http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Dana-60-Rev-Rotation-Thick-4-88-5-13-5-38-Ring-Pinion_W0QQitemZ160188435014QQihZ006QQcategoryZ337 31QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p1 638.m118


is this ad correct Dana 60 Reverse Rotation THICK ring and pinion in your choice of 4.88, 5.13 or 5.38. This gear is designed to fit 4.10 and DOWN diff case's.

so will a 5.38 gear set work with a 4.10 and down carrier?

i dont think it will after reading the billivista d60 bible again.

so i know this. i need 5.38 regular rotation gears for my front.
but for the rear d60 is the axle regular or reverse rotation? i dont see any info on the rear 60's in the bible.. its just your standard dodge lowpinion 60

Thanks-

The thick gearsets are ment for the 4.10 and down case. The extra thick gear makes up for the carrier offset.

The dodge will be a standard rotation so those gears are no good for you.

The reverse rotation Dana 60 Front axle uses only 1 carrier. There is no such thing as a 4.10 and down (or 4.56 and up) when talking about a reverse rotation, high pinion Dana 60 front drive axle.

Unfortunately, the carrier used in the reverse rotation front axle just happens to be EXACTLY the same as the carrier used in the standard rotation housing for 4.10 and down. Thus all the confusion. The carrier for the 4.56 and up standard rotation housing moves the ring gear about 3/16 inch closer to the pinion centerline so that smaller diameter pinion gears can use reasonable thickness ring gears.

In order to accomodate the smaller pinion diameter on the high-pinion, Dana elected to simply add material to the ring gear, instead of using a carrier with the different offset.

Now, to make things a little more complicated...the dana 60 was factory equipment on high performace Dodge muscle cars. The lowest gears available from the factory was 4.10...so no problem. Some hot-rodders wanted to go lower, so they used 4.56 gears from trucks. Since the carrier was in the wrong location for the 4.56, the aftermarket supplied a ring gear spacer to do the same job. I have been told...(but have not been able to find ) that a STANDARD rotation thick 4.56 ring gear. It makes perfect sense that someone would make them, but I haven't found anything in the past 10 years.

Hope that clears it up for you.

The reverse rotation Dana 60 Front axle uses only 1 carrier. There is no such thing as a 4.10 and down (or 4.56 and up) when talking about a reverse rotation, high pinion Dana 60 front drive axle.

Unfortunately, the carrier used in the reverse rotation front axle just happens to be EXACTLY the same as the carrier used in the standard rotation housing for 4.10 and down. Thus all the confusion. The carrier for the 4.56 and up standard rotation housing moves the ring gear about 3/16 inch closer to the pinion centerline so that smaller diameter pinion gears can use reasonable thickness ring gears.

In order to accomodate the smaller pinion diameter on the high-pinion, Dana elected to simply add material to the ring gear, instead of using a carrier with the different offset.

Now, to make things a little more complicated...the dana 60 was factory equipment on high performace Dodge muscle cars. The lowest gears available from the factory was 4.10...so no problem. Some hot-rodders wanted to go lower, so they used 4.56 gears from trucks. Since the carrier was in the wrong location for the 4.56, the aftermarket supplied a ring gear spacer to do the same job. I have been told...(but have not been able to find ) that a STANDARD rotation thick 4.56 ring gear. It makes perfect sense that someone would make them, but I haven't found anything in the past 10 years.

Hope that clears it up for you.

This simply is not true. All Dana 60 housings use the exact same carriers whether high pinion or low pinion. The high pinions have the same gear break as low pinions. The thick gears are available so that you do not have to change carriers. Because they only make thick gears for reverse cut high-pinion axles, and because they are only found on front ends, they will never see more than half the available drive torque, and therefore the manufacturers don't fear warranty issues with the added stress on the ring gear bolts. Standard thickness reverse cut gears are available from all manufacturers for 4.56 and lower to be used on the 4.56 and lower carrier in the high pinion axles.

Edit: Hmmmmm. Maybe not all ratios are covered by the thin gears as I thought. But some definitely are.

There's no such thing as a reverse rotation Dana 60; they all spin the same way.

Just wanted to clear that up. :flipoff2:

For that matter, they're not reverse-cut either...only thing that changes is the spiral direction. :)

I wasn't able to find any thick gears for the low pinion axles when I had to regear mine.

They don't make thick low pinion gears. Only reverse cut thick gears which when originated were for use in front ends only that should never see but half drive torque. That's not true any more with twin stick cases and high pinion rears, but thick gears was a cheap way of gearing down a front end w/o have to buy a second carrier when going over the split, and safe because of the lower torque.

Are you saying when they cut the gears, the machine was going in the same direction? :D

Reverse cut gears may not be going reverse from low pinion gears when on the front end, but they sure are rotating in reverse. Look at how the top of the ring gear rotates towards the cover and not the pinion when going forward. If it were on the rear, that would be reverse. :p

There are such things as "reverse rotation" axles, one thing I can think of is the front axle of some old GM military trucks. The ring gear is on the opposite side of the pinion, compared to standard rotation axles. So if you're looking at the yoke, and spin it counter-clockwise (like a normal front axle), it'd turn the opposite way of a Dana/GM/Toy/etc axle.

