Ray Currie's (incomplete) Ranking of Axle Strength...
Paul Bryant
In the April issue of Four Wheeler magazine, the editors ask Ray
Currie to list the most popular 4x4 axles in order from weakest to
strongest. His list (page 114) reads as follows:
Dana 30
Dana 35
AMC 20
Dana 44 reverse-rotation
Dana 44 / Corp. 12-bolt
Currie High-Pinion 9-inch
9-inch
Dana 60 reverse-rotation
Dana 60
Dana 70 / Corp. 14-bolt
Of course, I don't need to tell you guys which way the list goes. :)
My question is, where would the Chrysler 8.25 (I drive a cherokee) and
the Corp. 12-bolt (I'm just curious) fit on this list? Thanks in
advance,
Paul Bryant
(No, I'm not related :)
Paul Keating
uh, you already have the corp 12 bolt in the list....same line as the
D44.....
I'd place the CryCo 8.25 between the AMC Model 20 and the RR D44
Cheers,
Paul
On 11 Mar 2002 15:16:56 -0800, doyoudr...@hotmail.com (Paul
Bryant) wrote:
--
Paul Keating
'01 TJ sport 5-Speed
D44-w/tracloc & 3.73's
3" BDS suspension
33x10.5 BFG AT ko's
Robert Serini
the Ford 8.8" fall? And does either have clearance problems that a Dana does
not?
>Dana 30
>Dana 35
>AMC 20
>Dana 44 reverse-rotation
>Dana 44 / Corp. 12-bolt
>Currie High-Pinion 9-inch
>9-inch
>Dana 60 reverse-rotation
>Dana 60
>Dana 70 / Corp. 14-bolt
--
In Jeeping Always__®ob
2000 TJ 2.5L, manual, soft-top, K&N repl. filter
"Those who spend their time making the big man bigger, and the small man
smaller, don't deserve my time." - Me
Paul Keating
regular and RR (high pinon) 9" have the same shafts...only the center
section is different.
as far as shaft thickness and strength, the 8.8 would fall between the
D44 and the 9"....
I'd say the diff centersection would be in the same area too, however
from everything I've heard the stock open carrier in the 8.8 is a weak
point, thought that would be eliminated if you switched to a full case
locker like a Detroit.
Paul
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:41:35 GMT, "Robert Serini"
<ser_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Seeing and hearing that the Ford 9" is so high up the list...... Where would
>the Ford 8.8" fall? And does either have clearance problems that a Dana does
>not?
>
>>Dana 30
>>Dana 35
>>AMC 20
>>Dana 44 reverse-rotation
>>Dana 44 / Corp. 12-bolt
>>Currie High-Pinion 9-inch
>>9-inch
>>Dana 60 reverse-rotation
>>Dana 60
>>Dana 70 / Corp. 14-bolt
>
>
>--
>In Jeeping Always__Žob
>
>2000 TJ 2.5L, manual, soft-top, K&N repl. filter
>"Those who spend their time making the big man bigger, and the small man
>smaller, don't deserve my time." - Me
>
>
--
dick_burg
Bryant) wrote:
>Fellow wheelers...
>
>In the April issue of Four Wheeler magazine, the editors ask Ray
>Currie to list the most popular 4x4 axles in order from weakest to
>strongest. His list (page 114) reads as follows:
>
>Dana 30
>Dana 35
>AMC 20
>Dana 44 reverse-rotation
>Dana 44 / Corp. 12-bolt
>Currie High-Pinion 9-inch
>9-inch
>Dana 60 reverse-rotation
>Dana 60
>Dana 70 / Corp. 14-bolt
>
Hmmm. Glad there is no conflict of interest here. I guess it
depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Remember the
Curries have a vested interest in selling what they make. I
would rate the AMC 20 much higher except for the 2 piece
axles. The R&P are huge, about the size of a Dana 60. The
housings aren't all equal, as in comparing new production axle
tubes on Dana 44s with 1970s vintage Reverse Cut truck
front ends. My guess is that he's rating the reverse cut
axles lower because of the percieved weakness of running
on the back side of the gears. That would mean that a
front end standard rotation would be weaker in a front application
than it would in a rear. All Dana 35s weren't born equal, and the
exact fate that causes some to explode like the C clip models
doesn't hold true for the non-c-clips. Another point is that
the table isn't linear. The Dana 30 and 35 are much weaker
than any of the 44s. Currie uses axle shafts from Dana 44
front ends on their front 9" diffs. Except that they turn them
down so they're thinner and then respline them. Hard to
figure how that makes them stronger unless you're selling
them and magazines. I guess thats why I stopped subscrbiing
to the magazine years ago. Next time you read an article,
try to figure out what the author got for free. In this case it
looks like advertising. Just so I don't sound too biased, I do
use some Currie parts, and I've known/been on rides with
Frank Currie for years and years. They make good stuff even
if grossly overpriced.
