If you had to choose....60 vs 44

[lt99ls1]

You have to compare apples to apples. RCV shafts for a 44 aren't cheap.

Very true sir.

 

[The Hard Struggler]

For what it's worth, my blinged out hp44 holds up pretty well to my aggressive driving style and 38"TSLs and my 37" stickey treps. But I have broken Rcv shafts. If your driving style is more moderate, a well built 44 will hold up fine to that tire size. It may come out somewhat cheaper to build a 60 with stock shafts but in my opinion you are trading weight and width for that money saved.

 

[Georgia Mike]

I'm thinking that you guys' logic for a D44 may be correct (no offense Andy lol). For true offroad rigs I've never had anything but a D30, and even running 35" BFG's all I've ever broken is two u-joints; once while doing something stupid, the other while wheeling with a known worn out 260 joint at Beasley. I think I could possibly make a D44 survive.

That being said, my goal may be larger tires and increased strength, but it's also to keep it low, so no more lift than I have now (4.5"). Since I think I've given up on the whole "keep it streetable" thing, I'm considering full widths. I've never run full width axles on the trail but I can see where the extra width coupled with a low ride height would make a very stable rig. I see it done out west, but what do you guys think about that here in the southeast with our tighter trails?

 

[Ghost]

I'm thinking that you guys' logic for a D44 may be correct (no offense Andy lol). For true offroad rigs I've never had anything but a D30, and even running 35" BFG's all I've ever broken is two u-joints; once while doing something stupid, the other while wheeling with a known worn out 260 joint at Beasley. I think I could possibly make a D44 survive.

That being said, my goal may be larger tires and increased strength, but it's also to keep it low, so no more lift than I have now (4.5"). Since I think I've given up on the whole "keep it streetable" thing, I'm considering full widths. I've never run full width axles on the trail but I can see where the extra width coupled with a low ride height would make a very stable rig. I see it done out west, but what do you guys think about that here in the southeast with our tighter trails?

HP D44 properly narrowed to waggy 44 width with alloy axles or rcv's. and you on 36's would be fine. I ran 36" IROC's and kind of wish I had gone a different route now 5 years later. IF you get a chance to call me and want to do it and we can chat about it.

 

[lt99ls1]

I've never run full width axles on the trail but I can see where the extra width coupled with a low ride height would make a very stable rig. I see it done out west, but what do you guys think about that here in the southeast with our tighter trails?

I have done it for almost 10 years with full widths and 40s. Never been a issue.
I am building my LJ with full width 05 superduty axles now.

 

[043500]

I have done it for almost 10 years with full widths and 40s. Never been a issue.
I am building my LJ with full width 05 superduty axles now.

I'm running a full width 10B/14B combo on my MJ now. (they were already in it when I got it 4 years ago). This is the 2nd rig I've had with full width axles. The one GOOD wheeler I built with stock width axles is the one I rolled...I feel WAY more stable on full widths and other than in a few circumstances it hasn't hindered a thing.

I've considered building a 44/9 setup and if I ever do...they will be full width as well.

 

[shortxjdoug]

You have so many more lines with a waggy/cherokee width setup. The difference is incredible. It's not an issue of stability, if it is setup properly it will be stable.

 

[043500]

You have so many more lines with a waggy/cherokee width setup. The difference is incredible. It's not an issue of stability, if it is setup properly it will be stable.

No offense intended that's not even remotely true. Different lines yes...saying more lines depends on WAY more factors than being wider or narrower.

As far as stability that's very much an issue. Even the best built rig will be less stable to a degree if its track width is narrower than an equally built wider rig.

That's like saying the shorter wheelbase rigs will have more options vs the longer wheelbase rigs or vice versa...it's just not true. That's a trail by trail or even obstacle by obstacle factor on both accounts (wide vs narrow or swb vs lwb).

Then you have driver ability as well...there's another can of worms.

Sorry to jump OT.

 

[shortxjdoug]

No offense intended that's not even remotely true. Different lines yes...saying more lines depends on WAY more factors than being wider or narrower.

In 10 years of driving spotting and building there are always more lines in any given section of a trail or obstacle for a narrower tracked vehicle. width completely changes any obstacle and where the vehicle plants as you're trying to get through. in some instances there are three or four viable lines where there are 1 or 2 for a wider vehicle. every trail is different but on the whole ive found that wheeling a narrower vehicle provides many more options for completing the trail and the plant is always better as you arent dealing with as much real estate between the tires.

As far as stability that's very much an issue. Even the best built rig will be less stable to a degree if its track width is narrower than an equally built wider rig.

