I am getting a set and would like to know how much lift you have to run to avoid smacking the third member on the engine or radiator? How much room is there between the axle and frame? And where are you locating the front end for clearance. Thanks a bunch.

well, what do you drive???

On my cruiser, i have an SOA on stock(neg. arched) springs that are reversed for more WB. There is a few inches of uptravel, but the pinion is close enough to ceter not to move around a whole lot. I'm sure if i jumped it at 40 mph it could bottom out into the radiator support, but i just won't do that...

It looks like this...
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Wes_Hanson/cruisercreek3.JPG

Sorry they will be going on a toy pick up. Stock motor, tranny, and t-cases. Any problems with your driveline coming close to the starter or interferring with anything else? Thanks

elf cruiser,what size tire are ya runnin? how much space is there between your diffs and the earth?are you running custom wheels?

ive located a front a 2 rears for nexta nothin,so im considering buildin somethin with em,just cause... :smokin:

elf is running 32(35)inch bogger on custom bend me the f*cuk over stockton wheels.
you don't have to really worry about the axle itself but you need to run a lift because the draglink will hit the frame at less than full flex as it is doing in the pic. You also have to run the drag link around the pinion that pokes out the front.
just ask elfcruiser dueces just bolt in and then all you have to worry about is the details. :smokin:

Swamper502:

elf is running 32(35)inch bogger on custom bend me the f*cuk over stockton wheels. you don't have to really worry about the axle itself but you need to run a lift because the draglink will hit the frame at less than full flex as it is doing in the pic. You also have to run the drag link around the pinion that pokes out the front. just ask elfcruiser dueces just bolt in and then all you have to worry about is the details.

If you don't have any relevant technical knowledge, experience, or information to share, then pipe down.

OK, Krispy Kreme!!!

Bahahah!!! Dana 60's bolt right in. Duece axles are a pain in the ass to fit. Imagine a D44 with a concrete block (8x8x16) sitting on the top of the tube instead of a centersection, and thats about what you have to work with. My 86 Ford (I know its diffrent from a Toyota, but just to give you an idea) had to go up 17 inches to clear the center section and have 4 inches of uptravel. I guess you will just have to check it out on your truck, but I promise you, they will not "bolt in"

JYS

I have no idea in terms of lift height but I'm running 42" tires on my Jeep and the top of the front diff is extremely close to the engine on compression. Articulation isn't a problem, it is when both sides are compressing. I ended up being able to get about 4" of compression without entering clearance problems.

I dont see how you could do it with less than 40's.

CJ

Take off the oil pan?

and the radiator

and the oil filter.

Some of the many reasons Rockwells are :rainbow: :eek:

Some of the many reasons Rockwells ar:rainbow:

well, i guess some people just don't like a challenge...

or maybe they feel that the easier something is to do, the better it must be in the long run.

Challenge?!?! haha Take a look at my project pictures on my website and then come back here and tell me all about challenges. :eek: :rolleyes:

For what? What exactly are you accomplishing by going through all the hassle to put crappy rockwells under your rig? :confused: How many Dana 60 axles have you broken? Dana 44's? Toyotas?
Lifting it to the sky so you have a great center of gravity? 4 inches of compression?!?! No draglink clearance? NICE! :rolleyes:

well,i havent broken any 60s,70s or 14 bolts yet. i have broke some 44 stuff(spiders,axles,destroyed the housing). i was gonna pick em up,cause,like i said,i can get a front and 2 rears for nexta nothin. theres alotta hype bout 2.5 ton rockwels lately,so a friend and i figured it might be fun to pick em up,build somethin,beat on it for awhile,then sell it. for much profit of course,sos to be able to buy other jeep parts :D

i wasnt thinking of putting them under my trail rig,or even under any existing rig,we were gonna more or less decide on the specs,and build a vehicle around the axles.

those good snuf reasons for ya ? :flipoff2:

elf cruiser,how much room you got between the diff and the ground with a 35" tire?

saprobe,
Those questions were directed towards elf_cruiser.

