Off Roading Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If you're interested in what was said go to the Toyota truck page under this same heading. Some of it won't apply since the original posts had to do with swapping a D44 into a Toyota, but the rest of the info. that Warn gave was very enlightening to say the least. Take care,
Sean

 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Re: Lance, learn to read a little more carefully.

I went to the Warn site yesterday. Ya know what it says? The birfield eliminator kit is 33% stronger than the LANDCRUISER birfield. We've been over this already Lance. Maybe you should read all the posts in addition to re-reading what Warn put on their website for an accurate picture of the strength issue. Everyone knows the Landcruiser birf is weaker than the pickup birf-about 33% weaker in fact. Unfortunately, Warn didn't post any specific numbers as to when the 297 joint fails so we could compare it to a birfield.

Sean
Hookt on fonix workt for me!!
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Re: Lance, learn to read a little more carefully.

My mistake... I wasn't paying attention. BUT, 80 and up FJ40's and FJ60's have the same size birfields as Toy trucks.

There is an article in Four Wheeler Magazine a few months back about the Warn axle kit. It lists all breaking points (Ujoint, and axle shafts), and they are higher than even Marfields. I will check which month it is in, when I go home.

Lance Clifford
http://www.pirate4x4.com
[email protected]
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Re: Lance, learn to read a little more carefully.

I think you may be a little disappointed here Lance. The peak torque figure for the 297 joint was around 38,000 in-lbs. For the Marfield it ranged from 42,000-58,000 in-lbs. I am aware that the Fj40 1980 models and up had the pickup birfs. However, there were so few Landcruisers FJ40's imported after 80 (and not that many 60's are wheeled) that there are few Landcruisers with the upgraded joints. The last year for the Fj40 in the US was 83 and I believe there were only 600 imported that year. The 3 previous were not much higher. 4 years at that low of a figure results in roughly 5000 (on the generous side) units with the upgraded birfs. Remember too that the TLC is a 5K lb. vehicle. The truck is roughly 3500. Big difference in strength when talking that kind of weight. BTW, no matter what the mags say, we are all generally aware that the info. they present is often times schewed and misleading if not down right incorrect. Just something to keep in mind.
Sean
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Re: Lance, learn to read a little more carefully.

Where on Earth did you get that data for your 297!?!?!?! The figures I have are above 60,000...

Another question to ponder. If birfields are so wonderful, why are there Marfields? And if Marfeilds were so wonderful, why did Marlin almost go BANKRUPT trying to warranty the gazillion that were returned, BROKEN? Feel free to discuss this via email. Im sure nobody wants to listen to us argue.

[email protected]

Lance Clifford
http://www.pirate4x4.com
[email protected]
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Lance has the goods on you here Sean. That 38,000 figure was for the 260 series U-joint used in a Dana 30.

I don't think there's much doubt in anyones mind (except for a few die hard Toy loyalist who will fight to the end) that a standard CJ Dana 30 and a Toy front end are pretty much equal. The dana 30 ring gear is 7.5" and the Toy ring gear is 7.8". The u-joint and birfield are the weak points, and both are the same strength. You can talk about putting in the Toy v-6 8.2" ring gear, but that doesn't change what the weak point of the whole asembley is.

Toy front axles really start to lose once you start discussing the reverse rotation Dana 30s used in YJs and XJs, especially with the 297 U-joints. Like Lance said, the breaking point for a 297 series U-joint is around 56,000 to 60,000 in lbs, but in all fairness the marfield also checks out at this strength. The difference here is that the marfield was never offered from the factory, while the 297 U-joint was offered in many YJ, XJ and Grand cherokee Dana 30s from the factory. The 7.5" ring gear in the reverse rotation Dana 30 is also around 25% stronger than a standard rotation ring and pinion of the same size when used in a front end application. The later YJs and XJs have it all over Toyotas for front end strength.

Then there's the housing issues. The open knuckle construction of a Dana 30 is far superior to the Toy closed knuckle design. Dana abandoned closed knuckles around 1970 to increase turning radius and help seal things better.

We won't even bother getting into specifics with Dana 44 fronts, they are so much better than a toy front end that it's not worth arguing about. Toyota just plain won't offer anything that's close. Would you put a Toyota axle in the front of a full sized 3/4 ton truck? Ford, Dodge, Chevy and Jeep all used Dana 44s in the front of 3/4 ton full sized trucks. Even to this day you can still get a Dana 44 in a new Dodge 2500.

Here in the world of Jeeps we are a group of guys that will use whatever part is stronger when we upgrade our trucks. Take a look at some built CJs and you will find all kinds of Ford, Chevy, Scout and Jeep Wagoneer parts. You won't find many with Toy front axles though. This is becuase we chose the strongest parts when we upgrade, with no regard to the original donor vehicle. This has made a lot of Scout II owners hate us for using their parts up, but Toy owners will have to find another reason to hate us. You'd see a lot of Toy front ends on CJs if they were an upgrade, but for some reason no one uses them. It's not becuase a Scout or Wagoneer front end is a perfect fit either, both are about three inches too wide, but we find a way to make them work becuase they are the best choice short of a Currie reverse rotation 9" (which still uses Dana 44 outers) or Dana 60 front end.

Botom line, you think what you want, and I'll think what I want. The information has been presented and now everyone else can decide for themselves.

I feel that I've proven my point and I'm not going to bother with this thread again. The numbers speak for themselves.



 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Re: Nutter, Lance, everyone-I was WRONG about the 44.

I'm glad Nutter jumped in with some actual info as well as Lance. I sent Lance a private email letting him know he was right about the two axles in stock form-the 44 is stronger. I also told him he could post the private email if anyone else was interested. I just wanted someone to provide some actual data showing the differences in strength. I appreciate everyone's input on the subject. If you want a more detailed listing of the strength issues go to the Toyota page. I typed something like Attn:TOYLVR and TEX-I was WRONG about the 44, or something to that affect. I hope there aren't any hard feelings, I just wanted some actual empirical evidence instead of just a bunch of opinions. I enjoyed the banter. I'm pretty sure everyone else is sick of it, so I'll let you guys go.
Take care,
Sean
PS. Does anyone have a little ketchup for this crow? It's a little dry./wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Re: Nutter, Lance, everyone-I was WRONG about the 44.

Hay, You two where after the truth. I respect that. B.S. is just that .
Even after a hot debate you all come out as people you would like to wheel
with. Hats off. /wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Re: Lance, I sent it through the private email on this site.

Click on the check private icon at the top of the page to get the message.
Take care,
Sean
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Re: Lance, I sent it through the private email on this site.

the problem I have with those numbers is that they don't relate how the different styles of joint react to being at steering lock, do the birfields and u-joints lose strength at the same rate as the angle increases or is there and advantage to either of them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,425 Posts
Re: Lance, I sent it through the private email on this site.

Another thing that somewhat bothers me is that sometimes people are comparing new U joints to used birfields. Are all of these tests with birfields done with factory new parts? Comparing a 10 year old birfield to an off the shelf new U joint is hardly the basis for fair comparisons. I will have to go back & check the various statistical reports to see what was used.

I to would like to see a report on the changes in strength of each of these as they travel through their range of motion.

David
Davids 4x4 Page
 
1 - 15 of 15 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