ATLAS II with a Dana 30

[Desert Fox]

Good Afternoon,

Anyone running an ATLAS II (3.8:1) transfer case with a Dana 30 front axle? Can it be done?

Fred

[Robert J. Yates]

Look at this;



Answer your question

Seriously, Garry is running a 4.3 behind and auto tranny on 35's. The D30 has been beefed with Warn axles and hubs along with CTM u-joints.

98 TJ Sport
D44ARB/D30Detroit/Teralow/35" MTr's

[mrblaine]

Robert- after certain precarious situations that I put Garry in, he has now gone with the 3.8 gearing in the Atlas. It would seem that the need to generate wheel speed on demand has a tendency to negate the lower crawl ratio.

You are just another ride in the amusement park of my mind.

[William]

Hmmm.. Was the tax man good Fred?

William "Unless you're William" Karstens
AKA
"I'm not Bill"

[Ace!]

Well, here's some second-hand information...

Jeep went with a D44 front axle in the Rubicon because the testers at New Venture Gear kept breaking the stock D30s when developing the 241J with 4:1 ratio. The torque was too hard on the D30, although, I don't know specifically what parts broke each time.

I think depending on the type of 4wheeling you do a D30 can be made to last through quite a bit of abuse. With alloy shafts and indestructable u-joints you have to start to worry about what the next thing to go would be, if anything. The ring and pinion seem pretty small to me, but then again, it also seems the rear axle is doing most of the work, most of the time. I don't think a stock (meaning no alloy shafts, etc.) TJ D30 will last too long with heavy use with a 4:1.

Áron O'Proinntigh is ainm do

[Robert J. Yates]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mrblaine:
Robert- after certain precarious situations that I put Garry in, he has now gone with the 3.8 gearing in the Atlas. [/quote]

My bad, I do remember now that he swapped out the gears. But, he still ran last years ARCA with the 4.3, the Warn hubs and shafts and WITHOUT the CTM u-joints. I think that all of us who run a D30 hard can agree that properly beefed, it is a very stout little axle.

98 TJ Sport
D44ARB/D30Detroit/Teralow/35" MTr's

[Robert J. Yates]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ace!:
Well, here's some second-hand information...

Jeep went with a D44 front axle in the Rubicon because the testers at New Venture Gear kept breaking the stock D30s when developing the 241J with 4:1 ratio. The torque was too hard on the D30, although, I don't know specifically what parts broke each time.

I think depending on the type of 4wheeling you do a D30 can be made to last through quite a bit of abuse. With alloy shafts and _indestructable_ u-joints you have to start to worry about what the next thing to go would be, if anything. The ring and pinion seem pretty small to me, but then again, it also seems the rear axle is doing most of the work, most of the time. I don't think a stock (meaning no alloy shafts, etc.) TJ D30 will last too long with heavy use with a 4:1.

Áron O'Proinntigh is ainm do[/quote]

Maybe the NVG guys don't know how to drive - I ran a 4:1 with the stock axles for over a year without any breakage and that was on 33's as opposed to the Rubicons 31's - it makes me wonder how much they beat on it to make it break.

I personally think that the D44 is in the Rubicon for bragging rights. The u-joints are the same as a D30 and the axle shafts are not that much bigger than whats in a D30 - in fact, in the Warn kit for both the D44 and the D30, its patently obvious that they are machined from the same blanks with the D30 shaft being necked down on the inner to accomodate the smaller spline count. Granted the ring gear for a D44 is larger and the housing is stronger but short of playing like Garry, who has broken a D30 ring gear? You simply do not see much breakage of that sort. Now if I was running tires larger than 35's I might be more worried about it but thats another story. I personally like the strength and the ground clearance that can be achieved with a properly built D30.

98 TJ Sport
D44ARB/D30Detroit/Teralow/35" MTr's

[TJRON]

I was not happy about spending the dough for the Warn kit and axles. Blaine's style of wheeling in JV convinced me it was the only way to go, but after watching Garry wheel, I'm convinced it's the best money I could have spent. Garry puts his machine through more stuff in a few months than I would in a few years. I love running on the road with the hubs out. I'm sure my front drive shaft is no longer perfect. What, me worry? Not when I'm free wheeling down the highway. The only thing I would trade it for is a high pinion D30!
Ro

I like the way my Jeep is now..... I'd just like it, well, a little higher off the ground with more ground clearance!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ace!:
Well, here's some second-hand information...