Dick Burg
Jeff Strickland
this list are nearly inconsequential. That is, switching from an AMC20 to a
D44 is not going to gain very much, or changing from a D44 to a 9 inch isn't
going to get you very much either. That said, I would guess that the
difference from the 9 inch to the D60 will be rather substantial.
So, if you have an AMC20 that you are looking at replacing, maybe your
options should run to the 9 inch or maybe to the D60, or if you have a D44
that is on its last leg, then the next move should be to the D60.
"Paul Bryant" <doyoudr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d52dee34.02031...@posting.google.com...
Andy W
differential case, and eliminate bent axle tubes with a truss and you have a
_formidable_ axle for less than half of what the Curries want for a 44. At
that point the AMC 20 is between the Dana 44 and the Ford 9"
--
Andy W -*.|||||.*-
"All opinions are stated as fact"
77 CJ-5
84 CJ-8
<Dick Burg> wrote in message news:3c8e4914...@nntp.fuse.net...
> On 11 Mar 2002 15:16:56 -0800, doyoudr...@hotmail.com (Paul
> Bryant) wrote:
<big snip>
> Remember the
> Curries have a vested interest in selling what they make. I
> would rate the AMC 20 much higher except for the 2 piece
> axles. The R&P are huge, about the size of a Dana 60.>
> Dick Burg
Erik Litchy
I would put the 30 as stronger than the 35, and the waggy 20 is better
than a 44. where is the Dana 80, 50, rockwell, Eaton Toyota and dare it
Suzuiki
Robert Serini
--
In Jeeping Always_(Plan on sticking with my 30 and 35 that came with it)_Žob
2000 TJ 2.5L, manual, soft-top, K&N repl. filter
"Those who spend their time making the big man bigger, and the small man
smaller, don't deserve my time." - Me
"Erik Litchy" <wli...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3C902460...@bigfoot.com...
Jerry Bransford
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL KC6TAY
The Zen Hotdog... make me one with everything!
Geezer Jeep: http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/gallery/JBransfordsTJ/
dick_burg
wrote:
>Yep, I was wondering the same thing ;)
>
>Jerry
>
>>
>> Why do you say the 30 is stronger than the 35?
The 30 in a front end that isn't "jumped" will usually outlive
a 35 in the rear of a Jeep. Neither are pillars of strength, only
very marginal.
>> In Jeeping Always_(Plan on sticking with my 30 and 35 that came with it)_Žob
>> 2000 TJ 2.5L, manual, soft-top, K&N repl. filter
As long as you keep it on the street and drive for economy, the
35 is adequate. Once you install bigger tires its days are numbered.
>> > I would put the 30 as stronger than the 35, and the waggy 20 is better
>> > than a 44. where is the Dana 80, 50, rockwell, Eaton Toyota and dare it
>> > Suzuiki
>>
Well, lets start with some definations. No one in this thread made
much sense of what we were calling strength. If its the entire
assembly as a unit, and judging it on its weakest point, the listing
by our friend Mr. Currie would require some jumbling. If you yield to
him and allow him to modify his weakest points by replacing parts but
require the others to be judged as they came factory stock, you get
results that favor him. Big deal. I still disagree with his practice
of thinning Dana 44 front shafts for his 9" fronts.
No one will rate the Suzuki assemblies above the bottom, particularly
those that own or have owned and replaced them. Axles the size of
pencils just don't cut it. If you allow replacement of the 2 piece
axles on the AMC 20, I agree that its stronger than the 44. Toyota
diffs aren't all the same. The old Land Dumpster assemblies were
nothing short of huge. Because the P/U truck engines weren't overly
powerful, their axles were very adequate, but probably not up to 44s
in strength. I've seen a few were kids dumped small blocks in and
scrambled them. But then I've seen 60s go the same way. I refuse
to comment on the Dana 80, 70, 50, 41, 28s,25s etc. Notice I've
taken
the liberty to introduce some new junk into the discussion. My
impression is that for constant torque type applications, as in road
driving, Dana axles are pretty well rated in order of their numbers.
That doesn't say that for any particular application stronger is
better. The axle you choose needs to take into consideration
the use. Otherwise we'd all choose Dana 70s and be high centered
out in Moab next week. Unless, of course, you picked the 60 flat
bottom axles they had out there last year. Oh, lets also add in the
aluminum case 44s and 30s, just for fun. (the 30s came out in the
1970s in the 4wd van conversions. Way too light and weak, but
highly sought after by racers for light front ends in 4wd races.)
Dick Burg