High pinion and low pinion axles both turn the same direction for a given input...so whether you're using it in a front or rear application, it's not doing anything 'reverse' just because it's a high pinion. :p

They don't make thick low pinion gears.
Reverse cut gears may not be going reverse from low pinion gears when on the front end, but they sure are rotating in reverse. Look at how the top of the ring gear rotates towards the cover and not the pinion when going forward. If it were on the rear, that would be reverse. :p

My low pinion front d60 rotates the same way. Then would it be considered reverse cut also? I know "reverse rotation" is a misnomer, but it's not the same as low pinion.

My low pinion front d60 rotates the same way. Then would it be considered reverse cut also? I know "reverse rotation" is a misnomer, but it's not the same as low pinion.

I didn't say anything like that. All front ends, high and low pinion, are rear ends turned around, and when they are going forward they are being run in reverse. That's reverse rotation, but there is no diferentiation between high or low pinion, or standard cut or reverse cut gears, so yes, "reverse rotation" is a misnomer.

Edit: In light of the confusing nature of this relationship between front and rear ends, and in light of the fact that true reverse rotation axles are now a part of the discussion, what I call reverse rotation in this post would be better defined as "reverse operation".

This simply is not true. Because they only make reverse cut gears in the thick version, .

Ok, I will TRY to make this easier to understand.

1. IF they only make reverse cut gears in the thick version, (which they do) then that means that THERE IS NO CARRIER SPLIT for the High pinion dana 60. To make it simpler, in a high pinion dana 60, the only carrier that will EVER be found happens to be the same as the dana 60 low pinion in 4.10. If there is only one carrier that fits in a housing using the gears that are available...then there is only ONE carrier.

2. The notion that high pinion drive axles are somehow weaker is a misunderstanding. To put it simply, just look at the pinion from the side. In the rear axle, the pinion PUSHES on the bottom of the ring gear. Meaning that if you apply torque to the input of the pinion, it will try to PUSH it self out of the housing. On a High pinion dana 60, in the rear, the pinion is PULLING on the ring gear. As the pinion centerline approaches the axle centerline, the amount of thrust approaches zero. At the very top and very bottom of the ring gear the thrust is maximized. This is why the 9 inch is a much weaker high pinion than the 60. Driving forward, the Dana 60 low pinion in front axle applications is PULLING on the pinion. This is the only part of your statement that is accurate. However, driving forward, the Dana 60 high pinion is in fact PUSHING on the ring gear, on the strongest part of the tooth. So, driving FOWARD, the strongest option is to have a low pinion in the rear, and a high pinion up front. THAT is why the Ford engineers did it.
3. A thicker ring gear in no way increases the shear loading on the retaining bolts. You might argue that the combined stresses are higher, but you need a better model. As the torque increases, the force vector on the ring gear tries to spread it away from the pinion. This in fact INCREASES the clamp force against the carrier. So the thicker ring gear means nothing...except it is heavier.
4. The helix on the pinion of the high pinion is opposite to that of the low pinion. When you place them side by side, one appears to twist clockwise, and the other appears to twist counter-clockwise. Thus the reverse-rotation nomenclature. It has nothing to do with which way the drive axle rotates when the pinion is rotated. It is more accurately high pinion, reverse helix. This is necessary to keep the pinion on the same side of the carrier. If you can imagine a ford 9 inch REAR axle, and simply install the housing upside down 180 degrees. Turning the driveshaft clockwise would normally push on the bottom of the ring gear, and propel the car forward...but when inverted, turning the driveshaft clockwise would push on the TOP of the ring gear, and propel the car in REVERSE. So you really DO need reverse rotation. The only reason why it seems otherwise is because Dana chooses to put the pinion on the same side of the carrier. So do you still think "reverse rotation" is a misnomer?

5. So if you re-read my original post, you will see that everything I said is factually accurate, and but I believe I am right about this one.

James, I guess you are talking to me? I never mentioned anything about pulling, pushing, stronger, weaker anything. All I said was that thick gears were ok on front ends because they were not intended to be used alone(w/o rear end on duty), so the extra stress on the thick gears was tolerable. Extra stress in the form of point of pressure being farther from the mounting flange producing a higher theoretical bend moment on the ring gear bolts. This lighter duty was also a factor in just the fact that they could use rear ends in reverse for front ends to start with, given the fact that the pinion thrust was now being held by the smaller outer pinion instaed of the larger inner pinion bearing as they were designed to be. The whole idea of developing the high pinion/reverse cut gear differentials was so front ends would be as durable in service as rear ends were designed to be. I believe the thrust was probably the primary issue for improvement, and not neccesarily just whether the normal force was on the concave or convex side of the teeth.