Jeep went with a D44 front axle in the Rubicon because the testers at New Venture Gear kept breaking the stock D30s when developing the 241J with 4:1 ratio. The torque was too hard on the D30, although, I don't know specifically what parts broke each time.
[/quote]

Yes I would have to agree it's second hand Information.

Lets say you upgrade to a D44 what have you gained? A larger RP which will require larger tyres to clear things. Have you priced 37" Goodyear’s? So in reality with the D44 and large tyres you have lost ground. The weak link has always been the Spicer axles that you have now compromised because of tyre size. Next comes the Warn axles. With that problem solved your 297x u-joints will start to fail. Simple fix, call Axle Jack at CTM for a set of u-joints. After all this would it not have been easier and a whole lot cheaper to put Warn axles and CTM u-joints in your D30?
Garry

[sethmark]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ace!:
Well, here's some second-hand information...

Jeep went with a D44 front axle in the Rubicon because the testers at New Venture Gear kept breaking the stock D30s when developing the 241J with 4:1 ratio. The torque was too hard on the D30, although, I don't know specifically what parts broke each time.

I think depending on the type of 4wheeling you do a D30 can be made to last through quite a bit of abuse. With alloy shafts and _indestructable_ u-joints you have to start to worry about what the next thing to go would be, if anything. The ring and pinion seem pretty small to me, but then again, it also seems the rear axle is doing most of the work, most of the time. I don't think a stock (meaning no alloy shafts, etc.) TJ D30 will last too long with heavy use with a 4:1.

Áron O'Proinntigh is ainm do[/quote]

I think thats bull****. I've had a 4:1 of some sort on my TJ for the last few years and never had any failures. If anything, beinging lower and slower is easier on parts. More control = less banging.

Humpty Dumpty

[Ace!]

Robert, they beat on their Jeeps and parts purposely to make them break. Same as the testing of the 241 they built. The purpose of New Venture's testing was to see what it took to break the 241 Jeep asked them to build. Stock D30 axles and u-joints broke first.

I'm not saying a D30 is a poor choice to build. Actually I'm saying just the opposite. I like to spend my money on stuff that needs to be replaced, not for bragging rights. So for me, and it seems you, and most of the people here, upgraded shafts and u-joints will probably suffice for a LONG time if not indefinitely. I'm just letting those who asked know that when New Venture Gear did testing on their 241 they broke the D30s enough that they specifically told Jeep that if they didn't put a D44 in the front of the Rubicon they'd have warranty claims on stock D30 parts. I know only one person that has destroyed a D30 ring and pinion, behind an Atlas on the trail.

Garry, it's only second-hand because I passed it on, with I think enough info to contact the appropriate person to ask if anyone want. Ask for Zach, Product Manager in charge of Jeep transfer cases at New Venture Gear if you want more clarification. I got the information first-hand, from the person that destroyed a TeraLow and more than one D30.

Seth, are you running stock D30 components, and drive shaft u-joints? If you are you are easier than the testers at NVG. That's all. You're the one that gave all the specs on torque and shafts, right? I completely agree, slower and lower probably breaks fewer parts. What's the torque rating of the parts in a stock D30, and does a TJ with 4:1 have enough torque to break them

Áron O'Proinntigh is ainm dom

[mrblaine]

Nowhere have I seen that the Rubicon front 44 is spec'ed as a High Pinion. I am about 90 percent certain that it is low pinion, otherwise it would be the headline when talking about that model.

Given that assumption, you now have less clearance, and more expense to get the same clearance by running larger tires and you are about the same strength as a HP 30 driven on the correct side.

They would have been much better off running a two year old XJ front. The low pinion 44 is more of a hindrance than anything else, and if I were to buy a Rubicon, I would find some sucker dreaming of Rubicon parts, high ball the front to him and build a HP 30 if I were not going bigger than 35's.

Elsewhere on here is exactly what I would do if going bigger than 35's.

After being chased around by Garry last weekend under conditions that I am more than 99 percent certain that Jeep engineers will never see, I am going to agree with Robert and call it hype also.

You are just another ride in the amusement park of my mind.

[TJRON]

Well, the stock D30 axles and half clip u-joints suck in my opinion. I hardly ever off-road and am super easy on my throttle and I wiped out two axles/u-joints so I would think it easy for a test driver to break them.
My question is why don't they break the Dana 44s? Do they have different u-joints or knuckles?
Ron

I like the way my Jeep is now..... I'd just like it, well, a little higher off the ground with more ground clearance!