Building a vehicle around the axles is a whole different ball game, as you can avoid SOME of the major problems. The only advantage I can see it price/availability. Bottom line, Rockwells are still :rainbow: :flipoff2:

Rokheep,

You run your 60's and we'll run our rockwells. We aren't calling 60's gay so shut the hell up, if you dont want to run the 2.5tons, don't, but it's america and we can do whatever we want without your approval.

As far as 4" compression, you must be a little bit skewed in your thoughts. That is actually a decent amount, sure it'd be great if more could be had easily but it isn't that simple. My interference is on the crankshaft pulley to the top of the diff, nothing about the oilpan or anything.

As far as lifting sky high, your completely dead wrong. I set my Jeep up on 42's exactly the same way I did with 39.5's, I wanted the tire to just be clear of the fender on full articulation, so it is as low as I can have the Jeep with the compression I want on articulation, which is about 7". No matter what axle my ride height would be exactly the same, but the fact that the rockwells are wider and havier than a 60 means that my center of gravity is about as low as I can get it...so stop making stuff up about things you don't know.

Where are you coming up with this draglink to frame clearance being an issue on a rockwell axle? Your totally contridicting yourself. If your saying you have to run a whole lot of lift to clear rockwells, you should have plenty of room for the draglink. The fact is, the draglink is the same clearance wise as with just about any axle.

Geez, quit your bitching, who cares if you don't want rockwells, WE DO.

CJ

HAHA! CJ I was waiting for your response. I never said you needed my approval, but I am flattered that you thought you did. :flipoff2:

Crankshaft pulley to top of diff interference sounds like a problem you created by swapping to rockwells, no?

BTW, How many Dana 60 axles did you break before swapping to crapwells? :confused:

Run whatcha want, even if it is :rainbow: :flipoff2:

Well I'm glad you didn't have too wait too long for my opinion then...definately didn't think I needed your approval, I'm just reiterating that we don't, obviously you don't get that because you keep insisting that we're in the wrong.

I didn't "swap" rockwells. I built the entire truck around them.

Haven't broken a 60 yet. However, strength wasn't the only reason I wanted the rockwells, but since your closed minded I can see how you wouldn't get that, so I'm not going to bother explaining.

Still not getting the :rainbow: comments. Sounds like some jealousy. There is more than one way to do things you know...

I looked at your pictures, I wouldn't have done things the way you did them, I wouldn't have done a few things completely different. But I'm not out calling you gay because of it....

We are here to talk tech info, not comment on why you think something sucks...but since you really want to...I saw your front axle...I bet I've got 1/2 as much in both of mine as you do in your front alone....and I think your front suspension design sucks.

CJ

haha, looks like someone needs to get some thicker skin! Did you miss these :flipoff2: ? Just to set the record straight, I NEVER said you were in the wrong. I merely gave an opinion and waited for the responses to come pouring in on how they are the shit and I don't know what I am talking about. Bring on that weak sauce. :eek:

The reason you are building your TJ around the rockwells is because you HAVE to. There is no other way to get them to fit. :rolleyes: BTW, an axle swap no matter how involved is still just an axle swap.

Here, I will open my mind and listen to the reasons you decided on rockwells over the Dynatrac 60's you had. Please enlighten me.

What caused the crank pulley to diff interference? Could it have been that HUGE pumpkin that is offset 7" from center? :confused: :rolleyes:

I'm glad you took the time to give me some feedback on my design. Can you give me some pointers on how I can improve my design? Don't worry I won't get mad if you call it :rainbow: HAHA :flipoff2:

CJ Lagos:
You run your 60's and we'll run our rockwells. We aren't calling 60's gay so shut the hell up, if you dont want to run the 2.5tons, don't, but it's america and we can do whatever we want without your approval.

Thanks CJ, i couldn't have said it better myself. You'd think that after that Rockwells vs. 60's thread that DRM started a while back, all this crap would have been cleared up, but i guess not.