Also, I just did a quick shopping trip on the internet. I found standard thickness reverse cut gears in 4.30, 4.88, and 5.38. I'm pretty sure they were normal thickness because they were listed along with thick gears of the same ratios clearly marked as such. Randy's oddly enough wasn't listing any Yukon gears other than thick, but they did have some U.S. Gears, and I found some ebay vendors with Yukon standard thickness in 4.30 and lower. Didn't search the OEM, but I've always thought they made them as well. In fact, while not sure, I find it hard to believe Dana would make thick gears and warranty them. I'll give it some more research.

Another thing from your original post. A spacer is certainly a cheap way to put deep gears in a 4.10 case, but I think if I had a 440/Hemi car, I'd want to rebuild the right sized truck power-loc with the 30-spline side gears if I expected to have it last. I never thought about it much, but are you saying that they didn't offer the size 4 carriers in 30-spline until 1975 or so when the trucks went 30-spline. I've only been hard into these Dana 60's for about 4 or 5 years so I can't really follow there evolving time-line, but most of what you are saying comes as a surprise to me since the carriers are now readilly available for all sizes and spline counts.

There are such things as "reverse rotation" axles, one thing I can think of is the front axle of some old GM military trucks. The ring gear is on the opposite side of the pinion, compared to standard rotation axles. So if you're looking at the yoke, and spin it counter-clockwise (like a normal front axle), it'd turn the opposite way of a Dana/GM/Toy/etc axle.

High pinion and low pinion axles both turn the same direction for a given input...so whether you're using it in a front or rear application, it's not doing anything 'reverse' just because it's a high pinion. :p

If you just added 1 drive gear to the main shaft to run a front output, the front output would turn the front shaft the same relative direction(cw towards its pinion) as the rear, because of the way its facing opposite of the rear pinion. Even number of gears reverse direction, odd number of gears maintain direction. Using the opposite side of a gear also reverses direction of rotation of its driven unit. Now, because the front needs to run in reverse, the single drive gear would not be ok, unless you have a reverse rotation front axle, like in the military truck you described. The idler gear in our tcases maintains a reverse rotation of the front shaft. The 3 gears provide the same rotation as the drive direction, but opposite because using opposite side of gear on our front outputs, so the front axle that is running in reverse is now ok again. The addition of the idler gear also afforded them the ability to add an additional low gear similar to a standard transmission

You are correct about the ring gear right/left thing. All American mfr's that I know of have the ring gear to the right of the pinion, and the only way to make a reverse rotation axle, when the input shaft is turning cw, would be to put the ring gear to the left of that pinion.

JGVAbronco78,

I thing we are in general agreement...and I'm happy to be proven wrong.
1. The ring gear to carrier attachment bolt might see more stress. But consider that the thick D60 gears are thinner than standard 9 inch gears.

2. If you can find standard thickness OEM high pinion gears in any ratio numerically higher than 4.30 then I am wrong about the carrier split. I THINK that the Yukon and others are actually all thick.

3. Yes about the track pack cars, and you could certainly pull 30 spline side gears out of a 1966 Ford F100 w/Dana 60...so 30 spline side gears existed. But don't forget that in 1972, a B or E body track pack car was cheap. Mr. Gasket, Moroso, and lots of others have sold a bunch of ring gear spacers. I agree 100% that a carrier swap is the better way to do it. But some people are cheap.

I am changing the gears in my 71 Bronco from 4.10 to 4.56. It is a std rotation D60 with ARB. A new ARB is $750+. I am seriously thinking of using a ring gear spacer...

By the way, the only possilble way to build a hypoid gearset in a rear axle is with the pinion to the "right." (from the cover side) If you face the pinion yoke, and rotate the pinion clockwise, the left side of the gear goes UP, and the right side goes DOWN. You need to push the front of the ring gear down in order to propel the vehicle forward.

James, we are in agreement that the reverse spiral gears push the pinion against the large inner bearing when going forward on a front end like ought to be the case, like the way it is in the rear end.

Not trying to rub it in, but I can see you are open minded, so consider this. Why would there even be a need to call them "thick" gears if there weren't a thin or normal gear to distinguish it from to start with. They would just be reverse spiral gears that happen to be thicker because they needed to be to reach the smaller pinion. They are designated "thick" so that they do not get confused with normal gears of the same ratio for an appropriate size carrier.

As far as the ring gear needing to be on the right of the pinion, when looking at it from the pinion side, in order for a rear end to go forward when turned clockwise, that is the point exactly. If the ring gear were on the left, the pinion would now need to turn CCW in order for a rear axle to go forward. That's what the true reverse rotation front axle we were discussing was doing. The pinion was turning CW, so that the axle was going in reverse(which is forward for a front end).

JGVABronco78,

I don't mind taking the darts, because I can see that you are reasonable, and fairly intelligent. Also, you support your assertions with valid data and decent theory.

However...