[William]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert J. Yates:
Granted the ring gear for a D44 is larger and the housing is stronger but short of playing like Garry, who has broken a D30 ring gear? [/quote]

I believe Sergey did once, right?

I think the D44 front is bragging rights too Robert. Just to say "I've got"...

William "Unless you're William" Karstens
AKA
"I'm not Bill"

[Art Welch]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by William:
Quote: "Originally posted by Robert J. Yates:
Granted the ring gear for a D44 is larger and the housing is stronger but short of playing like Garry, who has broken a D30 ring gear? "

I believe Sergey did once, right?

[/quote]

I know another guy that blew a D30 ring gear as well. At the time time I've blown out a D44 ring/pinion with just 33s on and a buddy of mine with a Bronco has blown a 44 ring gear twice so the 44 is certainly no guarantee either.

[MJR]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mrblaine:
Nowhere have I seen that the Rubicon front 44 is spec'ed as a High Pinion. I am about 90 percent certain that it is low pinion, otherwise it would be the headline when talking about that model.

Given that assumption, you now have less clearance, and more expense to get the same clearance by running larger tires and you are about the same strength as a HP 30 driven on the correct side.

They would have been much better off running a two year old XJ front. The low pinion 44 is more of a hindrance than anything else, and if I were to buy a Rubicon, I would find some sucker dreaming of Rubicon parts, high ball the front to him and build a HP 30 if I were not going bigger than 35's.

Elsewhere on here is exactly what I would do if going bigger than 35's.

After being chased around by Garry last weekend under conditions that I am more than 99 percent certain that Jeep engineers will never see, I am going to agree with Robert and call it hype also.

_You are just another ride in the amusement park of my mind._[/quote]


I agree the information to date in the Jeep magazine for owners states Standard Rotation Axles. I also believe the front 44 is there because they may have listened to owners say they would like a front 44 more than for real use. A warranty claim on a 30 or 44 front would be declined at the dealer if there was evidence of abuse anyway so I do not think warranty claims would have driven the use of a 44 front axle. For all I know it could have been a stupid reason like being better or nessary for the new air locker design. Maybe just cheaper to make one air locker design/application only.

The new T-case is called the NVG2410R not the NVG241 which is used in the full size Ram trucks.

"Anybody can and will break anything"

Got Groceries ?

[MJR]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert J. Yates:
Look at this;



[/quote]

I don't think there is a straight piece of sheetmetal on that thing anymore.

Got Groceries ?

[TJRON]

A Dana 44 is a great selling point and it probably doesn't cost squat over the price of a Dana 30. I'd take a D44 over a D30 if I was buying a new Jeep. Also a Dana 44 in the rear is probably not much higher cost for DM than a D35. Why not, says I?
Ron

I like the way my Jeep is now..... I'd just like it, well, a little higher off the ground with more ground clearance!

[Ace!]

Actually MJR, the 241 is a generic "model" and has a different "designation" depending on what vehicle it's used. The TJ 241 has more than one designation depending on who you talk to. It's technically a 241J or 241TJ when it leaves NVG for Jeep. The 241D is used in Dodge vehicles. If you just say 241, it's not specific to any vehicle, it's generic for the "model". Just like the 231...in a Jeep it's 231J (and more specifically 231KJ or 231TJ, which are both different).

Jeep is calling it a 241OR. The Rubicon was originally called the Off Road Edition, hence the OR label applied to the t-case. At NVG it's a 241J or 241TJ. I used 241 because I figured everyone would understand what I was talking about...just like I never see people say 231J on Jeep boards (it's understood)

Áron O'Proinntigh is ainm do

[MJR]

I'm just going by my factory label provided by DaimlerChrysler for the service/tech information on the identification. Yup OR sorry.
So you are saying it is a modified 241 ?. We do not (I think yet) have anything technical yet on this new T-case but I will look further tomorrow.
Until the Rubicon only Dodge (among DCX products) has used the 241. Dodge also uses the 231HD but Jeep doesn't.
Attached is a link from New Venture Gear and as of now the only T-case listed with a model specific designation is the 242AMG but I think what you say is on the T-case tag (I will look tomorrow). Sorry for the jumble. Here is a link for the table. http://www.nvg.com/tcases.html


