I bet most people don't know that the 2005-2010 Grand Cherokees all came with this same style of full floater in their rear axles. The SRT8's Dana 44 version had it too. The other models were based off the Chrysler 8.25" rear diff with 29 spline axles.
Woah! How have I missed this?? I’ve been junk yard building vehicles for decades and somehow have never noticed this. I’m going to start digging into this further to see what is known about that axle. This could honestly tell us a lot to expect in this axle. Thank you for pointing this out.
@@mudtiremedia it’s a very disregarded platform. Soccer mom vehicle with IFS, after all! lol. And sadly, the Dana 44 in the SRT8 also has unique bearing sizes. So aftermarket parts, particularly lockers, are basically non existent. But as far as general strength… The normal Grands have a 6100Lbs GVW and the V8 and diesel models have a 7200(awd)/7400(rwd)lbs towing capacity. (3500lbs for the V6 models) In addition, the optional Quadra drive 2 ELSD is an EATON made electrically activated clutch style diff that clamps with an internal hydraulic piston. It’s capable of locking the axle up enough to skid the tires. And as far as I know the Grand Cherokee, and the platform sharing Commander of those years, were the only vehicles that offered both rear and front ELSD’s from any OEM.
I bought a 2024 Rubicon XR back in October. It’s awesome….very solid on the road and steering is excellent with zero play or wandering. I noticed the FAD is blocked off and the knuckles are steel.
Imagine the jeep company hearing people for the last 20 years say "just make dana 60s the from factory axle" and they still haven't listened. How about even just making the D60 a from factory upgrade!
OH MAN! I have had this exact thought for years! If only they would just give us the option to order a wrangler/gladiator with true 1 ton Dana 60 axles under it from the factory. Jeeps popularity would soar even higher with the offroad community.
This is not a "full float" axle. It is a unit bearing hybrid float axle. I know that sounds dumb, but there is major differences. (1) you cant just slide out the shaft (2) There is mechanical disadvantages in the "scrub radius" even though it does not turn the leverage to the mounting surfaces is further out (3) The unit bearing to axle flange to "clam shell" the whole thing together is a failure point. There is other nit picky things, but I am not a fan of this when they could have just gone UD 60 rears that they are already down pricing to make room for their new UD 80's in the after market axle space. Also one other thing is axle tube wall thickness. With that hybrid float system the leverage is further out putting more stress on the tubes. On top of all this its a wonky one off design of which is going to be a cluster phuq to fix on the trail, or get parts. The price difference between this, and a UD 60 from a manufacturer point of view is probably $500 - $1000 per axle..............heck even at $2500 ea its just a far better choice. C'mon Jeep give us real options here not these jack of all trades master of none.
I can definitely see your point. I’m betting that mopar is having a hard time justifying the higher weight that a true 60 adds to an axle when the mass market won’t ever reach the stresses that the axle will carry and the mpg loss that will follow along with the 60. And that large axle comes with a much larger brake which would need wheels to clear and more consideration from their part. I really think this was their best shot at giving the mass market more strength at the best budget and solution.
It looks to be an improvement, but it doesn't appear to address the bigger problem of the JL axles. That being the smaller pinion gear with less pinion offset compared to the JK.
Really great point! I don’t understand why they felt the need to decrease the size of the ring and pinion on such a small axle anyway! And I’ve been following other axle builders who have been having recurring issues with the bearings failing in the previous m210 and m220 axles for no reason. I really hope they figured some of these things out with this new axle.
@@mudtiremedia I think that between the smaller pinion, slightly smaller ring gear, reduced pinion offset and switch from tapered pinion shaft bearings with steel cadges to ball bearings with plastic cadges the design intent was to reduce friction to active better epa mpg. I think that is very obvious. They made a weaker gear set and tried to spin it as a stronger when in fact it is weaker than the previous JK gear set. Ring/pinion failures seem to be more common on JL's than JK's running the same size tires.
Interesting, The pinion head on the M220 is longer, and the ring gear teeth are longer, so I think the "reduced contact" from less hypoid offset is a wash..... The M220 pinion shaft is much bigger and more rigid, also. I totally agree with you on the crappy pinion bearing, and I feel the housing casting on both these axles is too thin and light to get the most out of the gearset strength. The M220 has a Dana 60 carrier bearing on the ring gear side as well, and looking closely at the gearsets, as well as going out on the trail and watching breakage, I still feel the M220 gearset is a better design with greater strength potential. Dana needs to upgrade thickness of the center casting in several areas, and make the bottom smooth !!@@Marty1911
These "new" rear full float diffs are almost a carbon copy of a 2006-2010 Jeep Commander and GC with the 8.25 inch diffs and e-locker. Rare to ever bend the shaft. Wheel hub assemblies will be the main spare.
