem or Spicer and likely the reason for continued success.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
jeepinmatt said:
The same way you bolt it in to a Duramax :flipoff2:

You can redrill the unit bearings, or run adapter spacers, or buy unit bearings that are already converted.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen you can only buy new with different patterns for the 99-04. Just incase anyone was wondering.
 
mcutler said:
Think of a four way wrench breaking lug nuts loose. Imagine the fourway with 12" legs is a 1480-1550 what have you...and think of the stuck lug nut as the axle shaft or ears... of course it breaks the lug nut loose with ease - or in our case the axle shaft snapped. Because of the increased leverage of the cross length... nevermind cap diameter.

Now picture a stock size kp Dana 60 (sorry I don't recall the number designation) joint or a 1350 drive shaft (versus the extra leverage of 1410)... Imagine the legs of this fourway are 8" rather than 12 like above. Takes a bit more force but the lack of leverage didn't break anything in rotation, or the lug nuts loose.
- especially 1350/1410, same cap, same cross diameter, longer legs for leverage...

(And with the pictures above... it further adds to my reasoning considering like shaft material with the larger joints of the 05 up units).


All this may just be my simple reasoning, and I'm sure no one will agree with my logic... but it has worked for me for many years.
Click to expand...

There was zero chance I was going to pass by that reply without commenting on it. That should surprise exactly... no one. :D


You're thinking about torque correctly, but your logic only works when you're applying a fixed amount of force and can then make the diameter larger, like changing the size of the cross wrench in your example. If you're only dealing with half of a U Joint, that concept works.

BUT

Because you're dealing with both halves of a U Joint as a system, you're neglecting something very important: The other half of the joint.


Think of it this way: You already know that Torque = Force x Distance, so if you keep the force the same but apply it to a lever longer, you have more torque. That's what you're saying with the wrench.

With a complete joint, you have an input torque and an output torque. You're neglecting the input torque, actually the entire inboard half of the joint.

For any given input torque, if you increase the distance, the force gets smaller (same formula above, from the other direction).

Because of that, the larger U Joint means that on the input side of the Joint, the force is less because of the larger Joint diameter.

Now you transfer that same (lower) force to the other side of the U Joint, which is also the same diameter, and now you have the same input torque and output torque. If that's somehow not true, you have just destroyed the U Joint.

Anyway, that's why larger U Joints are stronger. Make the diameter larger, and the force at the joint diameter becomes lower. Make the bearing caps larger as well, and you've got an even stronger joint.

From the pics on the last page, it looks like the extra length of the yoke is probably making it less stiff than a shorter yoke on a smaller joint, which could either be introducing different fatigue loads in torsion, or may be causing the yoke to deflect under load and misalign/bind with the cross and caps.
 
Last edited:
paradisePWoffrd said:
I agree, many have clearanced the yoke for more travel. You mentioned ctms. They are stronger than oem or Spicer and likely the reason for continued success.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
agreed, but you can't say with certainty (and neither can i), that a longer cross would live the same happy life... at least not with my personal driving style, method of care, or level of horsepower, gear reduction, tire size, etc, etc...

Sent from my SM-G925R4 using Tapatalk
 
Fabrik8 said:
There was zero chance I was going to pass by that reply without commenting on it. That should surprise exactly... no one. :D

...yea I was sure of it

You're thinking about torque correctly, but your logic only works when you're applying a fixed amount of force and can then make the diameter larger, like changing the size of the cross wrench in your example. If you're only dealing with half of a U Joint, that concept works.

BUT

Because you're dealing with both halves of a U Joint as a system, you're neglecting something very important: The other half of the joint.


Think of it this way: You already know that Torque = Force x Distance, so if you keep the force the same but apply it to a lever longer, you have more torque. That's what you're saying with the wrench.

With a complete joint, you have an input torque and an output torque. You're neglecting the input torque, actually the entire inboard half of the joint.

For any given input torque, if you increase the distance, the force gets smaller (same formula above, from the other direction).

Because of that, the larger U Joint means that on the input side of the Joint, the force is less because of the larger Joint diameter.

Now you transfer that same (lower) force to the other side of the U Joint, which is also the same diameter, and now you have the same input torque and output torque. If that's somehow not true, you have just destroyed the U Joint.

Anyway, that's why larger U Joints are stronger. Make the diameter larger, and the force at the joint diameter becomes lower. Make the bearing caps larger as well, and you've got an even stronger joint.
Click to expand...

I remember this from school and truly understand and agree with the science and theory. But I'm more comfortable with my real world experience in this case... and I'll continue to practice it until I don't.



Sent from my SM-G925R4 using Tapatalk
 
mcutler said:
I remember this from school and truly understand and agree with the science and theory. But I'm more comfortable with my real world experience in this case... and I'll continue to practice it until I don't.
Click to expand...

I wasn't super clear from your original post, but if you were talking about the length of the yoke ears along the axis of the joint (instead of the diameter of the joint), I think you're onto something. Torsion is going to be greater for the longer arms, and the length difference is clearly visible in the picture...

