By ZPukajlo on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 10:43 am: Edit

How strong are the LR axles? Are they in the D44 or Ford 9in range? What is the ring gear size? Also, is the rear axle a semi-floating or full-floating design? Thanks!

Z

By Ron on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 10:56 am: Edit

Full floating

Disco all have 24 spline rear axles that are approximately as strong as a stock D44 axle. In front the limit on strength is the cv joint which is not as strong as a 297 D44 U joint (debate on this issue). Its close but fatigue failure is what does in cvs.

Most people upgrade the rear axles when they run a Detroit locker. There is a 30 spline upgrade but the you can also purchase Hytuff (a type of steel) 24 spline axles and with the tire size limit on a disco it is doubtfull you would be able to break one.

The front is more problematic. Range rovers before 1990 had bigger cvs but these cannot be retrofitted to a disco without losing ABS, and they do not provide a huge increase in strength. Likewise hytuff (sp) axles are available.

Ring gear is a little over 8in I think

The stock land rover dif is only 2pin and is pretty weak. ARBs and Detroits for rover axles are 4 pin. I think TT is 3 pin or something but I glazed over during that discussion with Bill.

Main problems are:

1. The cv is a POS
2. Everything for rover axles is $$$$ compared to domestic

Rover made what they call a salisbury which is identical in design to a Dana 60. The difs in them are 4pin (better than a domestic D60 dif which are usually 2pin) but the axles and cvs are the same as a disco. Furthermore, rear salisburys are rare and fronts salisburys are nearly non existant. On the positive side you can take a rear salisbury and fit it with 35 spline axles just like you can with a 30 spline domestic D60. I (and some others) are trying to figure out how to make a front salisbury/D60 fit on a LR. I have seen D44s fitted to a range rover but the process needs work. One issue is that most rear axles are centered where as the rover rear is offset. My current plan is to take my rear salisbury and put a D44 or D60 front with rover bolt pattern hubs on the front . . .

Man I ramble.


Ron

By peter matusov on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 11:38 am: Edit

Ron,

a 73-79 Wagoneer or 75-79 Cherokee with Quadratrac setup will have front and rear Dana 44s with passenger-side offset. The four-door Cherokees and Wagoneers (known as narrow-tracks) have axles that are about 59" wide (more detailed info available), and that seems to be very close to Disco/Rangie.

You can get a pair for next to nothing.
Parts are as abundant as it ever gets, and very reasonably priced.

A d44 has 8.75" ring gear, and 1.31" Dia axleshafts, and it is stronger than stock Rover axle. The 74 and after Dana44s were all 30-spline, and 19-spline before (i am not sure about the changeover year).

Somebody makes a 397X upgrade kit for front D44s.

Warn makes full-floating kit for rear Dana44s.

The only major drawback I see is that disk-brake'd rear Dana44s are very rare, they came once in a while as part of tow package on Grand Cherokees. Some of the latest D44s have aluminum center housing, agreeably the shittiest design around.

Now, let me get outta rambling mode, and ask you how much are the stock 10-spline rangie rear axleshafts?

not that i already broke mine, but it may happen sooner than i wish (left turn hill is close by)

peter

By Ron on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 11:49 am: Edit

D44 ain't going to cut it for me Peter.

I am going whole Hog. D60 rear salisbury rear in the 110 and warn kit out that D44 out of the scout I have

Then if I ever find a set of C303 axles that "crap" is going out the window

397? Don't you mean 297x?

(not like I know I am asking and want to know)

If you have an 87-89 I might have a rear set I could part with. How much do you want to pay me to lug a heavy bag full of axle to work and spend my lunch (half) hour at the post office?

To be honest I don't think you would gain much with D44s on a rover, other than cheaper to replace parts. You would need a 9in or D60 to get enough strength to be bomb proof. Or a REALLY built D44.

Ron

By peter matusov on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 11:58 am: Edit

hehehe...

naw, you can build a monster outta 44. jeep rags are full of this kind of stuff; when i go broke some day with all 4x4s i got, i will consider a wag's 44 as an option

let me know what you want for the rear set, i haven't done my axle homework yet

peter

By peter matusov on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 11:59 am: Edit

oh yeah,

i may be off with a number - thought a 397 would be next in 260-297-... sequence.

peter

By Ron on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 12:01 pm: Edit

I dunno on the U joint thing?

you can BUILD a monster out of a 44 but a D60 is a monster out of the box so to speak.

I like the corp 14 bolt even better

I will pull the axles and take a look at them. The last set I pulled one had twisted. If they are not twisted I would be looking for ~50 each.

