Off Roading Forums banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Can A Amc 20 with a one piece axles be better than a D44, I have read in a magazine that the ring and pinion is Bigger on the Amc 20. One of The Magizine also said beefed up it is a good axle THEN THE NEXT TIME THEY DO A RIGHT UP on the amc20 THEY SAY IT IS WEEK! CAN ANYONE agree with me that the publisher will tell u that the amc is the greatest if they are installing a one piece axle, but if they say anything else they say it is week and do not acknowlage the fact that a one piece axle would make it stronger.
Just for the fact it has a larger ring and oinion (amc 20) is it stronger then the d44??) If not what could possibly brake on a amc 20 with one piece axles??
a axle?? housing??
Can anyone agree that magazines will tell u somthing to sell somthing??
I brought all this up cause i was looking through some of my older magazines and saw this case were it was hero and a zero!!!
Thanks in advance!!
83 and 84 cj7 s

 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
We've been around and around on this subject on this board and the old one. IMO, internally a Model 20 is heavier duty, just take a look at the ring gear size. But the axle tubes on a 20 are WEAK, and even with one piece axles you still don't have a big axle diameter. So, each of them has it's strong points, it is just a question of what do you want to break!

Brad (from the 4 Wheeling center of the universe, 4 corners USA)
 

·
Official Curmudgeon
Joined
·
5,207 Posts
I'm hoping it can be built strong. I have the Model 20 in my jeep, seems like the problems are listed as
weak two piece axle, weak housing design. I have already installed full floater axles and just tonight cut
some gussets for the housing. I've already installed disc brakes and an ARB along with the floaters and
have the lockouts if I ever want to use them. I know a pretty hardcore jeeper who has the model 20 and
says there is nothing wrong with it that full floaters and a few gussets won't cure. He's got a 44 in the
front, but not the rear.


 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
As you read this I am rebuilding my AMC 20 with Superior solid axles, an ARB and 4.10 gears. I had the same question you had and based on what I read, the AMC with solid axles is as good as the 44...about the only thing that might be better is the Dana 60. But then, look at how heavy it is. As for the weak tubes, about the only way you can do damage to them is to start hiting solid objects with the pumpkin that you should not be hitting....and if your hitting it that hard, then weak tubes is the least of your worries.

FYI....When I pulled out my axles yesterday, one of them was abou to go. The splines were already striped, the only thing keeping it in position was the key and it didn't have much time left. And for what its worth, I just got through doing the Dusy-Hersim....which is about on par with the Rubicon. If a stock AMC 20 can handle that, then it can't be all that bad.

John......southern CA
84CJ7,3"lift,32"BFG,4.11's,ARB,Solid Axle's
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the other posts, I just was pointing out what you asked for. I have enough money in my Model 20 to have bought a 44, but IMO the 20 is the better of the 2 choices.

Brad (from the 4 Wheeling center of the universe, 4 corners USA)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
969 Posts
Lots of good points here, but I see one problem.

The Model 20 is very limited in width. I just can't see dumping all that money in a 20.
If you build a rear Dana 44, you really leave yourself open to many more options.
If you decide to go wider down the road, you can swap most of the parts (locker, gears, disc brakes, etc.) over to the new rear 44.
Of, you can swap the parts to a front axle if you go with a rear 60 or something.

As someone who has done things and then gone bigger only to find that the money once well spent is no useless - I would suggest against a "dead-end" like a Model 20.
Not that it is bad once built - you have just limited your future options.

David
Davids 4x4 Page
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
/wwwthreads_images/icons/tongue.gif I've thought a lot about this because we have a Model 20 under our Quadra-Trac CJ7, and as you know, we have a radically offset rear pumpkin to go with the QT transfer case. The model 20 lends itself to an overhead brace system quite well, and in the future that is what ours will get. Because it is an offset type, the brace will not be symmetrical, but will work just about as good. I looked under there, and there is plenty of room up for an overhead brace system./wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif

CJDave
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
In the AMC20 you have something to work with....it is a decent foundation that can be built incrementally. It's already there and you dont have to go out and spend $1400+ for a D60.