So you really want the diameter of that joint, but with an improved yoke design.
 
Fabrik8 said:
I wasn't super clear from your original post, but if you were talking about the length of the yoke ears along the axis of the joint (instead of the diameter of the joint), I think you're onto something. Torsion is going to be greater for the longer arms, and the length difference is clearly visible in the picture...

So you really want the diameter of that joint, but with an improved yoke design.
Click to expand...
now you're coming around

Sent from my SM-G925R4 using Tapatalk
 
@CasterTroy I'm a machinist :D I made that drill fixture so I could redrill the pattern with either a standard Bridgeport or a drill press. I move the drill bushing from hole to hole. If I clamp it in a vise and center up on the hole I'm drilling, I just have to spin the hub flange and drill the next hole. I also chucked both hubs up in a lathe and turned down the outer most shoulder to 4.600 from 4.930 so I could run unmolsted H2 wheels.

The drill fixture locates off of the 5.080" shoulder that the rotor centers on and I'll knock out all but two studs to hold the fixture down with. Then that shoulder that sticks up locates on the inside of the rotor and I just bolt them together and drill it up. It worked out really well.
 

Attachments

  • 20170609_173237.jpg
    20170609_173237.jpg
    99.9 KB · Views: 271
While we are on this SD axle discussion, it has been very informative, I have a question.

I would like to use later model wheels on my 2002 SD. Are the aluminum hub-centric adapapters GTG? Not the cheap spacers that are lug centric but nice 2" adapters that center the wheel. The steel ones are $700 but a good set of aluminum is $300.

Thoughts? I don't tow 20K trailers but I do tow a tractor sometimes and maybe a 20' or so camper soon.
 
Croatan_Kid said:
@CasterTroy I'm a machinist :D I made that drill fixture so I could redrill the pattern with either a standard Bridgeport or a drill press. I move the drill bushing from hole to hole. If I clamp it in a vise and center up on the hole I'm drilling, I just have to spin the hub flange and drill the next hole. I also chucked both hubs up in a lathe and turned down the outer most shoulder to 4.600 from 4.930 so I could run unmolsted H2 wheels.

The drill fixture locates off of the 5.080" shoulder that the rotor centers on and I'll knock out all but two studs to hold the fixture down with. Then that shoulder that sticks up locates on the inside of the rotor and I just bolt them together and drill it up. It worked out really well.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was gonna just throw some of those 3500 dodge rotors on mine and drill new holes... making me feel like I'm doing it all janky lol
 
1ecb383ed8e1e7991a599a3f5c44065d.jpg


32cffc47ff9906b5f49fd0240e1458e3.jpg


Super 60 on the left
d16d841e87ff2ee3830e989b4180a88e.jpg


Pulled from this thread: super 60 gear sets - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum


OE # 84677, 708233-5 are the part numbers for the 5.38s.

Dana Model 60 Rev
Gear Ratio: 5.38 (Fits 4.56 & Up Case)
Tooth Count: 39/8
Pinion Splines: 29
Ring Gear Bolts: 12 (not included)
Manufacturer: Spicer
Warranty: 1 Year

Pulled from: D60R-538R-OE


DANA SPICER 84677 - DANA 60 - 5.38 Reverse High Pinion Ring and Pinion Gears

I'm wondering how ECGS beats all the prices by over $100

Curries offering: 60-538RS - "Super 60" RockJock® 60 5.38 Ring & Pinion - High Pinion

However I did find this from: Dana Spicer Ring and Pinion Gears | Dana Super 60 5.38 Reverse (PN: 84677)

Part Number Description

84677 Spicer Dana Super 60 5.38 Reverse Ring and Pinion Gears
708233-5 Spicer Dana Super 60 5.38 Reverse Ring and Pinion Gears w/ Install Kit
708123-5 Spicer Dana Non-Super 60 5.38 Reverse Ring and Pinion Gears w/ Install Kit
707475-5X Spicer Dana Non-Super 60 5.38 Reverse Ring and Pinion Gears w/ Install Kit
D60-538RS Spicer Dana Super 60 5.38 Reverse Ring and Pinion Gears
 
@ponykilr Yeah, as long as they're hub centric, you'll be fine.

@iwaxmyjimmy You're welcome to use my drill fixture if you need to. I was looking at the specs on the Dodge rotors too, will they fit with no other modifications to the brakes? I ordered some Powerstop rotors and pads for mine, figured I'd go with stock application stuff so it fit better.

I had also greatly considered leaving the front 8x170mm and running 1.5" adapters on the rear to make is 8x170mm all the way around and to widen the rear to make it a little closer to the front. WMS is 71.5 or 72" on the SD60 and the AAM 11.5 is something like 68 or 68.5, so it'll be a little more noticeable with 33s or 35s on it after the SAS. However, I already have the H2s and both of my other trucks are 8x6.5 and I like the interchangeability of rims and such.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top