OK now listen Crapheep -

YES, the diff is huge - disadvantage as far as space requirements, but the advantage is that the driveshaft is about 6" higher than a 60, so you don't drag it on every rock that passes under your rig. same advantage in the rear, you can have a really short rear driveline, with little or no pinion angle. And if you do have to run a CV, like i did, you only have to angle it up 10' or so. Also Rockwells are perfect for rear steer and full hydraulic steering. The pinion is above the steering arms, so there is no clearance issues btwn a ram and the driveshaft. also the U-joints in rockwells are a lot stronger than those in 60's, and U-joints are what usually break in a rear steer application. Lot's of guys who run rear-steer 60's have broken them. a few who run rockwells have broken theirs, but it takes a big-block and 49" tires to do it. If you are gonna stay in the toddler 4x4 arena with dana60's then fine, but don't give us sh*t just because we want better stuff than you and we're not afraid to put in some extra work, creativity, and ingenuity to get it.

ohh yeah, your website sucks...

Crapheep?!?! haha Compared to your rig I'm sure mine is...

Oh, so now you have rear steer also or are you still talking out your ass? :rolleyes: Rear steer was never mentioned.

"toddler 4x4 arena with dana60's" HAHA!!! This coming from a guy running 33 inch tires on rockwells. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Oh yeah, Thanks for the brilliant review of my website. :rolleyes: I'll take it for what it's worth. haha

Rokheep...what the hell is your point? Yes, no one will argue that they take a lot of work to fit under a Jeep type vehicle without enormous amounts of lift. Like I said, the amount of lift I'm running would be the same if my front axle were a d44, d60 or rockwell.

You don't have to build the vehicle around them, although it does make it easier I think in some regards. So this makes them gay? That is the only logical conclusion I can come up to your ramblings...

Lots of Work = :rainbow: ???

Otherwise...tell me how a stronger axle, cheaper axle, better pinon angles, more ground clearance and cheap parts are a gay thing? Or are you still stuck on the fact that YOU can't put them in because it takes a lot of work?

Like anything we do DOESN'T take a lot of work!

Here are some bonuses of the rockwells:

1) Easy and strong rear steering
2) CHEAP, CHEAP and come rebuilt ready to go
3) CHEAP and abundant spare parts
4) Very little driveshaft angles and tucks the driveshaft way off the ground.
5) Housings can be spun to match up with whatever side drop you want to have in the front...very universal
6) Knuckles can be spun to change where the tie rod is, front or back of housing
7) Knuckles, Hubs, Spindles, Axle Shafts, etc etc are all the same front or rear if you have a steering rear
8) AWESOME ground clearance with a curved bottom, if you want to shave it which is a whole lot easier than on a 60, you'll get about the same clearance as a 44, without ever touching the gears
9) Low gearing stock, 6.72 is great for anything over 40's
10) Cheap detroit lockers, they just bolt in, no gear setup required
11) Serious beef of all components, makes a 60 look like a go cart axle
12) BIG U-JOINTS without expensive parts
13) really save yourself on driveshaft expenses because you no longer need CV's
14) All this without much weight over a 60, if any to be honest
15) They are bad ass

There are a few reasons I thought of real quick for you.

CJ

i don't know for sure, but rockheep you dished it out pretty good, now expect the return. dana 60s are cool, and i have never broke one. but i have sold off two. because they are just way over priced for what they are. that 60 in the front of your heep cost more than the last two rigs i have built. and the next one will be on rockwells. and it will wheel just fine. it comes down to money with me. i can get a much better package for less bucks. which by the looks of your parts, money is no object. i have three kids in school and like to go wheeling,skiing and camping every chance i get. if i blew 10 or 20k on parts, it would be in the garage instead of on the trail. because i would be to broke to go anywhere. and i don't ever want anyone to think i was a credit card wheeler. i build it, and i break it, then i build it better. mike

CJ,
I asked you why you switched from Dana 60's to Rockwells if not for breakage and never got an answer. Yes, I think they are :rainbow: and nothing more than a fad, That's why I asked the question. I never attacked you or your rig, then you decided I was persecuting you personally and lashed out at me for my beliefs that rockwells are :rainbow:. Re-read your first post in this thread and the one's leading up to it. :rolleyes:

gunracer,
I dished out nothing more than my opinion. Bring it on.
Since you apparently know, how much did the 60 in the front of my rig cost???