I was talking with someone else about this as well. I can’t believe I missed this axle ever existing! It really makes me wonder what the possibilities would be out of that axle if the aftermarket supported it?!?! Maybe I’ll go junk yard diving to examine the possibilities of one of these.
What would be very cool and a maybe if Jeep used the TRX Hybrid rear axle for the Gladiator Rubicon it’s a Dana 60 center full floater 5 lug. That could up the towing capacity
I have an 06 lj on 38s that's a rock crawler, and a 23 JTR that will never see more than 35s. I would never imagine trying to take a well built JL or JLU on 40s where my LJ on 38s will go. The JL platform doesn't offer enough suspension travel without extreme frame modification. Plus the JL crowd(meaning those on 38"+ tires) tends to be more reserved in their wheeling, God forbid a stick scratch the paint. My Moab experience with the JL crowd was watching them take bypass after bypass, even on Golden Crack, a JLU on 40s, 8 lug axles, with bypass coil overs wouldn't do it without a spotter. So I say these new axles will handle 40s no problem. As for the gladiator, seeing all the overland people on 37s with an obviously overloaded set up, I see no need for the weird full float axles. The JT is too light to need it for towing, it's already proven itself with being overweight(I bet leaf springs would have given it a higher load carrying capacity, but at the cost of comfort). So for the normal person who doesn't do youtube and isnt sponsored, they will likely never have an issue with the rear axle. My opinion is that the JL is for the "offroad" crowd and the JT falls more to the overland/car camping crowd. I got the JTR because I plan on using it for car camping in remote spots. It still has a truck bed so I can haul car parts, go hunting, carry firewood or anything I don't want rolling around inside. Yet it still has the ability to take the top off, do mild offroading(level 6 trails max in my opinion while bone stock) and be a decent daily driver.
I can agree with a lot of this. The newer Jeep crowd tends to be a bit more reserved. I built my gladiator for rock crawling and still drove it like a crawler, but I kept putting it into situations where the extreme length played against me more than it helped, so after I crushed in the back door, I sold it after finishing my TJ because I really like being able to not care at all if I roll it or beat up the body.
@@mudtiremedia and that's why I personally feel the jk, JL, JT, and whatever comes next will never meet the requirements people need for offroading. The body is too big and I don't blame people for not wanting to damage a $30-$70k rig. What Id love to see, even though it'll never happen, is a TJ sized body, with the driveline and technology from a new rubicon. Give me a TJ or LJ with 3 inches of lift and 37s with the tech of the new rubicon and that thing will be an amazing offroad vehicle.
If the rear barn is anything like the front, you will not be able to pull out the axle shaft and continue to drive. Because the bearing will probably fall apart. With how to having the surface to ride on from the actual shaft
I had considered this. With the front axle shaft, it bolts together inside the bearing, sandwiching the bearing together. But with this rear axle, the shaft appears to only slide into the wheel bearing, but it doesn’t bolt together. The bearing is actually sealed with a solid wall at the outside.
That hasn't been the case since TJ days. In both JKs and JL/JTs u don't need to have the stub shaft in the front to hold the unit bearing together. It's designed to run without it. In a TJ yes it will come apart. The rear on the 24 is same way. U can run it without a shaft in it to get off the trail.
Lol. You know, years down the road, i see these as becoming a great swap axle into older Jeeps! And when your trussing the axle, it would become easy to relocate the brackets into the needed locations! The future is looking bright.
@@mudtiremedia actually, I was thinking more along the lines of cut the end of it off and weld on a new end and slide in the axle bolt on the bearing brake assembly
Very interesting! This isn’t something I had even considered. IF some company would happen to manufacture an adapter place that would self center onto the axle tube after cutting off your stock end of the tube, that could be possible. But ensuring that it is exactly perpendicular to the tube would be extremely important with no warping when welding. And of course there would likely be some issue with adapting the older jk wheel speed sensors and possibly the E-brake assembly. Most likely, if someone couldn’t do the work in their garage, they would spend the same amount of money as building a junk yard 1-ton axle.