The reason for the descriptors (thick, thin, and reverse) is so that normal people can differentiate between the two items without using reference material or labels or part numbers. For example, if you have two 41/9 tooth OEM gear sets on the bench, they can be easily identified by their thickness. The thick one will be for High Pinion, and the thin one will be low pinion. Of course they will also have reversed spiral, but most normal people don't know which is the correct spiral, so..."thick" is an easy differentiator.

The same is true for the pinion. If you have a 9 tooth OEM pinon with a LH helix, you and I know that it is a low pinion application. If it happens to be a RH helix, then it is a High pinion application. Almost every rear axle pinion on the planet has a LH helix, so when you are trying to differentiate between a HP and LP, the one that is oddball reverse helix is the HP one.

If you choose to run a single gear reverser for the front driveshaft, then axles are easy to find. Just invert a LP 60. Makes it a standard rotation, High Pinion Front Dana 60. (as opposed to "reverse rotation")

Any luck finding an OEM 4.56, 4.88, 5.13, 5.38 thin HP gear set? I hate to be right ALL the time...

Any luck finding an OEM 4.56, 4.88, 5.13, 5.38 thin HP gear set?

Haven't looked yet. I'll post the p/n's when and if I find them.

The real gear designations are:
Standard gears: for rear ends and low-pinion front ends(no thick offered)
Reverse spiral: for high pinion axles
Reverse spiral thick: for keeping size 3 carrier(ok by some mfr's because front end)

In my opinion, this is the best way to describe what is actually available, and how it should be distinguished.

And btw intheworks, in case you didn't catch your answer in the very first response, and assuming you have a low-pinion housing like it sounds like, then you need a size 4 carrier, for 4.56 gears and down(higher numerically) if you want to run the standard 5.38's you were asking about. That or a ring gear spacer which I do not recommend. All Dana 60 rears are standard cut unless special made high pinions. Only high pinion fronts use reverse gears. Low pinion fronts are nothing more than a rear end turned around and ran backwards.

The real gear designations are:
Standard gears: for rear ends and low-pinion front ends(no thick offered)
Reverse spiral: for high pinion axles
Reverse spiral thick: for keeping size 3 carrier(ok by some mfr's because front end)

In.

I submit:
The real gear designations are:
Standard gears: for rear ends and low-pinion front ends(no thick offered)
Reverse spiral: for high pinion axles, 4.56+ made thick for keeping size 3 carrier. (no thin offered)
Which means: "There is no carrier split for high pinion D60 axles."

I submit:
The real gear designations are:
Standard gears: for rear ends and low-pinion front ends(no thick offered)
Reverse spiral: for high pinion axles, 4.56+ made thick for keeping size 3 carrier. (no thin offered)
Which means: "There is no carrier split for high pinion D60 axles."

You are going to make me work for this one aren't you? :)

Yeah, but I may have tripped over my own dick here.

Near as I can figure, the ONLY factory gears for the HP Dana 60 is the 700042-1, (3.73) and 700042-2 (4.10) Both using the 706703X carrier...(or 706682-2 trac lok) & also 1999+ 4.30's of course.

I can't seem to find an application for the 4.56, 4.88, 5.13, and 5.38 except in the aftermarket.

I need to go do more research.

Here's some links: To my surprise, the second link shows gears that appear to have OEM(Dana) packaging in the highered numbered ratios available in only thick. The rest of the links show both thick and thin from different drive train supply shops. 4.88 and 5.38 seem to be the only universally available sizes above 4.30 in thin.
http://www.differentials.com/pdfs/13.pdf

http://www.drivetrainspecialists.com/categories/randp/dana-60-2.html

http://www.ringpinion.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProdID=3731

http://www.ringpinion.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProdID=3750

http://www.ringpinion.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProdID=3827

http://www.ringpinion.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProdID=3730

http://www.ringpinion.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProdID=3749

Hooray for me!!!

So can we agree that all OEM Spicer gears for HP 4.56+ are thick, and therefore, the ONLY correct carrier for the HP 60 is the 4.10 one?

I will concede that the aftermarket has developed a bastard thin gear set to allow the use of the incorrect carrier in the HP60.

tee hee hee...

Not so fast pal. look at the first link. The OEM's, with OEM p/n's, including the 4.30, are all thin. The thicks are all aftermarket. I'd be more inclined to believe the the aftermarket tried to fill in the gaps Dana left, and in doing so made them super-marketable going thick and not needing to change the carrier to use them. That is unless the ones in the second link are actually OEM Dana. Hard to tell by their p/n. This will take some phone calls I'm afraid.

Sorry, but you lost me.

In your first link, the OEM part number for the 4.30 Reverse is 707475-3X. If you go to your second link, you will find that the 707475-3X is specifically for the 4.10 carrier. Thus making it a "thick" gear set. Your second site even calls it thick. So, the 707475-3X, 4X, and 5X (4.30, 4.88 & 5.38) are all thick.