I agree that the rockwells are cheap and plentiful. I have never said otherwise. That is one of the few advantages of them that I have stated since the beginning.

Money is a HUGE object in my buildup, but I have tried to put my money where it will make the most difference. I have sold TONS of old parts and my old wheeler to afford to build this rig.

What does this mean: "i don't ever want anyone to think i was a credit card wheeler" I guess since I have a Klune and Atlas that makes me a credit card wheeler? :rolleyes: I guess I oughta get a business license for my garage, huh? :flipoff2:

Take a look at my project pictures on my website and then come back here and tell me all about challenges

Ok, smack talker, I'll take that bait.

So far, all I see is a lot of high dollar, ordered, bolt on shiny bits my sister could put together :flipoff2:

Dynatrac axle and Klune/Atlas......totally un-impressive (from a tech point of view...nice choices tho).

Come back and talk smack when you've home-brewed your own custom axle or doubler....otherwise, you aren't in elf's or CJs league at all.

Billavista,
You should know what you are talking about before you start in on the bandwagon. You look like a fool doing it.

Look a little further and you might find the other website for my previous rig that was built by me. :rolleyes:

I guess the custom "C" bushing mounts, and entire front suspension are not "cool" enough for you.

Thanks for telling me what league I'm in. I'll have to remember that. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion or would you like to continue trying to discredit me on this thread?? :rolleyes:

http://www.hatleberg.com/donovan/Wolverine/images/Construction/bronceep2.jpg

you might wanna rethink scrub radius here
why the :rainbow: and $$$ 5 bolt conversion
your ride isnt exactly a poster example of 60s bolting in

Yes, I think they are and nothing more than a fad, That's why I asked the question

And this is why I'm in an argument with you. This topic was started by coiled with very specific questions about some of the not so well publicized rockwells. He didn't ask if anyone thought they were stupid or gay or a fad, he asked some technical questions and was asking for people with some experience or info to help him out. You felt it your duty to let him know that you think their gay.

I didn't switch to rockwells because of breakage of 60's. To be completely honest, I started to really think about how much money I had tied up in my axles and was somewhat puzzled why I was able to convince myself in the beginning to get them. I decided to get my money out of them while I could. They simply weren't worth the same to me as when I got them. Looking for cheap alternatives I didn't want a low pinion diff and reverse cut is serious cash....so, enter rockwells...all a 60 is and a lot more :P

Back to your opinon. I'm simply trying to understand WHY you think they are so gay. It won't change anything I do one way or the other but I hate how you'd just post plain BS about them and potentially steer people away from using them.(What is the bit about the draglink hitting the frame issues, did you read that in Petersen's?)

Nothing eats me up more than people getting discouraged by other people who don't know what the hell their talking about in the first place. You've never tried to fit rockwells under a Jeep so you have no clue what it takes. Sure, you've been to pirate4x4.com and seen some pictures and read some info, but when it comes down to it you don't know anything about it.

Ok, back to your comment about them being a FAD, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I don't know of any ARCA guys using them, they certainly aren't the axle of choice by any means. There are only a handful on this board running them and certainly really isn't much info about them. I don't recall any 4x4 shops coming out with cool parts for them. They've started popping up in the magazines a little more now, but they've all been on show trucks, how impressive is that? Come on.

I mean are you serious? Your calling rockwells a fad when every one and their step-mom has a front 60 now. Why do you think people are paying $1000 for a bone stock diff just to cut up and make completely different, 60's my friend are a FAD.

I still would like to know why you think they are so horrible. I think it is funny. I bet you were the same people 5 years ago saying that dana 60's were way overkill, way too heavy, gave up way too much ground clearance, blah blah blah. Now your running a D60 front from Dynatrac, What gives? I mean come on, when it comes down to it is there really a whole lot of difference between a rockwell and a 60 in a jeep?

It all depends on how much testosterone your trying to give your jeep :P Just a joke.

I think Billa's point is that Dana 60's are boring now, it's been done time and time again, they're the fad, Rockwells are a little bit more rare, especially in a hardcore trail jeep setup for rockcrawling.