Transfer Case Specifications Chart
Transfer Case Model No. Max. Capacity Torque (Current Application) Weight lb. Weight kg. Oil Fill Capacity pints Oil Fill Capacity Liters Approx. Vehicle Weights
lb.-ft. N-m GVW lb. GVW kg.
Active On Demand NV 126 1590 2156 67 30 4 1.9 5300 2404
Active On Demand NV 136 1590 2156 70 32 4.2 2.0 6000 2721
Active On Demand NV 226* 2299 3117 78 35 4 1.9 5300 2404
Active On Demand NV 236 2299 3117 84 38 5.1 2.0 8600 3900
Active On Demand NV 246* 2281 3093 86 39 5.1 1.9 8600 3900
Part Time NV 231* 1885 2556 65 29 2.5 1.1 5920 2691
Part Time NV 231HD 1940 2631 72 33 2.5 1.1 6400 2909
Part Time (Electric Shift) NV 233 1591 2157 74 34 2.5 1.1 5300 2409
Part Time NV 241* 5555 7533 80 36 5 2.3 8800 4000
Part Time NV 241HD* 5555 7533 100 45 6.5 3.1 11000 5000
Part Time (Electric Shift) NV 243 1785 2420 84 38 4.9 2.3 10000 4545
Part Time NV 261* 2564 3477 69 31 5.1 2.4 7200 3300
Part Time NV 261HD* 5430 7362 77 35 5.1 2.4 10000 4500
Part Time NV 261SHD* 5677 7697 78 35 5.1 2.4 12000 5500
Part Time (Electric Shift) NV 263HD* 5430 7362 81 37 4 1.9 10000 4536
Part Time (Electric Shift) NV 263SHD* 5677 7697 84 38 4 1.9 12000 5443
Part Time NV 271** 7890 10700 120 54 4 1.9 17500 8000
Part Time (Electric Shift) NV 273** 7890 10700 123 56 4 1.9 17500 8000
Full Time Plus Part Time NV 242 1486 2015 86 39 2.85 1.3 5500 2500
Full Time Plus Part Time NV 242HD 2028 2750 90 41 6.5 3.1 6400 2909
Full Time Plus Part Time NV 242HD AMG 2340 3173 90 40 5 2.35 11500 5227
Progressive On Demand NV 247 1800 2442 83 37 2.5 1.1 6000 3000
Full Time NV 124 3482 4721 42 19 1.54 0.7 5336 2420
Full Time NV 125 3482 4721 51 23 1.54 0.7 5512 2500
Full Time NV 149AWD 2203 2987 80 36 4 1.9 6800 3084
Full Time NV 249 1800 2442 98 44 2.5 1.1 6000 2700
On Demand NV 249OD 2030 2754 84 38 2.5 1.1 6000 2700

* Based on manual transmission and gasoline engine (2.2 load factor).
** Based on manual transmission and diesel engine (2.5 load factor).

Got Groceries ?

[This message was edited by MJR on February 21, 2002 at 11:22 PM.]

[Robert J. Yates]

I know all about testing stuff until it breaks but that wasn't what I was refering to. Anybody can make anything break - how you engineer your way out of it is what counts and frankly, I don't think a low pinion D44 is a very elegant engineering solution.

Basically, I think the Rubicon while having a nice drivetrain, is a big step backwards and is for bragging rights in the magazines only. Lets face it, the stock suspension will not stand up to the durability of the drivetrain so the first thing you will need to do is add a lift. I went through 3 sets of stock arms running only moderate trails before I went to more durable aftermarket arms.

And more to the point, you also need to add a lift in order to reduce the penalty of the really shi!!y ground clearance that the Jeep engineers so convienently provided to Rubicon owners. Not only is the D44 bigger than the 30 (thus reducing clearance) it also puts the pinion and your driveshaft that much closer into the rocks - gee thanx Jeep.

As for ring gears on the D30 - look at the score here on this board - 2 D30 ring gears and 2 D44 ring gears. I would call that a wash considering how much difficult wheeling is done by the group inhabiting this board.

98 TJ Sport
D44ARB/D30Detroit/Teralow/35" MTr's

[Ace!]

Yes, it's a "modified" 241 (the t-cases are somewhat modified depending in what vehicle they are used). For instance, the Dodge 241D uses a slip-yoke (if I remember correctly) and has a 2.72:1 ratio. The 241TJ or "OR" will have a fixed yoke and have a 4:1 ratio. The listing on the the NVG site shows the models without the vehicle designations (TJ/KJ/D/DHD/etc.) because they are slightly different between models. Like the 242, it's different between XJ, KJ and Grand (depending on what engine, whether it's the V8), and there is also an AMG version.