Ron

By peter matusov on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 12:13 pm: Edit

rear shafts - let me know if you deem'em okay, i will send you a check.

the monsters... a 60 is a heavy SOB, and you'll have to shave it mercilessly so that you don't drag it all over the place. the 14-bolt is sort of between a 60 and a 70, even heavier.

not that it is a big issue, but - given with the fact that rovers' front end is light, and you need some major bucks to do front d60, you are likely to end with a very ass-heavy rover. sure you can compensate it by putting a cummins diesel in it, but the only reason to do all that is to see the Rover badge in TTC participants list

peter

By ZPukajlo on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Thanks for the info Ron. I was looking at my rear axle and just couldn't quite tell if it was a SF or a FF. I read somewhere on this site about the front cv's being kinda weak. Doesn't GBR have a fix for them? Also, I think ECR makes front Salisburys. Maybe they will give you some tips on doing it. Peter. A 44 has a 8.5" ring gear. Only a Ford 8.8, Chrysler corporate 8 3/4 and a Corporate 12 bolt are in the 8.75 range. Since the LR rear is a FF then it is much stronger than a 44. If you make the 44 a FF then I would agree with you. Don't worry about the rambling guys. The more you talk the more I learn about my Rover.In the 5 months that I have had it I've learned a lot. Enjoy your week. I'm off to the mountains tomorrow! Thanks again!

Zane

By peter matusov on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Zane,

what is axleshaft Dia. for 44 and LR axle?

besides, the housing is stronger on the 44 than on the rover axle.

OTOH, gotta love the 3rd member LR design - took us 2.5 hours to swap a TT in!
I doubt I could do it with a D44. Actually, putting an EZ locker in a 44 took me more, without removal of the differential.

peter

By ZPukajlo on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 02:35 pm: Edit

You're right about the axleshaft diameter. No questioning that. The center section is stronger than a drop out style. No comeback for that either. But a Full Floating design is stronger than a Semi Floating design. The hubs will take all of the weight whereas on a SF the whole axle carries the weight. Which one do you think will break first? That's the basis for my opinion. Also, the biggest weakness of the 44 are the C-clips that hold the halfshafts in the axle. They break and there goes your wheel. Won't happen on a FF. That is why Warn makes a FF kit for certain axles. But this is an apples to oranges comparison. Make the 44 a full floater and I'll give you the nod. Thanks for the discussion.

Zane

By peter matusov on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 03:20 pm: Edit

hold on, there's no C-clips on Dana 44, at least not in the jeep version! So no, if a jeep Dana-44 axleshaft breaks in the diff (weakest point for most axleshafts), your wheel doesn't go off.

now, the full-floating vs. semifloating design's differences in strength are a bit overemphasized.

Put it this way - the load of the vehicle is taken up by the wheel bearings, of which there are two per every side of each axle, in both layouts. If your wheels have perfectly zero offset with respect to the point exactly between the bearings, there's no flexing load on the axleshaft, and therefore full-floater has zero advantage over a semi-floater. In reality, it is rarely the case, but close, and the flexing load on the axleshafts is small in good semi-floating axles, provided the owner doesn't run 10" offset rims and 20" wide tires.

So, Warn FF kit doesn't make Dana 44 ways much stronger than it is. And I stand by my original statement - the fullsize jeep (1/2 ton) Dana 44 is a stronger axle than Land Rover's.

Same applies to a [fullsize] AMC-20 axle, which all magazines call a two-piece axleshaft design with amazing stupidity and ignorance. But parts for this axle are as rare and almost as expensive as for the Land Rover's full-floater.

does my ramble make any sense?

I just hate to hear the urban myths about the 4x4 hardware that 4x4 mags are so prone to.

peter

By ZPukajlo on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 05:36 pm: Edit

I'm sorry. I must have been thinking of the 10 bolt when I mentioned the C-clips. You're right that the 44 doesn't have them. Gotta knock the cobwebs out. After re-reading everything and thinking about it I will say this. Straight up the FF design is better than the SF design. But since the halfshafts on the 44 have more splines and a thicker shaft than you are probably right about it being stronger than an LR axle. If you don't mind I'll have some A1 on my crow now. Take care.

Zane

By Robert Mann (Oldscout) on Wednesday, October 03, 2001 - 05:58 pm: Edit

Peter I'm with you on the D44 being stronger,but only a 30 spline one and not an early 19 spline.

I'm putting a D-60 under my disco. I have it and will be working on it as soon as I get my lift kit.

By peter matusov on Thursday, October 04, 2001 - 06:09 am: Edit

post the photos, Robert - that would be one mean lookin disco!

peter