Nope. stability stems from three main factors in the build. center of gravity, suspension setup and finally the track width. track width makes up for poor suspension design and high center of gravity by increasing the footprint. but its not necessary with a well balanced and flexible suspension on a rig with proper low cg. ask me how i know, it goes back to that 10 years of building and wheeling thing. ive never at one point felt uncomfortable in a narrower rig, but all have been low with well setup suspension. Making something wider to make it more stable is a builder band aid to cover up a river barge suspension or a rig that is too tall or carries too much weight up high (tire on the roof, crazy up high tubework etc). Stability has just never been a factor because everything else is engineered well at the proper points

That's like saying the shorter wheelbase rigs will have more options vs the longer wheelbase rigs or vice versa...it's just not true. That's a trail by trail or even obstacle by obstacle factor on both accounts (wide vs narrow or swb vs lwb).

Your comparison of a statement about track width to a statement about wheelbase is like comparing apples to oranges. Different measurements in each affect a whole different set of factors on the trail. Just like track width, different wheelbases can change how an obstacle drives for different vehicle, and most of the time it is an obstacle by obstacle basis. However there are some general #'s that over time have proven to work better than others for southern terrain, same as track width. Track width however has much more to do with the plant and like i said before, allows you a number of different options laterally on any given trail. Its not a maybe, its just physics. there are more combinations in a fixed space for a narrower vehicle.

Then you have driver ability as well...there's another can of worms.

Sorry to jump OT.

Driver ability comes from learning your rig. the more options you have though the better and more finesse driver you can become. Everyone sets their stuff up the way they feel it will work best, but lots of seat time and spot time down has revealed a few things that have worked for us as we've evolved and changed our rigs. there aren't many places that deny us and in that 10 years i've really only dumped one rig on its side, and that was just me being dumb

 

[043500]

I guess me trying to get the last word in is of no use but I'm silly that way LOL. I too have many years of building, driving, and spotting experience...pushing 20 of them now. And I was not comparing apples to oranges...I was comparing 1 set of opinions to another and attempting to make the statement that neither set of statements are anything more than opinions. I give you that indeed they are different areas for debate.

stock jeep width vs full width
long vs short wb
leaves vs coils
bias vs radials
jeep vs bronco (well we all KNOW jeeps are better)

the list goes on...opinions.

And maybe you missed my point on the stability issue.

IE: I work for a crane company. (and before you say it...yes cranes and jeeps are different but the physics applies the same) Take a 100 ton crane to pick up 25,000 lbs at a 50' radius. Which is more stable...the crane on half outriggers...or the crane on full outriggers? Of course the full outriggers. You cannot argue that.

IE: You take a (well built of course) jeep on stock axles and do an obstacle...then you place the SAME jeep on wider axles...the wider axles create more stability. And yes I realize if the trail is narrow the narrower rig will FIT better but that doesn't make it's stability the same...and you say you believe it does?

Chances are we're both wrong anyway. LOL

 

[shortxjdoug]

Im not debating that wider isnt more stable. The point im making is that putting the work into the suspension and cg wont REQUIRE it to be wider. You'll end up with a more capable vehicle that handles itself well and is more trail maneuverable. A crane is wide because it needs to be. Its sole purpose is to handle weight up high. A capable trail rig doesnt need to be if proper setup doesnt warrant it.

It is all opinions and experience in different terrain. Rig building is like painting, in the end the artist only needs to justify to brush strokes and color to himself. I do enjoy a well spirited debate though.... Carry on

 

[Georgia Mike]

GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS....you're BOTH pretty, ok? lol :cheers:.....let's move on to today's news, which is I bought the 44/60 set! :clap:



They need a little more work than I was expecting, but the price was fair and they'll make a great starting point. Thanks for everyone's very helpful input!

:thumbup:

 

[RedHeep]

Are you going 5 lug?

 

[Georgia Mike]

Are you going 5 lug?

No, staying with the 8 lug stuff

 

[94xjsport94]

If you're interested in boring the stock spindles out to run 35 spline shafts I have some side gears you can have. In fact, I have a 98 E350 60 you can have the shafts out of for cheap if they will also fit yours. Stock 32 spline shafts are in it now but for $80 you can have the shafts and the side gears.

 

[Ghost]

Boring the spindles cost me $40. I had to find a guy with a horizontal mill IIRC.

 

[Georgia Mike]

Boring them would cost me $0.00. I'd just haul it to work on a Saturday

Will, weren't you trying to sell that whole axle a while back?

 

[Ghost]

Boring them would cost me $0.00. I'd just haul it to work on a Saturday

Will, weren't you trying to sell that whole axle a while back?

That is kind of what I thought........ :clap:

 

[94xjsport94]

Yeah, no one wants the damn thing lol. I can't seem to give it away.

 

[94xjsport94]

Ah, I meant I would sell the whole axle and side gears for $80, not just the shafts and side gears. I worded it poorly when I was focused on homework this afternoon.