Dana 44 axles and the Bronco

OP

rkj__

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
94
Reaction score
84
Location
Ontario, Canada
Vehicle(s)
GMC Sierra, Mini Countryman S
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #16
Something about his smirk when he said the axle will be under the "upcoming Ford product" ....
Right?! I could not help but notice how much excitement he showed when he made the comment.
 

indio22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
226
Reaction score
300
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
1972 Land Rover Series III, 1998 Jeep TJ, 1985 Jeep CJ-7
Something about his smirk when he said the axle will be under the "upcoming Ford product" really seemed to hint at the D44 SFA being under the Bronco. I'd be fine either way, but this is definitely interesting.
Right?! I could not help but notice how much excitement he showed when he made the comment.
Same, something about it made me do a double take. I still agree with most others here that IFS is on the Bronco, and I don't see Ford making two different front ends. But well, will see this Spring ...
 

JimmyDean

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
811
Reaction score
1,421
Location
Louisiana
Vehicle(s)
82 Bronco, 513 ci; 71 mach 1, 351C; 06 F-250, 6.0; 56 800, 172c.i. gas
Same, something about it made me do a double take. I still agree with most others here that IFS is on the Bronco, and I don't see Ford making two different front ends. But well, will see this Spring ...
Don't forget, they make two very different suspensions on the super-duty trucks.
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
640
Reaction score
532
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 86 Capri 5.0, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
Do you really need me to answer that? If you want to turn a stock vehicle into a build that needs a D60, you're likely doing upgrades to wheel & tires, armour, suspension, drive line, and steering.
Or someone that really wants to "get after it" could put in a 60 with only 35/36's
and have stellar reliability in the axles.
 

Nickp

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
2,873
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER 4 DOOR MT
Or someone that really wants to "get after it" could put in a 60 with only 35/36's
and have stellar reliability in the axles.
And you have terrible off-road capability because of how large the pumpkin is. Built 44 would be way way better and just as reliable.
 

JimmyDean

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
811
Reaction score
1,421
Location
Louisiana
Vehicle(s)
82 Bronco, 513 ci; 71 mach 1, 351C; 06 F-250, 6.0; 56 800, 172c.i. gas
And you have terrible off-road capability because of how large the pumpkin is. Built 44 would be way way better and just as reliable.
so a narrowed and mohawked 2.5T Rockwell is the way to go? 54s here we come.
 

Toyhoarder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
181
Reaction score
229
Location
The west
Vehicle(s)
Early Bronco, F-150, F-450
And you have terrible off-road capability because of how large the pumpkin is. Built 44 would be way way better and just as reliable.
It’s about an inch difference, and the 60 is gonna be cheaper than a built 44.

Might as well start with a 9”. Better clearance and stronger gears than either.
 

BroncoMike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
606
Reaction score
916
Location
Upper Norwegia
Vehicle(s)
'71 Bronco, '02 Excursion
It’s about an inch difference, and the 60 is gonna be cheaper than a built 44.

Might as well start with a 9”. Better clearance and stronger gears than either.
The portals will more than make up for that extra inch. :clap:
 
  • Like
Reactions: OX1

TeocaliMG

Well-Known Member
First Name
Matthew
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
352
Reaction score
868
Location
Dearborn Michigarn
Vehicle(s)
1987 f-250 6.9 idi diesel, 2004 jeep liberty sport
Don't forget, they make two very different suspensions on the super-duty trucks.
We do, but the TTB is for 2wd only. As Toyhoarder pointed out however, the trickier part for us would be the steering. Both the TTB and SFA Super duties use a pitman arm/RCB gear (the same one actually), they simply have different linkages connecting all the hard points.

Similarly, despite the reasons I personally like IFS, the main reasons Ford would do it would be around steering, not necessarily the linkages. Its not that hard to package either suspension set up under the Ranger. Its just a matter of frame mounts, but we haven't had a light duty RCB gear for a long time and that could be a huge development nightmare compared to improving the Ranger IFS. Especially considering they would be unwilling to take a step back on steering quality, and features. (Despite what you think about IFS, rack steering offers excellent stiffness/response)

I dont doubt that we will see SLA conversions however, considering there have been IFS conversions on Wranglers, anything goes!
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
640
Reaction score
532
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 86 Capri 5.0, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
And you have terrible off-road capability because of how large the pumpkin is. Built 44 would be way way better and just as reliable.
Built 44 doesn't get you better axle tubes, bigger ball joints (or even king pins), thicker C's, etc...
All the stuff that lets you hammer down in confidence. And if needed beyond that, you can still build the 60.
 

BroncoMike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
606
Reaction score
916
Location
Upper Norwegia
Vehicle(s)
'71 Bronco, '02 Excursion
Some very informative posts here! Thanks for the info, valuable knowledge for going forward on Excursion upgrades and a refresh on my '71 Bronco.
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
640
Reaction score
532
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 86 Capri 5.0, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
You missed the real achilles heel of a Dana 44 which is the 1310 size U-joints.

The "next generation" Dana 44 in the JKs got 1350s, which is what Dana 44s should have had all along. The new Dana M210 in the Rubicons has 1410 U-joints which means they should hold up quite well with 37s and even 40s if you aren't stupid with the Throttle. Old Dana 44s were marginal with anything bigger than 35s since the 1310 U-joints are the same size as the '91+ ABS Dana 30s and all '95+ Dana 30s.