Why are they still calling all these axles "Dana 44", when very few if any of the parts interchange with a Dana 44? When you have redesigned everything about it, it should get a different designation.
Very true. Technically the current iteration of axles on the rubicons are internally at Dana known as m210 and m220 designation axles but they still use a Dana 44 style center housing for the most part, so they keep going back to that, I suppose.
I think the Gladiator rubicon would have it and someone in the tech writing/specs just overlooked it and did a misprint. Toyota does misprints all the time, just human error. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong then it's a bummer for the Gladiator. Just my guess.
This is a really good point! I hadn’t even considered that. As of right now, the gladiators build/comparison sheet isn’t live on Jeeps website, but in the 2024 online reveal, they made sure to mention “heavy duty dana 44”. But when they refer to the new axle, they always mention “full float”. But my hope is that they will include this new axle on the rubicon. PLEASE!!!
Having it on the Gladiator would just make too much sense. For towing, and for all the weight people throw in the back of those either hauling or overlanding. And then Mojave for bouncing around high speed bombing. If it's not there they really missed the boat.
As a person who pretty much destroyed my TJ Rubicon and ended being Branded "Frank Rubicon" for life, I felt like I had to add my 2 cents, and, even my biker friends call me Frank Rubicon, a lot of people think its my actual name 😆 I honestly don't give a fk about factory BS, I wanted to comment on your channel, its pretty awesome! And I don't throw compliments around to much on UA-cam, usually i piss of some yoyo or Mormon on one of the Utah jackholes channels 😅 But you are doing what I wanted to do over 10 years ago when I first started posting on UA-cam, but being i have barely enough knowledge to do that, im 48 and I really misses the boat what it comes to computers and looking at editing software or whatever the fk you call it? You'd have to be a scientist to figure that out? I've never even sent a email, but I just wanted to say, you got it together brother! I'll check out your other videos, and also I've completely given up on the jeeps, they've become to mainstream, and living here in the NYC/ Long Island area, there is millions of them and a good 95% will never see dirt, let alone Rocks 🪨 i love asking soccer moms "How do you like the lockers? " And they look like im speaking some unknown language? Yup, I don't wanna know those people 😅 And im much happier being the only Solid Axle Tacoma on Long Island, Seriously, there's me and a four runner about 60 miles east of me, but great video, keep up the good work brother and if you get a chance please check out my Tacoma S.A.Swap, i think you'll get a kick out of my front Dana 3044HP Hybrid Axle, it's the center section from a D30HP, Fully sleeved with Chevy k10 Dana 44 outer , locker, Chromo Dutchman Axles etc, I piss off Toyota and Jeep people all at once! Check it out on my UA-cam channel and Instagram @frankrubicon_
I'm confused. What is a roller ball bearing. I know of tapered rollers, spherical, (round) ball bearings with or without thrust capabilities, straight rollers etc.
Sorry about the confusion. Spherical is correct. at the time of recording this, my wording was not exactly the best. But you can look up the outer pinion bearing for the JL Dana 44 to see what I mean. This is the only axle I’ve seen with that type of bearing out of all the axles I have built.
I’m really glad that I’m not the only one who feels this way! I have a love for the gladiator and don’t want to see it go away. But with sales as bad as they are on the gladiator right now, im worried!
@@mudtiremedia same. I want one, but I couldn’t justify the $60k+ asking price a few years ago for them when I was able to pick up a 4Runner TRD ORP XP with just about every option for $42k. The Gladiator options are weird. The diesel was a great idea but the payload is nonexistent and as a result the diesel is now nonexistent.
That’s a good rig to choose! I really want to start having more Toyotas on the channel soon. Especially with them releasing the new Land Cruiser. I’m in love with that!
Good to hear! I’m hoping things stabilize and interest rates drop again and hopefully make sales rise. I loved my 2021 gladiator. It was a great off-road rig, but I just needed a larger truck for towing Jeeps around the country.
As of right now, on jeep.com they are only stating the rubicon model as having the new axle available. When you look at the Willy’s edition on the comparison chart, the full float rear axle is marked “not available”.