Point to take issue with:
Thin axle tubes that are prone bending or shifting in the housing.
Two-piece axle shafts
Small diameter axle shafts
Non-tapered roller bearings
Thin diff cover that catches on rocks

All of those can be taken care of to some degree.

There has been dozens of versions of the Dana44(some leaving a lot to be desired) just as there are AMC 20 axles out there with 1-piece shafts and much thicker tubes from the factory... I think they are found in 'J' series trucks.

LarryM
85 CJ7, 350TBI ,T19 4spd
'00 TJ Sport, NV3550 5spd, D44, Teraflex system
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,757 Posts
actually, some of the early 80's waggoneers had wider AMC 20's....that is not a limiting factor. my AMC 20 has a detroit,4.56 gears,moser axle shafts and many many many miles on some of the toughest trails on the east AND west coast....i am sold

 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
amc 20: needs to be retubed, trussed, and upgraded axles.
dana 44: needs trussed, replace the stock carrier, upgraded axles.

if you have to choose(like you want to replace one or the other) put in a 9in, dana 60, or corp14 bolt. you are not gaining enough to justify swapping a d44 for an amc 20 or vice versa. you will waste your money and your time.

dan
best wishes this turkey day.
why is there no mazda thread?
I feel left out.:p
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Maybe you people can set me stranght. Every one wants a 44Dana.
You would never think of putting a 44 under a HD 1/2 ton pickup
that was going to be put to work like on a farm. Every one says
aah 9 inch ford. I think the 9 inch is a great rear but I have seen
the 12 bolt hammered and keep going to. I have seen for years
9 in. and 12 bolts used like 1 tons with 5 th wheel stock trailers
and keep on going unlike the 8.8 fords and 10 bolt chevys.
Are not 10 bolts and 8.8 fords are more like the size of 44's????
Why would one out a 8.8 in when you can get 12 bolts cheap.
you can get a 12 bolt here for $125 t0 $150 each.


 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I agree that a D44 is not much of an upgrade. If I had one, I would keep it, but would not go through the trouble of swapping one in. I also feel the 9 inch is superior to the 12 bolt, primarily for the lack of c-clips, and aftermarket support. Many people 'put-down' 9 inch for its low pinion. For many years, the 9 inch was THE rear axle to put in any Jeep. The low pinion is a problem which can easily be delt with, and the relativly low-cost makes it a more realistic upgrade.

 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
12-bolt uses C-clips, non-tapered roller bearings and has a r&p gear smaller than the Ford 9" or D60.

Ford 9" in most cases only has 28 spline shafts and the 3rd member is hard to find in the stronger nodular iron configuration. Again, that long and low pinion can be a problem depending on the length of the rest of your drivetrain.

I say it is more important to upgrade the front with a different axle(d44) and work with what you have in the rear.

LarryM
85 CJ7, 350TBI ,T19 4spd
'00 TJ Sport, NV3550 5spd, D44, Teraflex system
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I have put a superior axle kit in my AMC 20. As I have said in other post company was great
but I did not like the way you had to stack every thing on the axle to press on the bearings.
Hard to pack the bearings and to water proof. If I had the money would have to look at a
full floater kit.

 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Lots have been talking about gussetting the model 20, which is good, but one of the most important upgrades is a weld at the axletube/pumpkin junction. The tubes on a stock 20 are just held to the pumkin with a couple of spot welds and under heavy torque can be twisted free from the pumpkin. Putting a bead around the tube at the pumpkin will keep this from happening. Then adding a good truss to support the axletubes is a good idea. The truss will help the twisting problem, but I think the weld is a stronger and cheaper way to be sure.

