U Joint Types

[dirt machine]

Can somebody please tell me all of the different u joints on an 01 XJ. Here are the locations:

Rear shaft at axle
Rear shaft at t-case
front shaft at axle
front shaft at CV joint
Front axle

Which ones are the same?

Furthermore, are the driveshaft u-joints the same as on an 89 XJ? I know the front axle U joints are different, but I am specifically concerned about the driveshafts because I have a bunch of spare parts from my 89 which I would like to keep for my 01.

Thanks!

 

[5-90]

Can somebody please tell me all of the different u joints on an 01 XJ. Here are the locations:

Rear shaft at axle
Rear shaft at t-case
front shaft at axle
front shaft at CV joint
Front axle

Which ones are the same?

Furthermore, are the driveshaft u-joints the same as on an 89 XJ? I know the front axle U joints are different, but I am specifically concerned about the driveshafts because I have a bunch of spare parts from my 89 which I would like to keep for my 01.

Thanks!

Going off memory...

The driveshaft U-joints are, as I recall, all the same between the axles. It's possible that the "double cardan" joints are different from the other three, but I would have to check (just what did I do with that Neapco catalogue? Gotta be around here somewhere...) The front axle joints (at the wheels) are different - and they're different between your 1989 and your 2001 (I don't recall the part numbers - I think the early ones are 297X and the late ones are 760X? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

I believe the XJ used the same driveshaft joints all the way up, tho, so you should be able to keep your 1989 driveshafts as spares for your 2001. Even if the double cardan joints were different from the singles within a year, I think they stayed the same from year to year (does that make sense?) but I can check if you give me a bit to find my Neapco catalogue (Haven't gotten my hands on a Spicer. Yet.)

 

[Yucca-Man]

Going off memory...

The driveshaft U-joints are, as I recall, all the same between the axles. It's possible that the "double cardan" joints are different from the other three, but I would have to check (just what did I do with that Neapco catalogue? Gotta be around here somewhere...) The front axle joints (at the wheels) are different - and they're different between your 1989 and your 2001 (I don't recall the part numbers - I think the early ones are 297X and the late ones are 760X? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

I believe the XJ used the same driveshaft joints all the way up, tho, so you should be able to keep your 1989 driveshafts as spares for your 2001. Even if the double cardan joints were different from the singles within a year, I think they stayed the same from year to year (does that make sense?) but I can check if you give me a bit to find my Neapco catalogue (Haven't gotten my hands on a Spicer. Yet.)

It's not often that I get to correct 5-90, so here goes:

The five u-joints in the driveshafts are the same 1310-style (no, I don't have the part number memorized, but there are about a dozen of 'em in my garage) ;-)

The front axle u-joints are the older 260 (5-260x) with 1 1/16" caps, or 297 (5-297x) with 1 3/16" caps, the latter of which can be upgraded to 5-760x.

By the way, no CV joint on either your 89 or 01.

Jim www.yuccaman.com

 

[dirt machine]

Well I have the CV joint from the front DS sitting on my workbench and rockauto.com lists several different part numbers for different locations, and the 1989 u joints are similar but sometimes different.

I am going to be running a front ds in the rear as of this weekend, so that's why all of this came up.

 

[dirt machine]

Specifically, I get the following on rock auto.com. Notice that both parts will work the same, except for the fact that #269 works at the CV, whereas #369 does not:

PRECISION Part # 369 {U Joint - Premium}
4WD; w/A/T; Position: Rear Shaft at Rear Axle
4WD; Position: Front Shaft at Front Axle
4WD; w/A/T; Position: Rear Shaft at Transmission
4WD; w/M/T; Position: Rear Shaft at Rear Axle

PRECISION Part # 269 {U Joint - Non-Greaseable Super-Strength}
4WD; w/A/T; Position: Rear Shaft at Rear Axle
4WD; Double Cardan Joint; 2 Required; Position: Front Shaft CV at Transfer Case
4WD; Position: Front Shaft at Front Axle
4WD; w/A/T; Position: Rear Shaft at Transmission
4WD; w/M/T; Position: Rear Shaft at Rear Axle

 

[dirt machine]

Furthermore, here are the same listings for the '89...similar, but different:

PRECISION Part # 369 {U Joint - Premium}
4WD; Position: Rear Shaft at Rear Axle
4WD; Position: Front Shaft at Front Axle
4WD; Position: Rear Shaft at Transmission
2WD; Position: At Transmission
2WD; Position: At Rear Axle

PRECISION Part # 269 {U Joint - Non-Greaseable Super-Strength}
4WD; Double Cardan Joint; 2 Required; Position: Front Shaft CV at Transfer Case
4WD; Position: Rear Shaft at Rear Axle
4WD; Position: Front Shaft at Front Axle
4WD; Position: Rear Shaft at Transmission
2WD; Position: At Transmission
2WD; Position: At Rear Axle

Sorry for the long post. I thought they were all 1310s too, but this indicates otherwise. Partsamerica.com is even more confusing.

 

[dirt machine]

Nevermind, the 89 I typed in is a laredo, which had no MT and had the 2wd option.

Still, there seems to be a difference between the 269 and 369

 

[5-90]

A "CV" joint is a different matter - what you're looking at is a 'double Cardan' joint, where two Cardan (cross-type) joints are in an assembly to cancel each other out (I could get into U-joint phasing and operating angles here, but I won't.)