In 50 years people will be searching for that axle the way we search for 76 dana 44s today. Especially for the 37s-38s- crowd that are always stuck between an axle thats either too small or too big. Hope they give an upgraded brakes option to go with it cus it doesnt matter if it breaks if it cant brake
Excellent question! I would say the answer is: YES, IF…. Yes because the front axle already runs on a very sturdy unit bearing that does not have any history of failures under the use of 40” tires. BUT only if it has appropriate upgrades to compliment them. The steering components (including hydraulic assist) should be upgraded as well as the ball joints. The front shafts are fairly strong if you perform the FAD delete. And I have yet to see if the 2024 wrangler rubicon has the aluminum knuckles, but I’ve seen failures at that knuckle. but with the cast steel diesel knuckles, I haven’t seen any failures.
How much tire do you think the JK Rubicon 44's can handle on a TJ with RCV shafts, 5.38 gears, 4.0 I6, and 4:1 T-case? Years ago people would say a D44 couldn't handle a 37" tire with any hardcore wheeling on a TJ, but now it seems every 4 door JK, JL, and JT has 37" tires on the stock axles and weigh 600-1200 pounds more.
I’ve seen this actually used and the JK Dana 44 axles are a good upgrade for the TJ, ESPECIALLY when keeping the I-6. You can fairly safely run 40’s on these axles with limited danger to breakages because of the light weight of the TJ and the low horsepower of the 4.0. The only real major weakness of these axles begins to show up with higher horsepower and running 5.38 gears because the pinion becomes so small, that it does not handle the power very well with large tires.
JKs dana 44 are way bigger in every way in comparison even to the TJ "dana 44" axles, thats why they can run 37´s on a heavier vehicle without problems (mostly, unless you are a hard core right foot guy lol)
I bet most people don't know that the 2005-2010 Grand Cherokees all came with this same style of full floater in their rear axles. The SRT8's Dana 44 version had it too. The other models were based off the Chrysler 8.25" rear diff with 29 spline axles.
Woah! How have I missed this?? I’ve been junk yard building vehicles for decades and somehow have never noticed this. I’m going to start digging into this further to see what is known about that axle. This could honestly tell us a lot to expect in this axle. Thank you for pointing this out.
@@mudtiremedia it’s a very disregarded platform. Soccer mom vehicle with IFS, after all! lol. And sadly, the Dana 44 in the SRT8 also has unique bearing sizes. So aftermarket parts, particularly lockers, are basically non existent.
But as far as general strength… The normal Grands have a 6100Lbs GVW and the V8 and diesel models have a 7200(awd)/7400(rwd)lbs towing capacity. (3500lbs for the V6 models)
In addition, the optional Quadra drive 2 ELSD is an EATON made electrically activated clutch style diff that clamps with an internal hydraulic piston. It’s capable of locking the axle up enough to skid the tires. And as far as I know the Grand Cherokee, and the platform sharing Commander of those years, were the only vehicles that offered both rear and front ELSD’s from any OEM.
I bought a 2024 Rubicon XR back in October. It’s awesome….very solid on the road and steering is excellent with zero play or wandering. I noticed the FAD is blocked off and the knuckles are steel.
Thats awesome! one of the biggest deals is having those steel knuckles. That alone is a game changer.
Imagine the jeep company hearing people for the last 20 years say "just make dana 60s the from factory axle" and they still haven't listened. How about even just making the D60 a from factory upgrade!
OH MAN! I have had this exact thought for years! If only they would just give us the option to order a wrangler/gladiator with true 1 ton Dana 60 axles under it from the factory. Jeeps popularity would soar even higher with the offroad community.
@@mudtiremedia and its not like there aren't american axle companies that can fill those orders. Customers are happy and more jobs can be created!
This is not a "full float" axle. It is a unit bearing hybrid float axle. I know that sounds dumb, but there is major differences. (1) you cant just slide out the shaft (2) There is mechanical disadvantages in the "scrub radius" even though it does not turn the leverage to the mounting surfaces is further out (3) The unit bearing to axle flange to "clam shell" the whole thing together is a failure point. There is other nit picky things, but I am not a fan of this when they could have just gone UD 60 rears that they are already down pricing to make room for their new UD 80's in the after market axle space.
Also one other thing is axle tube wall thickness. With that hybrid float system the leverage is further out putting more stress on the tubes.
On top of all this its a wonky one off design of which is going to be a cluster phuq to fix on the trail, or get parts.
The price difference between this, and a UD 60 from a manufacturer point of view is probably $500 - $1000 per axle..............heck even at $2500 ea its just a far better choice. C'mon Jeep give us real options here not these jack of all trades master of none.