CJ

Originally posted by mj
[B
you might wanna rethink scrub radius here
why the :rainbow: and $$$ 5 bolt conversion
your ride isnt exactly a poster example of 60s bolting in [/B]

Does the suspension look like it's done? :rolleyes:

Because I thought that's what all the cool kids have... :flipoff2:

I never infered that it was, what made you say that?

Sheesh I think I got a little more than I bargained for when I posted this! I can't really understand when people start flapping their lips about how rockwells are just a fad and are :rainbow: and such when all you have to do is look at those bad boys and put 2 and 2 together to realize they are neither! Like everything in our sport you have trade offs and for me I like the peace of mind I will most likely never break anything when it comes to parts on the rockwells. I may have to plan ahead on how/where to mount them, but that is nothing new when it comes to my toyota. If I wanted bolt in easy shiat I would have stuck with my stock toyota but this is rockcrawling and last I heard, there are no rules so get your feet out of your mouth, open up your mind, and realize there is life beyond the 900-1200 dollar dana 60 front axle! Sure I could say why I want to put rockwells in, but Lagos did a fine job of that and really I don't think we need to explain to you why we want them, you'll know when your busted/broken down ass sees us driving right on through.:flipoff2:

CJ Lagos,
What can I say, opinons are like assholes... I guess I like to fart alot. :flipoff2:

Thanks for finally answering the question. So the sole reason you put the rockwells in was they were the cheapest solution. My point exactly. :rolleyes: They are nothing but a cheap alternative to a Dana 60 that have huge disadvantages to overcome. Thanks.:flipoff2:

I've wheeled with two rigs with rockwells and done the research you so eloquently described :flipoff2: and have seen the problems they were faced with and the compromises they had to make to utilize the benefits of the axles. I don't need to stub my toe to verify that it hurts like hell...

Out here they are becoming a big fad, and this is the only place that matters anyway. :beer:

You shouldn't be a betting man, you'da lost.

Ok, stub you're toe if you must...

Thanks coiled, will you at least gimme a :beer: as you drive on by my "busted/broken down ass" ?:beer: :flipoff2:

Rokheep,

Geez, whatever, now your just arguing for the sake of it. I told you that is how it started, if I thought that the 60 was overall a better axle I would have kept what I had, it would have made the past 4 months of my life a lot easier. But, in the end I realized that the rockwells are overall a much better choice for the kind of rig I am building.

You keep talking about all these sacrafices, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?. What did your friends have to change? The only sacrifice I had to make was to put another bumpstop above the diff, which limited straight up and down compression to 4" instead of 6". Not a big concern for me.

Umm, just because something is popular where your from doesn't mean it is a fad. I'm talking nationwide here. I don't care if there a fad so I dont think I'll philisophically stub my toe.

Again I'll sum it up for you...rockwell compared to 60:
1) Stronger
2) More ground clearance
3) Lower gearing and easy locker install
4) Very abundant spare parts
5) Higher pinion
6) CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP comparative

Ok, so what were you saying? That list sounds pretty convincing to me.

Beware, I'm only applying this to rigs running 40's or bigger.

CJ

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sorry, I don't drink beer, I think fourwheeling and drinking beer is just a fad, but I might give you some water if you retract the gay statements!:D

CJ Lagos,
With the post from Brutus I present exhibit A.

Here is an example of someone (who I have seen and watched on the trail when it was a "jeep"(who wouldn't with those big f@ckers under there?:) ))who had to make huge compromises from his 2 side by side seating and somewhat of a Jeep in terms of most of the frame and sheetmetal to a one seat sprint car frame to make the rockwells work. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Thanks Brutus. :flipoff2:

Originally posted by coiled
Sorry, I don't drink beer, I think fourwheeling and drinking beer is just a fad, but I might give you some water if you retract the gay statements!:D

Sorry man, I guess just give me the :flipoff2: salute as you go by then... :beer: :flipoff2:

Rokheep is just acting bitchy because his asshole is still hurting from the raping that dynatrac gave him on those axles. Apparently that $6000 dollars doesnt include a can of vasaline to ease the pain. Hmmm lets see

dana 60 dynatrac:barf: :barf: :barf:

full carrier locker
gears
custom shafts
5 on 5 1/2 outers
35 spline everything
35 spline lockout hubs
weaker than rockwell

$6000

rockwell 2 1/2 ton :smokin:
locker
lockout hubs
brakes at the wheel
stronger than 60

$2000

Boy its a tough one!!!!! :flipoff2: dynatrac:barf: :barf:

HAHAHA, another jackass jumps on the bandwagon without knowing the details. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Any NON credit card wheeler can get the parts FAR cheaper than retail with just a little investment in time and a brain...

Here's you're sign...

P.S. This was never a "mine's better than your's" dick contest, so don't make it one. :rolleyes:

You may not have spent $6000 on your sixty, but you definitely spent more than $2000, and any more than $2k for a weaker axle with less ground clearance is just :rainbow:

Those little dynatrac tags don't come cheap...

Rokheep,

Enter exhibit 2 then. Here is a picture of the front end finished on my Jeep with a TJ body. I have a two-seater that still resembles a Jeep and I didn't even use 60s. I guess you shouldn't believe everything you read, sometimes you just gotta have the balls and stub your toe as you would say.

So back to your reasoning. Do you know any specific complications rockwells present or your just going on myth again? I heard a single buggy on a sprint car chassis wasn't needed...

:usa:
CJ

CJ, lookin good man!!

I see you got the hydro steer workin' - hey are your hubs flipped in or out??, what BS on your wheels, i assume they are 15x10's??

Later man-

rokheep, as soon as you can drive someting up on top of a SUBURBAN and keep the rest of the wheels on the ground,you are welcome to criticize all you want.

im still waitin for someone to tell me how much distance between the earth and the diff they have with whatever size tires.

have there been any threads on rockwell specs? axleshaft diameter/spline? u joint size? shit like that?

what does anyone think of the 2.5 ton gmc axles? the guy whose got the rockwells has a set hell sell for $100(front and 2 rears) but ive never heard anything out them.obviously theyre not top loaded,but i didnt pay much attention to em. ya lose alot fo clearance over the rockwell?

dont tell me to do a search either. my puter is a piece of crap and i can look at 2 maybe 4 posts before it gets confused and locks up on me... otherwise id be happy search my heart out and sort thru 5 pages of back posts...

elf,

Thanks man. No, the cylinder is just sitting there for now. I got the knuckle end all done it's the axle end I'm working on. I wish the ram wasn't so long...hubs are flipped in. I took about 1/4" off the back of each lug nut stud, and then used bolts to attach the spindles. 15x10 with 4" backspacing. I think 88" outside to outside. WIDE.

CJ

Originally posted by CJ Lagos
Rokheep,

Enter exhibit 2 then. Here is a picture of the front end finished on my Jeep with a TJ body. I have a two-seater that still resembles a Jeep and I didn't even use 60s. I guess you shouldn't believe everything you read, sometimes you just gotta have the balls and stub your toe as you would say.

:usa:
CJ

I REALLY like the look of you're rig. I think you've done a great job of incorporating the "features" of the rockwell. I am not going to convince you any more than you would me. :eek: I still think you HAD the ultimate axles when you decided to change, I guess I just would have worked harder to keep them. :cool: Stub away my friend. :flipoff2:

You described the few that most people should be worried about ,and that is not only the size, but the placement of that tremendously large pumpkin, and the pinion height (driveshaft interference)due to the size of the pumpkin for most folks.

:beer: ;)

Originally posted by saprobe
rokheep, as soon as you can drive someting up on top of a SUBURBAN and keep the rest of the wheels on the ground,you are welcome to criticize all you want.

What the h#ll does that prove? Go away newbie. :rolleyes:

Here's you're sign...

Rokheep,

Agreed...they aren't for everyone, but if your running 40's are larger then they deserve a close look...