For reference, old Dana 60s have 1480 U-joints, while the 2005+ Super 60 has 1550 U-joints (the super 60 axles shafts will go right into a 2005+ non-super 60 with no modifications) and if I recall correctly, all 2014+ Dana 60s have the 1550 U-joints.

ujoints.jpg

Unfortunately the 1550s are missing from this picture.
Great info, but I specifically posted up about things you can't upgrade on a 44 to get to 60 strength
(at least without serious fabrication).
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
640
Reaction score
532
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 86 Capri 5.0, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
The things you pointed out are certainly valid, but are more vehicle weight related. Under a lighter rig those things aren't really an issue.
Again, valid, but not for the tire sizes I run, still matters even if rig itself is light.
Don't think I would ever go less than a 42 on my wheelin rig, and those are pushing 200 lb each
with Staz's double beadlocks.

Another reason I like mogs. That last doubling of the gear ratio is past the axle shafts. I only run
a stock 205 case with 43's (on 6200 lb rig). In 16 years, only broke one part (3rd member) internally
on diff's made in the 60's.
DCP04603.jpg



Anyway, glad to hear bronc is going to be alum, lighter is always better for wheeling and if I don't buy
a new bronco, I will grab a wrecked one and use the body on my 79 chassis (someday).
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
640
Reaction score
532
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 86 Capri 5.0, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
Update to the tech I posted:

Apparently the 1410 U-joint axle shafts are only on the Dana Spicer "Ultimate" M210 and not on the factory JL Rubicon M210 which has 1350 U-joints like the older "Next gen" Dana 44 from the JK. However, the 1410 axle shafts supposedly fit right into the Rubicon M210s without any modifications.

That means that going bigger than about 37s on the factory Rubicon M210 axles will start to get dicey, but if you upgrade to the 1410 shafts, you would probably be okay up to about a 40.
and the ball joints have been OK with those on 40's??
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
640
Reaction score
532
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 86 Capri 5.0, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
Not everyone is wheeling a 6,200 lbs. rig. I haven't had to change out any ball joints on my Dana 35 with 37" tires that weigh 104 lbs. each after years of wheeling. The caveat is that rig weighs 3,900 lbs. with all my tools, recovery gear, and spare tire. My other rig has a Dana 44 front with 38" tires that weigh 140 lbs. has been doing well so far, but I have only had it for a little over a year and I replaced the ball joints when I first got it.

The ball joint spacing is larger on the Dana M210 than on the "next generation" Dana 44, which itself had larger ball joint spacing than the legacy Dana 44 axles, so I would assume it is stronger. I haven't had the opportunity to disassemble an M210 yet to see for myself, but I haven't heard of issues yet, although it is still a very new front axle. For reference, a 2 door JL Sport soft top with a V6 and the manual weighs 3,972 lbs. according to Car and Driver, while a 4 door Rubicon soft top with the V6 and an automatic weighed 4,629 lbs. Both are a lot lighter than your rig and will consequently be easier on parts.

Sure there are people who will add a ton of armor and crap and get the 4 doors up to 6,000 lbs+, and those are the same people who were bending axles on their JKs. If your Jeep is that heavy, of course it is going to have problems breaking stuff since it was designed to be ~1,500 lbs. lighter. I have been weight conscious with my build, but I haven't done anything crazy or exotic to keep the weight down. At 3,900 lbs., I am only about 500-600 lbs. heavier than stock, which is pretty good considering about 300 lbs. of that is in wheels and tires alone, and maybe another 100 lbs. of that is in tools and recovery gear.
As I mentioned already, could be a real big help if the bronco somehow comes in say 2-400 lbs lighter than it would have with a steel body, but
that may all be eaten up by the body just being larger, especially true body width, compared to a wrangler (and overall, more comfort options).
I realize very few will have 6000 lb new broncos, I was just pointing out what can survive, almost indefinitely regardless of weight, tire size,
and hard driving, with a better solid axle assembly.

I'm also not sure how you wheel. But eastern Pa (even north NJ) is not finesse-able on all but the rare occasions that you are there
early in the day (rocks not covered in mud yet), and it hasn't rained in a week. Even then many of the trails are right through a stream
and have moss and wet leaves covering everything. So unless you like to winch (A LOT), you spend a good amount of time getting into
it, sometimes on what seems to be stupid easy trails. IE, there is nowhere in PA I know of, a crown vic, is getting around hills like these.
.

The weight also starts to add up when you add armor. I wheeled for almost 10 years with the mid-atlantic EB club and there is almost no
choice but to add at least a partial EXO (rear or really thick 1/4 panels at least), really thick skid plates, and bumpers if you want your EB to survive,
and slightly resemble it's original body shape. Even a cage is pretty mandatory to me and I'm partial to EXO's, as no one wears helmets for casual
wheeling (not sure why) and an inside cage and your head don't mix well (and that means even more weight, since EXO's are weaker, unless built stouter).

Anyway, all that circles back to axle swaps. Will be interesting to see what it takes to get a SFA 60 front in place of the IFS, on a new bronco, since there may not
be anywhere to bolt up even a std steering box.
 

Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Administrator General Bronco Topics 42







Similar threads




Top