I can definitely see your point. I’m betting that mopar is having a hard time justifying the higher weight that a true 60 adds to an axle when the mass market won’t ever reach the stresses that the axle will carry and the mpg loss that will follow along with the 60. And that large axle comes with a much larger brake which would need wheels to clear and more consideration from their part. I really think this was their best shot at giving the mass market more strength at the best budget and solution.
It looks to be an improvement, but it doesn't appear to address the bigger problem of the JL axles. That being the smaller pinion gear with less pinion offset compared to the JK.
Really great point! I don’t understand why they felt the need to decrease the size of the ring and pinion on such a small axle anyway! And I’ve been following other axle builders who have been having recurring issues with the bearings failing in the previous m210 and m220 axles for no reason. I really hope they figured some of these things out with this new axle.
@@mudtiremedia I think that between the smaller pinion, slightly smaller ring gear, reduced pinion offset and switch from tapered pinion shaft bearings with steel cadges to ball bearings with plastic cadges the design intent was to reduce friction to active better epa mpg. I think that is very obvious. They made a weaker gear set and tried to spin it as a stronger when in fact it is weaker than the previous JK gear set. Ring/pinion failures seem to be more common on JL's than JK's running the same size tires.
Interesting, The pinion head on the M220 is longer, and the ring gear teeth are longer, so I think the "reduced contact" from less hypoid offset is a wash..... The M220 pinion shaft is much bigger and more rigid, also. I totally agree with you on the crappy pinion bearing, and I feel the housing casting on both these axles is too thin and light to get the most out of the gearset strength. The M220 has a Dana 60 carrier bearing on the ring gear side as well, and looking closely at the gearsets, as well as going out on the trail and watching breakage, I still feel the M220 gearset is a better design with greater strength potential. Dana needs to upgrade thickness of the center casting in several areas, and make the bottom smooth !!@@Marty1911
These "new" rear full float diffs are almost a carbon copy of a 2006-2010 Jeep Commander and GC with the 8.25 inch diffs and e-locker. Rare to ever bend the shaft. Wheel hub assemblies will be the main spare.
I was talking with someone else about this as well. I can’t believe I missed this axle ever existing! It really makes me wonder what the possibilities would be out of that axle if the aftermarket supported it?!?! Maybe I’ll go junk yard diving to examine the possibilities of one of these.
Looks like Jeep is finally helping people who own a rubicon and want to get the most out of it to do so without having a full axel upgrade!
Absolutely. I think something like this has been long wanted by Jeep buyers. I’m amazed they actually found a way to make it happen.
Nice review
Thank you! I appreciate that more than you know.
What would be very cool and a maybe if Jeep used the TRX Hybrid rear axle for the Gladiator Rubicon it’s a Dana 60 center full floater 5 lug. That could up the towing capacity
Oh man! That could be an amazing setup!! I like how your thinking!
I have an 06 lj on 38s that's a rock crawler, and a 23 JTR that will never see more than 35s.
I would never imagine trying to take a well built JL or JLU on 40s where my LJ on 38s will go. The JL platform doesn't offer enough suspension travel without extreme frame modification. Plus the JL crowd(meaning those on 38"+ tires) tends to be more reserved in their wheeling, God forbid a stick scratch the paint.
My Moab experience with the JL crowd was watching them take bypass after bypass, even on Golden Crack, a JLU on 40s, 8 lug axles, with bypass coil overs wouldn't do it without a spotter.
So I say these new axles will handle 40s no problem.
As for the gladiator, seeing all the overland people on 37s with an obviously overloaded set up, I see no need for the weird full float axles. The JT is too light to need it for towing, it's already proven itself with being overweight(I bet leaf springs would have given it a higher load carrying capacity, but at the cost of comfort). So for the normal person who doesn't do youtube and isnt sponsored, they will likely never have an issue with the rear axle. My opinion is that the JL is for the "offroad" crowd and the JT falls more to the overland/car camping crowd.
I got the JTR because I plan on using it for car camping in remote spots. It still has a truck bed so I can haul car parts, go hunting, carry firewood or anything I don't want rolling around inside. Yet it still has the ability to take the top off, do mild offroading(level 6 trails max in my opinion while bone stock) and be a decent daily driver.
I can agree with a lot of this. The newer Jeep crowd tends to be a bit more reserved. I built my gladiator for rock crawling and still drove it like a crawler, but I kept putting it into situations where the extreme length played against me more than it helped, so after I crushed in the back door, I sold it after finishing my TJ because I really like being able to not care at all if I roll it or beat up the body.
