Joined
·
24 Posts
Hello everyone, i'm totally new here and this is my first post. I've been lurking for awhile trying to learn what I can but finally reach a point where i'm hoping more experienced people can help me understand in seconds what might take me hours of research otherwise...
What are the pros and cons of each of the major axle makers? I am assuming that for a solid axle vehicle it's not excessively difficult to put a different make axle under your trail rig or people wouldn't be using Rockwells.. so maybe some GM corporate axles would find their way under a dodge, or some Ford Sterling ones into a GM under certain circumstances. Is there ever a good reason to NOT run what came stock?
What i'm wondering is what those circumstances are in each weight class.
I'm mostly curious about say the 1/2ton-3/4ton category and 1 ton (light and heavy) ranges. So i'm guessing for instance that it's a battle between GM 12 bolt, Ford 9 inch, and Dana 60 rear (44 front) for the lighter. Then probably GM Corporate 10.5/AAM 11.5, Ford Sterling 10.25/10.5, and Dana 70/80 class stuff (or Dana 60 in the front which seems notably stronger than in the rear). (unless there is anything else in the running for those weight classes?)
As near as I can figure the GM 14 bolt's main advantage is that it's cheap, the Dana's is that it has the lowest rolling resistance (if that matters to you for MPG/actually does for me as usually on road), and the Ford... i'm not sure what it's advantage would be actually. Both Ford and Dana offer 3.07 ratios possible for those of us planning slow turning diesels and granny gear 1:1 transmissions with double low crawl boxes. I'm hoping the tall gears are also in low demand meaning cheaper parts.
For the lighter ones (separate 4x4 project am contemplating with 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton running gear on something as small as a jeep even) i'm even less sure other than the Dana again has the lowest rolling resistance in every case. The Ford 9 inch here though offers the numerically lowest gears for again nonoverdrive diesel vehicles running normal size tires when on the road BUT if there is nothing 2-series to match on the FWD end of things that doesn't matter unless there's some way to stick one in the front. The GM... well just probably came on it so i'm guessing in this class nobody would ever put a GM axle on a non-GM or mix brands of axles front to back as long as the ratios match?
I'm aware there are mountains of specific information on each axle here... that's the problem! I'm looking for just one line comments to help me decide one way or another, like "cheapest and lightest rear disc brakes for X" or "this axle is cheap in the junkyard but once rebuilt costs more" for instance. I'm actually wanting to choose a 4x4 from the axles up and design around that.
About the only must have features for me are some kind of manual locking differentials (air or cable, no electronics to short out) and a preference for numerically low gear ratios (3.07 ideally for the one ton aka like 4.10's with an OD where I gear lower in the trans instead of the axle, and for the other perhaps even 2-series if possible since street tires on a jeep or compact pickup with no OD is pretty small diameter - I don't want to tool around on mud tires on the street, sorry. I will literally leave the trail tires at the cabin and swap) in both cases to use cheap non-OD transmission with like a NP203/205 double low crawl box. The double box should make even a 2.29 rear gear into a 4.56 afterall with a normal crawl box and i'm hoping the axles will cost far less because nobody wants them!
PS yes i'm aware most people would encourage low axles, but this is the idea I can't get out of my head... can I just use the tall gears nobody wants to get strong parts for cheap, then gear down in the transmission and transfer case to make up the difference... the tires should only care about the ultimate gear ratio between the engine and them, not which among the trans/transfer case/axle is doing how much reduction. Or is there some other issue i'm not aware of like strength? (though i'd think a big huge pinion on a 2.29 gear would be far stronger than the tiny one I see on a 4.56 gear)
PPS things like lockers not supporting the tall gears would be an example of a 'veto trait' i'd consider valid for disregarding my tall gear interest and accepting shorter gearing. I still don't think i'd want shorter than the 3.5 range though or it will scream on the highway with normal gears.
What are the pros and cons of each of the major axle makers? I am assuming that for a solid axle vehicle it's not excessively difficult to put a different make axle under your trail rig or people wouldn't be using Rockwells.. so maybe some GM corporate axles would find their way under a dodge, or some Ford Sterling ones into a GM under certain circumstances. Is there ever a good reason to NOT run what came stock?
What i'm wondering is what those circumstances are in each weight class.
I'm mostly curious about say the 1/2ton-3/4ton category and 1 ton (light and heavy) ranges. So i'm guessing for instance that it's a battle between GM 12 bolt, Ford 9 inch, and Dana 60 rear (44 front) for the lighter. Then probably GM Corporate 10.5/AAM 11.5, Ford Sterling 10.25/10.5, and Dana 70/80 class stuff (or Dana 60 in the front which seems notably stronger than in the rear). (unless there is anything else in the running for those weight classes?)As near as I can figure the GM 14 bolt's main advantage is that it's cheap, the Dana's is that it has the lowest rolling resistance (if that matters to you for MPG/actually does for me as usually on road), and the Ford... i'm not sure what it's advantage would be actually. Both Ford and Dana offer 3.07 ratios possible for those of us planning slow turning diesels and granny gear 1:1 transmissions with double low crawl boxes. I'm hoping the tall gears are also in low demand meaning cheaper parts.
For the lighter ones (separate 4x4 project am contemplating with 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton running gear on something as small as a jeep even) i'm even less sure other than the Dana again has the lowest rolling resistance in every case. The Ford 9 inch here though offers the numerically lowest gears for again nonoverdrive diesel vehicles running normal size tires when on the road BUT if there is nothing 2-series to match on the FWD end of things that doesn't matter unless there's some way to stick one in the front. The GM... well just probably came on it so i'm guessing in this class nobody would ever put a GM axle on a non-GM or mix brands of axles front to back as long as the ratios match?
I'm aware there are mountains of specific information on each axle here... that's the problem!
I'm looking for just one line comments to help me decide one way or another, like "cheapest and lightest rear disc brakes for X" or "this axle is cheap in the junkyard but once rebuilt costs more" for instance. I'm actually wanting to choose a 4x4 from the axles up and design around that. About the only must have features for me are some kind of manual locking differentials (air or cable, no electronics to short out) and a preference for numerically low gear ratios (3.07 ideally for the one ton aka like 4.10's with an OD where I gear lower in the trans instead of the axle, and for the other perhaps even 2-series if possible since street tires on a jeep or compact pickup with no OD is pretty small diameter - I don't want to tool around on mud tires on the street, sorry.
I will literally leave the trail tires at the cabin and swap) in both cases to use cheap non-OD transmission with like a NP203/205 double low crawl box. The double box should make even a 2.29 rear gear into a 4.56 afterall with a normal crawl box and i'm hoping the axles will cost far less because nobody wants them!PS yes i'm aware most people would encourage low axles, but this is the idea I can't get out of my head... can I just use the tall gears nobody wants to get strong parts for cheap, then gear down in the transmission and transfer case to make up the difference... the tires should only care about the ultimate gear ratio between the engine and them, not which among the trans/transfer case/axle is doing how much reduction. Or is there some other issue i'm not aware of like strength? (though i'd think a big huge pinion on a 2.29 gear would be far stronger than the tiny one I see on a 4.56 gear)
PPS things like lockers not supporting the tall gears would be an example of a 'veto trait' i'd consider valid for disregarding my tall gear interest and accepting shorter gearing. I still don't think i'd want shorter than the 3.5 range though or it will scream on the highway with normal gears.