Saprobe,

I have over 12" of clearance under my rockwell with 42s @ 6psi. The axle shafts dwarf 35spline 60 shafts and the u-joint is very big compared to them too. Unfortunately the material of the rockwell shafts is "somewhat" weak compared to the u-joint...no one makes production aftermarket shafts for them yet. 16spline course threads, the splines are bigger than the shaft od so the shaft will break before the splines...that's another story.

I'd stay away from the GMC 2.5tons, they have a low pinoin and aren't anything like the rockwells.

Originally posted by CJ Lagos
Rokheep,

Agreed...they aren't for everyone, but if your running 40's are larger then they deserve a close look...


A close/realistic look at not only the strength but the compromises. There's no such thing as a free lunch... :beer:

Originally posted by RokHeep


What the h#ll does that prove? Go away newbie. :rolleyes:

Here's you're sign...

well, id say that it proves that the guy that built it was capable of designing and building something radically different that works,and not simply bolting on a bunch of high dollar ,pre-engineered parts. :flipoff2:

maybe that much articulation isnt really neccessary in the real wheelin world,but i betcha if your tig could do it,youd be one of the first to put up pics of it doing so.

addressing me by my "newbie" status.oooooh the pain... :rolleyes: i was amused by your petty arguing for the first few posts,but now youre plain and simple getting on my nerves. im sure there is a thread somewhere where you and the other 5 lug 60 advocates can get together and talk about how wonderful your axles are,and leave the rest f us in peace to have our discussion of " :rainbow: " axles.good bye...

cj lagos, thanx for the info.is 16 splines the inner shaft,or the stub?

Originally posted by saprobe
[B]

well, id say that it proves that the guy that built it was capable of designing and building something radically different that works,and not simply bolting on a bunch of high dollar ,pre-engineered parts. :flipoff2:

Yeah, these were all bolt on... :rolleyes:

addressing me by my "newbie" status.oooooh the pain... :rolleyes: i was amused by your petty arguing for the first few posts,but now youre plain and simple getting on my nerves. im sure there is a thread somewhere where you and the other 5 lug 60 advocates can get together and talk about how wonderful your axles are,and leave the rest f us in peace to have our discussion of " :rainbow: " axles.good bye...

hahaha! Do the search, find the "secret" cult of 5 luggers.... Couldn't find it?!?! Holy shit, I guess I had to make up my own mind then huh??? :rolleyes:

Once again, go away newbie. :rolleyes:

yeah,yeah,whatever. you must really be bored. i dont hink anyone has posted somethin here today that you havet come back with a snappy,smart ass response for within 5 minutes.

ive checked it a couple times today,but if you want to leave some more clever remarks,youll have to wait until tomorrow to hear back fro me,since i dont sit on top of my computer waiting for the responses to.

called me a newbie AGAIN. ouch... :rolleyes:

pleasant dreams,mr wolverine,may visions of 5 lug semifloating d60 axleshafts dance in your head...

well, it seems that this nice,civilized and lovely BB turned into a battle zone!!

excuse me for saying so but it does'nt sound too good to the bystander(or should i say byreader).

anyway, i'm glad the battle is over and:beer: :beer: :beer: are given here, free of charge i hope.

you would surely think i am biased, and indeed i am!!!:flipoff2: :D :rasta: :D :flipoff2: = i love those beefy sob axles and they sure are worth any extra work, adaptations, headaches and backpains(heavy bastards, are'nt they?)

anyways, i have no intention to start this bashing again, so i'll say that the rockwells are nothing like a bolt on stuff; actually they are allmost all custom work of what your sick mind produces, and that's the real beauty of'em.

besides that, i can only tell ya that everything CJ lagos said allong this thread, is simply God's true words ......:rasta: :rasta: :rasta:

long live Rockwells, and oh yea, please try to keep your manners
boys.

love you all(even if you run 60's & 44's)

the frog:beer:

AMEN,brother frog.

maybe now we should start another rockwell tech thread,that hopefully wont get cluttered with posts calling them " :rainbow: " ;)

Originally posted by CJ Lagos
elf,

Thanks man. No, the cylinder is just sitting there for now. I got the knuckle end all done it's the axle end I'm working on. I wish the ram wasn't so long...
CJ

hey CJ, what's that cylinder doing IN FRONT of your axle?!?!