@@mudtiremedia and that's why I personally feel the jk, JL, JT, and whatever comes next will never meet the requirements people need for offroading. The body is too big and I don't blame people for not wanting to damage a $30-$70k rig.
What Id love to see, even though it'll never happen, is a TJ sized body, with the driveline and technology from a new rubicon. Give me a TJ or LJ with 3 inches of lift and 37s with the tech of the new rubicon and that thing will be an amazing offroad vehicle.
I’ve considered this so much. Take a JL dash and console and fit it into a TJ with 8.4 uconnect, heated seats….. would be nice
If the rear barn is anything like the front, you will not be able to pull out the axle shaft and continue to drive. Because the bearing will probably fall apart. With how to having the surface to ride on from the actual shaft
I had considered this. With the front axle shaft, it bolts together inside the bearing, sandwiching the bearing together. But with this rear axle, the shaft appears to only slide into the wheel bearing, but it doesn’t bolt together. The bearing is actually sealed with a solid wall at the outside.
That hasn't been the case since TJ days. In both JKs and JL/JTs u don't need to have the stub shaft in the front to hold the unit bearing together. It's designed to run without it. In a TJ yes it will come apart. The rear on the 24 is same way. U can run it without a shaft in it to get off the trail.
So what’s it gonna take to upgrade this to my JK
Lol. You know, years down the road, i see these as becoming a great swap axle into older Jeeps! And when your trussing the axle, it would become easy to relocate the brackets into the needed locations! The future is looking bright.
@@mudtiremedia actually, I was thinking more along the lines of cut the end of it off and weld on a new end and slide in the axle bolt on the bearing brake assembly
Very interesting! This isn’t something I had even considered. IF some company would happen to manufacture an adapter place that would self center onto the axle tube after cutting off your stock end of the tube, that could be possible. But ensuring that it is exactly perpendicular to the tube would be extremely important with no warping when welding. And of course there would likely be some issue with adapting the older jk wheel speed sensors and possibly the E-brake assembly. Most likely, if someone couldn’t do the work in their garage, they would spend the same amount of money as building a junk yard 1-ton axle.
Why are they still calling all these axles "Dana 44", when very few if any of the parts interchange with a Dana 44? When you have redesigned everything about it, it should get a different designation.
Very true. Technically the current iteration of axles on the rubicons are internally at Dana known as m210 and m220 designation axles but they still use a Dana 44 style center housing for the most part, so they keep going back to that, I suppose.
I think the Gladiator rubicon would have it and someone in the tech writing/specs just overlooked it and did a misprint. Toyota does misprints all the time, just human error. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong then it's a bummer for the Gladiator. Just my guess.
This is a really good point! I hadn’t even considered that. As of right now, the gladiators build/comparison sheet isn’t live on Jeeps website, but in the 2024 online reveal, they made sure to mention “heavy duty dana 44”. But when they refer to the new axle, they always mention “full float”. But my hope is that they will include this new axle on the rubicon. PLEASE!!!
Having it on the Gladiator would just make too much sense. For towing, and for all the weight people throw in the back of those either hauling or overlanding. And then Mojave for bouncing around high speed bombing. If it's not there they really missed the boat.
The Gladiator doesn't get it
@@mudtiremedia yeah i'd think all the ruby models would be equally equipped. If not, shame on them.
As a person who pretty much destroyed my TJ Rubicon and ended being Branded "Frank Rubicon" for life, I felt like I had to add my 2 cents, and, even my biker friends call me Frank Rubicon, a lot of people think its my actual name 😆 I honestly don't give a fk about factory BS, I wanted to comment on your channel, its pretty awesome! And I don't throw compliments around to much on UA-cam, usually i piss of some yoyo or Mormon on one of the Utah jackholes channels 😅 But you are doing what I wanted to do over 10 years ago when I first started posting on UA-cam, but being i have barely enough knowledge to do that, im 48 and I really misses the boat what it comes to computers and looking at editing software or whatever the fk you call it? You'd have to be a scientist to figure that out? I've never even sent a email, but I just wanted to say, you got it together brother! I'll check out your other videos, and also I've completely given up on the jeeps, they've become to mainstream, and living here in the NYC/ Long Island area, there is millions of them and a good 95% will never see dirt, let alone Rocks 🪨 i love asking soccer moms "How do you like the lockers? " And they look like im speaking some unknown language? Yup, I don't wanna know those people 😅 And im much happier being the only Solid Axle Tacoma on Long Island, Seriously, there's me and a four runner about 60 miles east of me, but great video, keep up the good work brother and if you get a chance please check out my Tacoma S.A.Swap, i think you'll get a kick out of my front Dana 3044HP Hybrid Axle, it's the center section from a D30HP, Fully sleeved with Chevy k10 Dana 44 outer , locker, Chromo Dutchman Axles etc, I piss off Toyota and Jeep people all at once! Check it out on my UA-cam channel and Instagram @frankrubicon_
Thank you very much! And I’ll definitely have to go check your channel out asap. It sounds like an epic rig!!