So can we agree that for High Pinion D60 higher than 4.30...
If there is no OEM thin gear, then there is no carrier split.
If there IS an OEM thin gear, then there IS a carrier split, and I am an idiot.

(this is a LOT better than "simply not true...")

Ok, so I am an idiot. But I was not an idiot from 1978-1999. I became an idiot in 2000 when Dana started making thin gears.

** Note: The carrier is the same for all Ford RC 60's UP TO 98, and is the same as the GM/Dodge 4.10 carrier - namely part # 706040X.
BUT - the Ford RC60 was never offered stock with a ratio lower than 4.10 in those years. When aftermarket vendors started making gears lower than 4.10 for RC 60s - they made the ring gear thick, so it could just go on the stock carrier. So if you bought aftermarket 5.38 gears for RC60 - they would likely be thick. Now - if you buy an aftermarket carrier (i.e. locker, spool, limited slip) for your RC60 - I imagine, depending on where you buy it from, they ask "year/make/model" and based on that would likely sell you the 4.10 down Detroit - that way - if you already had aftermarket lower gears, they would just go on the locker. The problem you might run into, is this:. You buy aftermarket gears first - lower than 4.10 and they're thick. Then you buy a locker by ratio, not make and model, and naturally you'd think "I have 5.13 gears - I must need the 4.56 and up locker" but you get hooped because the gears are thick, and won't go on that carrier. Also note, The 2000+ RC60 Fords are offered with stock gears as low as 5.38 - but these are not thick to go on the same old 4.10 down carrier - they are thin and go on the same GM/Dodge 4.56 up carrier. The carrier break is 4.30 and down go on the 4.10 and down carrier. I don't know if Spicer is the only manufacturer offering thin RC60 gears - but the bottom line is - when dealing with an RC60, you do have to match your carrier and gear set.

Which means that there IS a carrier split for the HP. I stand corrected.
Does anyone know the Dana 5.38 thin P/N?

OK, I answered my own question:

Dana Spicer standard rotation 4.56 THICK for 4.10 carrier = 70907-5

Confirmed that 707475-5X is 5.38 thick for 4.10 carrier. I fear that the information posted on Dana 60 bible may need to be updated.
Still looking for P/N and confirmation of a 5.38 thin gearset.

I am now as smart as I was in 1999, and no longer an idiot...but still COULD be.

James, go to this catalog: http://www2.dana.com/pdf/XGI.PDF

On page 40(of the PDF) they start to list the Dana 60 gear sets, including the reverse spirals. I believe these 4.10 and 3.54 sets have the lowest p/n's because they started in late 77, and we know for sure these are shimmed pinions. On page 41, they list the newer sets up to 5.38. There are 2 sets of sets shown, but only the part number for the set is different; the r/p p/n's are still the same. I thought at first they were for shimmed pinion and then crush sleeve pinion, but the pinion shaft should have a different p/n if that were the case(I would think). I also thought maybe they were for normal or thick ring gears, but then the ring gear would have to have a different p/n(I would think), and only the 4.30, 4.88 and 5.38 would have been duplicated. Furthermore, there are no footnotes denoting that a special carrier is required, or that there is no carrier break for reverse spiral gears, and they do have many footnotes denoting important specific information like that throughout this catalog.

If you look on page 65, they list the carriers for the Dana 60. Note 27 tells you that the carrier break for the 61 is 4.10 and down vice 4.56 and down, and we all know why. Its due to the offset pinion for higher gear ratios(higher than 3.54). I believe if a relationship like this occurred in cases for reverse gears in front differentials, they would have noted it here like they did for the 61. I believe, and again certainly am not sure, that because the first link I posted listed a thick aftermarket gear by the same ratio OEM, that the OEM's were normal. Furthermore, with the other links, we see that other aftermarket companies make normal thickness gears(copies) in the same ratios as OEM, and that the ratios not covered by the OEM seem to only be available in thick. This also tells me that the OEM gears are just normal thickness. Therefore, I believe(not at all certain) that the listings in the second link are a misprint in regards to being thick, or they used the Dana logo to denote the axle they fit and weren't neccesarily manufactured by the OEM, or if they are now manufactured by the OEM, they were not at the time of this catalogs publishing.

Prior to 2000, as far as Dana was concerned, there was no carrier break for HP front ends because they didn't make a ratio lower than 4.10, and I have no idea what was going on back then as far as who made what lower gears, or how thick, so I was definitely wrong in saying what you said in your first post was not true, because it appears that you have been following this longer than I, and certainly could have made that conclusion prior to it needing to be updated. I apologize for that. Thanks for being a good sport, and don't be so hard on yourself, no one here(I hope) thinks you are an idiot, certainly not myself.

Wow...Thanks for the link. Great catalog.

Agree with your assessment. EXCEPT...I called DTS and had them look at the gears. The Dana logo gears for the 5.38 HP are Dana gears, for 4.10 carrier. The Dana catalog you gave me shows exactly one 5.38 HP ring gear. PN 47925. It is used in a lot of different kits, but there's only one.