 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
9in can be found easily with 31 spl. but since you are adding a locker you can always up to 31, 35, or 40 splines(40 spline requires a special hogs head). nodular hogs heads are not necessary unless you are running some real HP. housings are cheap(some torino housings make for no cutting and add a floater to convert to 5 x 5.5 pattern).

as far as a amc20 goes, you really need to have them retubed. the wall thickness of a stock housing is to thin and easily bent. a good portion of them actually left the factory bent. this is the reason they leak so bad and lots of other problems occur with them. its too bad that they wasted such a good ring and pinion by putting it in a crappy housing.

dan
best wishes this turkey day.
why is there no mazda thread?
I feel left out.:p
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Re: ? about 44 housing strength.

Okay, I've been reading this post and it's full of very interesting information. You have raised a couple of questions for my own swap though with the debate. I plan on running a custom rear 44 from Currie or possibly Dynatrac. Now, this is going under a Toyota pickup(please help anyway/wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif) with a tiny 4 cyl. motor but in the neighbor hood of 227:1 gearing when all is said and done. I planned to use 1/2" thick walled tubing on the rear 44 that will end up being 67" wide from wheel mount flange to wheel mount flange. It will be a full floater. What are the chances I'll bend this housing by doing extreme rockcrawling keeping in mind that I won't be hitting things hard with that sort of gear reduction? The extra width may play a big factor in whether or not it bends, but trussing it is not something I really want to do for clearance reasons (if I truss it under the housing) or shock mounting/spring location (if I trussed over the housing). What's your opinions?

BTW, I am not going with the Ford 9" b/c the gears available for the high pinion aren't low enough and the standard rotation pinion is too low. The Dana 60 will require me to run an 1 1/2" taller tire to regain the lost ground clearance which is going to be too large for the front 44 to handle (I plan to run 35s or 36s). That's why I'm not going with either of those options.

Thanks for any advice/opinions you can give. Take care,
Sean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
Re: ? about 44 housing strength.

/wwwthreads_images/icons/tongue.gif There has been a lot of mention of the low pinion drive that the fords have. When that first came out in the late 50's and early 60's we pounced on it for race cars because we could lower the drive train and everything else in the car. The down side was, however, that the radically hypoid gear arrangement to GET that low drive was more prone to heating and failure on long races. There is more tooth scrub, and consequently, more heat with loads on it. Just a little side note on low pinion pumpkins; or as we always called them: "piggys". /wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif

CJDave
 

·
Official Curmudgeon
Joined
·
5,207 Posts
Re: ? about 44 housing strength.

If that 227:1 final ratio was not a typo, I expect the rear axle will be the least of you worries. Unless
you're using a Huumer rear end with the gears at the axle ends, I don't know how you would keep a
driveshaft in it. Even then you would have to have to drive like you had an egg between the right foot
and the accelerator pedal. One little slip and you would tearing something up or maybe just turn the
truck over backwards (a problem with low geared farm tractors that has claimed a lot of lives).

So where are you getting that kind of gearing and why do you think you need it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
969 Posts
Re: ? about 44 housing strength.

No, 227:1 is not a typo. With multiple Toyota transfer cases available, you can get up to over 1000:1 if you really want.
Marlin crawler has 3 cases back to back in his truck. Both Sean & I have 2 gear readuction units on our trucks. I still have the 2.28:1 low range in both cases, and Sean (if I am correct) has 2.28:1 in one case and 4.7:1 in the other case.
We Toyota's have lots more gear options when it comes to transfer cases. We can get 4.0:1 or 4.7:1 transfer cases, and hook several T case gear reduction units together.

Anyway, to answer your question about why that would be needed - you obviously have not driven a vehicle with gearing this low before. It is simply amazing how it lests you drive in a fully controlled manner of obstacles. I only have 100:1 gearing right now, but I plan to replace one of my stock 2.28:1 gear sets with the 4.7 set for even better gearing. The traction it offers is simply amazing.
Imagine if you could split every gear you have in half. Twice the options for gear choices on obstacles. If I want, I use just one of the cases and I have the stock low range. it is all about options/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif

Yes U joints can be a problem, but the Toyota U joints are not exactly small, and they really hold up well until you get over 1000:1 gearing. I have yet to twist a joint or shaft, and I have not babied my truck at all on some pretty tough obstacles at 100:1.

David
Davids 4x4 Page
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top