hope you do'nt intend to leave it there - you should have it tucked BEHIND the axle 4-5" ABOVE the tie rod, out of harms way.

oh yea, one more thing - dump that original sack of $hit of a tie rod, and have a heavy duty one fabricated(not the hollow $hit), preferably one made of 4340 steel.

that would last forever and most important, will protect your cylinder. the cylinder may look stout but - a word for the wise - if the ram is out and you "sit" on a rock with the vehicle's weight on it or even get it nocked by something, it will bend like a match and you'll lose your steering in notime because the ram will then not go out or in whatever you do.

try to straighten a bent ram(even a little bend) and you'll know what i'm talking about.

take care:smokin:

:beer:frog:beer:

Frog,

I can't put it behind the axle because of the suspension design. That is what I wanted to do but it didn't work out. My tie rod is 1.75" OD with .375" wall. I'm not too worried about it. My Jeeps have always had linkages in front of the axle, so it's nothing new. I will bend the tie rod before anything gets to the ram. Even if I don't get the rear steering working immediately, I think I'm gonna mount the ram back there in case I need it for something :P

CJ

CJ,

i hope i'm not being a pain in your a$$, but could you possibly send some close up pics of your suspension, front look and rear look?:emb:

that cylinder up front is'nt gonna make your trail life easy. do'nt forget that you allways had a steering box/pittman/link/tie rod, which is quite different then a hydro steering ram.

you can ride miles and miles with a twisted/busted tie rod but you can't do it with a bent ram.

do'nt want to be an a$$hole, just trying to let you have an advantage out of my experience.:idea:

frog

Frog,

Here is a good pic:
http://www.admotorsports.com/jeep.org/cjl-tj/03-14-02/P1010003.JPG

I still don't quite follow you. I'm thinking in terms of not hitting steering linkage on rocks and things. I've been doing fine so far keeping my steering out of trouble I don't see why I'm gonna start now :P The tie rod will be under the knuckle and the ram is mounted above. Rocks will have to get through my tie rod which will put up a very good fight to get to the ram. I hear what your saying, I don't really have any other options though.

CJ

Oh crap, everybody made up and started talking tech again, and I just thought up some new crap to sling.

Oh well, here goes anyway;

Here is an example of someone (who I have seen and watched on the trail when it was a "jeep"(who wouldn't with those big f@ckers under there? ))who had to make huge compromises from his 2 side by side seating and somewhat of a Jeep in terms of most of the frame and sheetmetal to a one seat sprint car frame to make the rockwells work.

And this my friend is exactly wher your argument falls flat on its face. It's in your choice, and definition, of the word "compromises" . What might appear a compromise to YOU is simply growth, progress, or evolution to someone else. You simply cannot disctate what is a compromise for someone else....for example, if Brutus doesn;t care about the second seat, then removing it IS NOT a compromise for him, simply a change


See the difference.

Oh, BTW - your "wristed arms" look awful....but it could just be the terrible photography :flipoff2:

Billavista,
You sure seem to want to sling crap without the benefit of knowing the details. Ignorance is bliss, huh? :rolleyes:

Have you ever seen Stacy wheel his "jeep"? Did you see the problems he was having and the bitching he was doing regarding the axles and clearance problems he was having? Didn't think so. Here's you're sign... :rolleyes:

Thanks for the input on my radius arms. Do you think you could tell me what you don't like and how I can improve them? I will try to take better pictures in the future. :flipoff2:

Rokheep,

Again, you keep telling about how Brutus(is he your only reference?) was having trouble with them. You neglect to mention anything specific so in other words you are just spitting BS...you've contributed absolutely nothing useful to the entire discussion. You have no facts to back any of your statements up. If you do then we'd like to hear them, otherwise shut the hell up.

CJ

come on now boys, calm yourselves down, please....:(

you make my joy over getting into the top ten 2002 to deep sadness:barf:

shall we become more Britishlike and concentrate on being polite
and post only to the point?:)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :crybaby2:
ok

crap! and just when you thot it was safe to go bak in the water... ;)