I guess I need to check the BOM of the 707475-5X (5.38) and see if it calls the 47925 ring gear. I expect that it does, and I expect that all OEM Dana gears for High Pinion are indeed for the 4.10 carrier. Which would confirm my original belief.

I don't give a crap what people on this board think of me, but I do value and appreciate your opinion. You are intelligent, resourceful, and reasonable. You have been great.

Please don't get me started on the Dana 61 thing. I have much painful experience on the 61...

On page 41 they list the kit p/n's, and to the right of that, they have the r/p p/n's. The ring gear p/n 47925 is listed for both kits 707475-5X and 708123-5. I don't know what the difference in the kits are, but every other number that follows them are the same for both kits. X maybe only denotes a deluxe kit with more stuff?? A Dana vendor would know that or I missed it somewhere??

Keep me updated if you find that all OEM's are indeed thick, but I find it odd that aftermarket would make thin ones if the OEM didn't. They'd be likely to try and save the buyer the price of a new carrier to better the affordability, whereas Dana could just pull a different carrier off the shelf at no additional cost to them or the customer. Anyway, let me know what you find, please.

In 1996 my buddy did a HP 60 in the back of his land cruiser. He switched from LP to HP using a RR housing I sold him for $75. He was Pissed because he had to switch from 5.38 to 5.13 because at that time...there was no 5.38HP. So he bought the 5.13's, only to find out that the full case Detroit from his LP 60 was the wrong offset. This resulted in a brand new set of Aftermarket HP 5.13 gears going to the machine shop to have .187" ground off the mounting face. (Of course we had to grind a little off the teeth to make a parallel surface to grind the back.)

This so outraged my buddy that he called every supplier that he knew in every state and demanded "thin" gears for 5.13. I'll bet that he called 100 vendors. At that point, one aftermarket supplier indicated that a thin set was "in development." This led to the great D60 High Pinion investigation of 1996...which I spearheaded. I think at the time he said something insane like: "there is no carrier split for High Pinion." Well...after all this time it appears that he was correct. Al Gore hadn't completely invented the Internet by then, so I only had the Spicer book and the telephone to validate his claims.

Of course, I sold him the High Pinion housing for $75 because no one in their right mind would use a High Pinion housing in the rear of a truck. It's a terrible misapplication. you are pulling on the pinion!!! Fast Forward to today, and it looks like Tera finally got it all together. Their HP housing uses the same big pinion bearing on both ends. That ought to hold up.

I didn't say anything like that. All front ends, high and low pinion, are rear ends turned around, and when they are going forward they are being run in reverse. That's reverse rotation, but there is no diferentiation between high or low pinion, or standard cut or reverse cut gears, so yes, "reverse rotation" is a misnomer.

Edit: In light of the confusing nature of this relationship between front and rear ends, and in light of the fact that true reverse rotation axles are now a part of the discussion, what I call reverse rotation in this post would be better defined as "reverse operation".

BS!!!! There are no such things as high pinion rear ends barring top loaders like rock wells. ALL high pinion diffs are front specific for this reason. Ford exclusively used the HP 60 and 8.8's in the front. HP 44's used by both ford and jeep and lastly jeep exclusively using the HP 30 for front only apps. It is in the best interest of the diff for the pinion to PUSH on the ring gear for max torque load. To achieve that in the front it must be high pinion. Any high pinion in the rear now has the pinion pulling the ring gear toward it. So if conditions are right the pinion nut can strip and the pinion will be sucked into the ring gear during normal forward rotation causing catastrophe. On a low pinion rear as long you are accelorating the pinion cant be sucked in. But when you go to coast thats when the pinion gets swallowed. Leaving lastly the true high 9. The ring & pinion are made for sprint cars that run the engine reverse rotation. The teeth on these are also cut to pull on the coast side of the ring gear because they were built to be low pinion gears in your "reverse operation" app. So true high made thrust block HP housings that can use these gears while taking care of the oiling issue while they were at it. We in the 4x4 comunity have only adapted front HP's to be used in a rear app in wich its less than optimal.

BS!!!! There are no such things as high pinion rear ends barring top loaders like rock wells. ALL high pinion diffs are front specific for this reason. Ford exclusively used the HP 60 and 8.8's in the front. HP 44's used by both ford and jeep and lastly jeep exclusively using the HP 30 for front only apps. It is in the best interest of the diff for the pinion to PUSH on the ring gear for max torque load. To achieve that in the front it must be high pinion. Any high pinion in the rear now has the pinion pulling the ring gear toward it. So if conditions are right the pinion nut can strip and the pinion will be sucked into the ring gear during normal forward rotation causing catastrophe. On a low pinion rear as long you are accelorating the pinion cant be sucked in. But when you go to coast thats when the pinion gets swallowed. Leaving lastly the true high 9. The ring & pinion are made for sprint cars that run the engine reverse rotation. The teeth on these are also cut to pull on the coast side of the ring gear because they were built to be low pinion gears in your "reverse operation" app. So true high made thrust block HP housings that can use these gears while taking care of the oiling issue while they were at it. We in the 4x4 comunity have only adapted front HP's to be used in a rear app in wich its less than optimal.