Oh - and you still missed something, Jim. I think when they went to the newer body style (1997MY,) they lenghtened the transfer case output shaft - which allowed for a reduction in length of the rear driveshaft (a step backwards.) Measure your rear driveshafts before you swap them - if the 1989 shaft is longer, you could bottom out the slip yoke before you get to full stuff and cause internal damage to the transfer case. Ouch.

 

[dirt machine]

I am chopping off the output shaft on the t-case and bolting up a slip yoke eliminator, and then using a front driveshaft with the "double cardan" joint I will have a no-vibration setup for my lift once I shim up the rear axle.

So, I will have 2 front driveshafts on my 01 xj.

My question is, are all u joints the same for all driveshafts on all xj's at all positions or what? Napaonline sells different ones just like rockauto for different positions.

Hope this helps.

 

[5-90]

I am chopping off the output shaft on the t-case and bolting up a slip yoke eliminator, and then using a front driveshaft with the "double cardan" joint I will have a no-vibration setup for my lift once I shim up the rear axle.

So, I will have 2 front driveshafts on my 01 xj.

My question is, are all u joints the same for all driveshafts on all xj's at all positions or what? Napaonline sells different ones just like rockauto for different positions.

Hope this helps.

That part I'm working on. I finally found my Neapco spreadsheet, and I'm digging through it to find out.

 

[jaburk]

You are making this way too complicated,

Dana Spicer 5-153X These have the grease fitting in the body of the cross. My local drivetrain shop sells them for $9.02 each. I just replaced the joints in the front shaft on my 98.

From Tom Woods website:

U joint differences​

Spicer u-joints are the best and worth asking for. Independent testing done by Warn Industries found that as far as sheer breaking strength, the closest competitor was 85 percent of the Spicer and the other brands went down from there.

Outlined here are the most common 1310 series which fit most jeep applications:

5-153X (~$12.00)
Very popular, inexpensive, and long lasting. Grease fitting located in the body of the cross, which lessens its torque capacity. A little looser fit than would be ideal for high speed applications​

5-433-1x (~$25.00)
I consider this to be their best joint. This joint is stronger than the 5-153 for high impact loads. Grease fitting is located in the end of one of the bearing caps and the body of the cross is drilled with a small hole.​

5-625X (~$20)

This is the joint Spicer supplies to OEM and they think it is the best joint they have ever made. This is a non-greaseable joint and we are continually changing these out on relatively new/low mileage vehicles. Most times, the joint haven't worn out, but failed because water entered the joint through the seals and started rusting, which caused a "squeaking noise".​

​

 

[5-90]

You are making this way too complicated ...

Not so much - Neapco is just the closest reference I have to hand, and I had to dig it up. Besides, it's formatted more for my needs at the moment, so it's not sorted to easily answer this sort of question.

 

[dirt machine]

The double cardan U joint for my 01 has shorter rod bearings than the rear DS ujoint for my 89 XJ. This is what got me thinking initially.

However, the latter is aftermarket (bruteforce) while the former is OEM, so I don't know if this is a fair statement.

 

[Yucca-Man]

Oh - and you still missed something, Jim. I think when they went to the newer body style (1997MY,) they lenghtened the transfer case output shaft - which allowed for a reduction in length of the rear driveshaft (a step backwards.)

That change went in the '96 model year. Still had the old body style, but the later rear driveshaft and slipyoke. The nice thing about that was that at least you could remove the shaft if needed and still drive without spewing all of the ATF within the first five feet. Unfortunately, it also became VERY prone to vibrations, necessitating a t-case drop on some factory models later on.

153x is the joint I was thinking of. I believe the only difference between the 269 and 369 pointed out by an earlier post is that one is greasable while the other is not. It's a matter of user preference whether they want to use greasable or non- throughout.

Jim

 

[Ivan]

..... I think when they went to the newer body style (1997MY,) they lenghtened the transfer case output shaft - which allowed for a reduction in length of the rear driveshaft (a step backwards.).....

As mentioned by Jim, the tcase change took place with the '96 model year. However, I believe the output shaft stayed the same length; only the tail cone configuration of the tcase changed. That's when the slip joint moved from slipping inside the tailcone, to the outside; negating the loss of oil when you pull the driveshaft off late model XJ's....

 

[5-90]

I figured they did something screwy - but we'll never know why they didn't just put a fixed yoke on the transfer case instead (I know - money.)

Thanks for clarifying the year for me, tho - I'd thought it was coincident with the new body styling.

 

[Comanchedude]

Can somebody please tell me all of the different u joints on an 01 XJ. Here are the locations:

Rear shaft at axle
Rear shaft at t-case
front shaft at axle
front shaft at CV joint
Front axle

Which ones are the same?

Furthermore, are the driveshaft u-joints the same as on an 89 XJ? I know the front axle U joints are different, but I am specifically concerned about the driveshafts because I have a bunch of spare parts from my 89 which I would like to keep for my 01.

Thanks!

As noted by Jburk the Drive shafts in all locations use the 5-153X

the 260 and 297x posted are for Axle shafts only.

And the rear drive shaft is different than the 89 but you can use the joints if they are good.