@@mudtiremedia Her and my Harley Davidson FXDP are my pride and joy's
I'm confused. What is a roller ball bearing. I know of tapered rollers, spherical, (round) ball bearings with or without thrust capabilities, straight rollers etc.
Sorry about the confusion. Spherical is correct. at the time of recording this, my wording was not exactly the best. But you can look up the outer pinion bearing for the JL Dana 44 to see what I mean. This is the only axle I’ve seen with that type of bearing out of all the axles I have built.
Jeep must be purposefully crippling the Gladiator… and still wanting to charge 20% more than it should be sold at.
I’m really glad that I’m not the only one who feels this way! I have a love for the gladiator and don’t want to see it go away. But with sales as bad as they are on the gladiator right now, im worried!
@@mudtiremedia same. I want one, but I couldn’t justify the $60k+ asking price a few years ago for them when I was able to pick up a 4Runner TRD ORP XP with just about every option for $42k.
The Gladiator options are weird. The diesel was a great idea but the payload is nonexistent and as a result the diesel is now nonexistent.
That’s a good rig to choose! I really want to start having more Toyotas on the channel soon. Especially with them releasing the new Land Cruiser. I’m in love with that!
@@mudtiremediawell they’ve already stated its being built through at least 2028 so unless they plan on lying to the UAW, its not dead yet
Good to hear! I’m hoping things stabilize and interest rates drop again and hopefully make sales rise. I loved my 2021 gladiator. It was a great off-road rig, but I just needed a larger truck for towing Jeeps around the country.
isn't the full float axle also available in the willys trim?
As of right now, on jeep.com they are only stating the rubicon model as having the new axle available. When you look at the Willy’s edition on the comparison chart, the full float rear axle is marked “not available”.
@@mudtiremediathey changed it? It was just the rubicon x.
In 50 years people will be searching for that axle the way we search for 76 dana 44s today.
Especially for the 37s-38s- crowd that are always stuck between an axle thats either too small or too big.
Hope they give an upgraded brakes option to go with it cus it doesnt matter if it breaks if it cant brake
YES! This was exactly what I was thinking. These will be a great upgrade for 2 door wranglers decades down the road.
Can the front axle hang with this new rear axle? 40s on a front JL 44?
Excellent question! I would say the answer is: YES, IF…. Yes because the front axle already runs on a very sturdy unit bearing that does not have any history of failures under the use of 40” tires. BUT only if it has appropriate upgrades to compliment them. The steering components (including hydraulic assist) should be upgraded as well as the ball joints. The front shafts are fairly strong if you perform the FAD delete.
And I have yet to see if the 2024 wrangler rubicon has the aluminum knuckles, but I’ve seen failures at that knuckle. but with the cast steel diesel knuckles, I haven’t seen any failures.
How much tire do you think the JK Rubicon 44's can handle on a TJ with RCV shafts, 5.38 gears, 4.0 I6, and 4:1 T-case?
Years ago people would say a D44 couldn't handle a 37" tire with any hardcore wheeling on a TJ, but now it seems every 4 door JK, JL, and JT has 37" tires on the stock axles and weigh 600-1200 pounds more.
I’ve seen this actually used and the JK Dana 44 axles are a good upgrade for the TJ, ESPECIALLY when keeping the I-6. You can fairly safely run 40’s on these axles with limited danger to breakages because of the light weight of the TJ and the low horsepower of the 4.0. The only real major weakness of these axles begins to show up with higher horsepower and running 5.38 gears because the pinion becomes so small, that it does not handle the power very well with large tires.
JKs dana 44 are way bigger in every way in comparison even to the TJ "dana 44" axles, thats why they can run 37´s on a heavier vehicle without problems (mostly, unless you are a hard core right foot guy lol)