I was reffering to the aftermarket HP rears and home made ones. That's all. Grouped it with twin sticks which are by and large all home made as well, but that wasn't even the same post you have quoted.

OK. Now I understand. I finally figured out what you are talking about. My post is only reffering to front ends. I was talking about high and low pinions turning the same way, backwards, and that all front ends are just rear ends turned around running backwards. I was speaking in general terms. I didn't mean any specific front end could be found somewhere else as a rear end, and I don't think I stated that in a way that any one would interpit it that way either if you followed what I was trying to say. I suppose it is poorly written if you could interpit that way, so I'm sorry for that.

I was reffering to the aftermarket HP rears and home made ones. That's all. Grouped it with twin sticks which are by and large all home made as well, but that wasn't even the same post you have quoted.

OK. Now I understand. I finally figured out what you are talking about. My post is only reffering to front ends. I was talking about high and low pinions turning the same way, backwards, and that all front ends are just rear ends turned around running backwards. I was speaking in general terms. I didn't mean any specific front end could be found somewhere else as a rear end, and I don't think I stated that in a way that any one would interpit it that way either if you followed what I was trying to say. I suppose it is poorly written if you could interpit that way, so I'm sorry for that.


Gotcha. I was only trying to clear it up for those searching for this type of info. I hear people all the time that think they have a high pinion rear out of an explorer when its a stock LP rear, as they all are. I also hear the common "reverse rotation front wont work with that t-case because thats for a standard rotation front. Wich as you know turns the same direction. Some people just dont get it and I thought you were saying that "all" front axles are rears turned around and used in a front application. Wich I think you know is true for low pinion. As well as knowing low pinion front gears run on the coast side of the gear tooth when turned in the now forward direction. I now get your generalization and only reply to keep clarity for those who dont already know. Calling BS withdrawn, John

BS!!!! There are no such things as high pinion rear ends barring top loaders like rock wells. ALL high pinion diffs are front specific for this reason. Ford exclusively used the HP 60 and 8.8's in the front. HP 44's used by both ford and jeep and lastly jeep exclusively using the HP 30 for front only apps. It is in the best interest of the diff for the pinion to PUSH on the ring gear for max torque load. To achieve that in the front it must be high pinion. Any high pinion in the rear now has the pinion pulling the ring gear toward it. So if conditions are right the pinion nut can strip and the pinion will be sucked into the ring gear during normal forward rotation causing catastrophe. On a low pinion rear as long you are accelorating the pinion cant be sucked in. But when you go to coast thats when the pinion gets swallowed. Leaving lastly the true high 9. The ring & pinion are made for sprint cars that run the engine reverse rotation. The teeth on these are also cut to pull on the coast side of the ring gear because they were built to be low pinion gears in your "reverse operation" app. So true high made thrust block HP housings that can use these gears while taking care of the oiling issue while they were at it. We in the 4x4 comunity have only adapted front HP's to be used in a rear app in wich its less than optimal.

jr: this is not intended to be confrontational, so please don't take it that way, but you seemed like you wanted to pound me pretty hard for something that I wrote that obviously could have been misinterpeted, because it was, but I do not feel that it was not grossly mis-stated. You procceded to try and educate me on such things, that had you read my posts, should have realized that I plainly already understood.

Now I understand exactly what you are saying in your post, but let me give you some examples how someone could pick apart what you say by the way you type it, even though they understand what you are saying and should just accept it at face value.

You say there are no HP rear ends except top-loaders. Maybe not factory, but there are plenty of aftermarket HP rear ends, and many more home-made or custom shop made HP rear ends.

You say Ford used HP 60's exclusively. I may be wrong, but I thought Dodge 60's went HP when they went drivers-side drop. I think.

You say in order for a front to push on the ring gear, it has to be an HP. Now I know there are no reverse spiral LP's(at least I don't think there are), so this is hypothetical. Read it as such, but the reverse spiral is what makes the pinion push against the inner pinion bearing when going CCW just as the normal spiral causes the pinion to push on the inner bearing when going CW. Because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, the reverse pinion pushing against inner bearing would also be pushing against the ring gear even if it were below the centerline of the ring gear. It would be pushing it backwards and uphill instead of away and over the top which makes much more efficient use of the energy it is transmitting, but pushing on the ring gear none the less.

You say that the pinion is being sucked in and could(I know hypothetically) be damaged if the nut were to strip. The pinion in any application really doesn't get pushed or pulled. There is negative clearance measured in the form of preload(when properly installed) and the pinion simply transfers more force to one set of rollers or the other. The only difference is the larger rollers will displace the same amount of load over a larger area and therefore create less concentrated heat. The opposite set of rollers preload will not decrease measurably.

You made running a low-pinion axle backwards sound so very catostrophic, but as you have stated yourself that almost all front ends are low-pinion. They have been this way for going on 50 years or more. Less than optimal, yes, as you later summarized, but the reference to catostrophic in the first place I believe was over-stated.

With all this said, I still understood exactly what you were trying to say, and had no problem with it(and still don't), but because you felt the need to exclaim wrong on my part and to re-educate me even in light of evidence I provided to the contrary, I thought you might like to see some of that criticism turned on yourself to see things from a different perspective. No harm intended. This truly was intended to be friendly so I hope, no hard feelings.

Why did you have to go and retract your BS. Now I feel like a turd. Let me know if you want this deleted. :shaking:

I did start to pound you. No excuse there. I then went into edjucation mode so as to help you further explain what you were now obviously getting at. I had hit the qoute button after reading only the referenced post and not having read any further posts you made. No you dont need to delete it as I deserve that if not worse. I would like to reply a bit though to your last post.


You say there are no HP rear ends except top-loaders. Maybe not factory, but there are plenty of aftermarket HP rear ends, and many more home-made or custom shop made HP rear ends.:

I did say this just abridged at the end of my first retort to you.----"We in the 4x4 comunity have only adapted front HP's to be used in a rear app in wich its less than optimal.-----John

You say that the pinion is being sucked in and could(I know hypothetically) be damaged if the nut were to strip. The pinion in any application really doesn't get pushed or pulled. There is negative clearance measured in the form of preload(when properly installed) and the pinion simply transfers more force to one set of rollers or the other. The only difference is the larger rollers will displace the same amount of load over a larger area and therefore create less concentrated heat. The opposite set of rollers preload will not decrease measurably.

You made running a low-pinion axle backwards sound so very catostrophic, but as you have stated yourself that almost all front ends are low-pinion. They have been this way for going on 50 years or more. Less than optimal, yes, as you later summarized, but the reference to catostrophic in the first place I believe was over-stated.:

True I have never seen a low pinion front fail in the way I have described the rear. But I have personally delt with the failures I mentioned in the rear. I have a 10 bolt thats out of my ex girlfriends truck. The pinion bearings went out while she was driving it. She said that it started making noise so she let of the gas to slow down. The instant she let off, the pinion was sucked into the housing splitting the cast housing and scarring the carrier deeply. The truck skidded to a stop and thus the end of the rear. My work truck for a company I used to work for did the same thing on a sterling 10.25. It didnt ruin the housing but did break the teeth off the gears. RJ and Joe Brown who have a couple of rock racers that are often in crawl mag run HP 60 rears in both the rock race toyota truck and in the comp crawler jeep. I have seen at least 2 times for sure that while bouncing on some thing. Under full throttle the pinion sucked itself into the ring gear like a cork screw, stripping the threads out of the nut. It never hurt the threads on the pinion but it does break the gears because of the tight tolerances. To remedy the problem they had a nut chryoed and I dont think it has happened since. Having seen all that i dont feel that my "catastrophe" is an over statement at all. That seems like a pretty good description of real life events.

jr: I didn't have any problem with the info as you stated it, and I understood what you were saying. There was no need to pick it apart, but I did want to use the opertunity to add a little more detail. I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. You had a point, and you backed it up, and it was definitely stated well enough to follow and understand. I was just illustrating how easily someone could have pick it apart if they chose to ignore your content and just look for statements that could have been said better, or found a questionable statement and chose to hammer it to the ground instead of requesting some clarification. I was just trying to make a soft point that we should try to listen and understand each other better if we are going to get together and exchange ideas and information, especially in light of the fact that we already know everything anyway. :laughing:

:laughing::laughing::laughing:
point taken.

JR4X will not be a know it all

JR4X will not be a know it all

JR4X will not be a know it all

jr4X...Don't forget the way that a LP front axle actually does fail.

Pinion nuts do not generally fall off instantly. They usually work themselves loose over time, and then eventually get to the point where thread engagement is insufficient and they fall off.

In a rear LP application, the failure mode is fairly graceful until the catastrophy you described. In the FRONT, with low pinion, as the nut begins to loosen, the preload is lost. With the loss in preload, and the subsequent application of torque, the pinion is pulled into the case, but moves AWAY from the ring gear. This will break the teeth on the ring gear first.

I have had a couple of guys tell me that their ring gear/pinion teeth broke and it caused the pinion nut to loosen. In a LP front axle, it is usually the other way around. So your original assessment is actually more likely...it's just that the teeth fail before the nut gets loose enough to be swallowed in the case.

Quick Change rear ends are (single gear) true reverse rotation.
No Dodge HP 60, even the Center Axle Disconnect is LP.
Ford HP is the 28TTB, 35TTB, 44, 44TTB, 50, 50TTB and 60.
Jeep HP in a 30 as stated above.

jr: I deserved that know-it-all comment more than you.

James: concur with the Dodge low-pinion 60 d-sides. Went scouting them out this weekend. Poor Mopar.