Another example is the 231, which is .5" different in length depending on whether it's in a TJ or a KJ, so there are different designations: 231TJ or 231KJ at NVG

Áron O'Proinntigh is ainm dom

[Ace!]

I agree Robert, there are better ways to engineer an off road vehicle, but I'm not sure how different I'd make it from the Rubicon if I wanted to sell it to a mass market, with plenty of those people interested in bragging rights instead of what works on the trail.

The lift thing being a "have to" change based on crappy clearance of the diffs though? Don't you have to anyway, regardless of what drive train you have? If you swapped axles in your Jeep, to something with more clearance, could you do the Hammers a lot easier on 33" tires? Would you not have wanted 35" tires? Aren't there plenty of other things besides hitting the diffs? Why do people want the D44 instead of the D35 if you can put shafts that are stronger than stock D44 shafts in it and have better clearance with the D35? It's the same way of handling the D30 and swapping in alloy shafts, isn't it? Also, if you're willing to put in alloy shafts and indestructable u-joints anyway (since some people are going that route here) why not do that with the D44 and then what becomes the weakest link? Is it the r&p of both the D30 and D44, or is it something else? And the two D30 and two D44 ring gears breaking...doesn't the rear axle usually do more of the work off road? Had the front axles been D44s, maybe those two front axle ring gears wouldn't have broken.

There is always a weakest link in a stock vehicle. That's why we mod what we buy. The stock suspension being a weak link is something that would have to go anyway, so I don't care if it would hold up to my use. Obviously a stock D30 won't hold up to most people's use, or the Warn kit wouldn't be so popular. Some people that buy the Rubicon will buy it for bragging rights, not for wheeling. Then they'll sell it when there is something "better", or they're bored.

I was told specifically by the product engineer that broke more than one D30 the reason behind the Rubicon having a D44. They broke D30s (like I said in the beginning I don't know specifically what parts) in testing because it was a weak link, so they asked Jeep to upgrade the front axle to a D44 in hopes to keep warranty claims to a minimum. I've known the guy for quite a while and believe him. Doesn't mean anyone else has to though. No one believed me when I started talking about what became the Rubicon a year or two either

I'm still hoping they come out with a "Rockcrawler Edition" with a high clearance D30/D35 combo, no lift needed, just alloy shafts front and rear!

Edit: BTW, I should say I have nothing invested in what they use, and therefore don't see this as an argument as to what is right and wrong between any of us, just a friendly exchange. I'll probably end up with D44s front (RC) and rear (standard cut) with 33-spline shafts...so what, right?

Áron O'Proinntigh is ainm do

[This message was edited by Ace! on February 22, 2002 at 09:48 AM.]

[Stu Olson]

I don't have a dog in this fight at all, but wanted to make a simple statement about breaking stuff, warrantee issues, etc.

On one hand, there is a person (an engineer for instance) who preceives a component to be a weak link and thus makes the company liable for more warrantee claims because of it.

On the other hand, there is a completely different group of people who are counting beans (soy more than likely!) and analyzing the target market segment. What they perceive that component should or should not be could be completely different than the engineer, and most likely for a radically different set of reasons.

And last but not least, there is some group in the company who is looking at the actual issue of warrantee claims and can decide that if there is a scrape on the housing, it has been abused and thus, no claim allowed.

My point is that even though a company person states a change was made for reason A or B, it may ultimately have no bearing what so ever as to why the company actually did what they did. IMO, companies with thousands of employees and hundreds of division/departments often times have zero cross-department communcations on what you and I would believe to be an extremely important phase of a project. (been there, done that....it's the truth!)

The ONLY cabana boy in this community who has won a raffle!
http://www.stu-offroad.com

[Ace!]

Agreed Stu (been there too).

Áron O'Proinntigh is ainm dom

[Robert J. Yates]

Stu,
Your comments are spot on and probably thats why the Rubicon ended up as a smattering of stuff rather than a dedicated trail ready Jeep.

Aron, thats really my point, they could have put a HP Reverse cut 30 in there just as easily but went for perceived brute strength instead which results in compromises. The HP D30 to me is way more elegant as you get the same strength without any ground clearance penalty plus an added benefit of the DS being up higher out of the rocks....... and all of this goes back to the original point of this whole thread - that the 30 (HP or even in my case, LP) will live quite nicely behind and Atlas or any 4:1 and in extreme wheeling environments There is a ton of "real world" engineering and trail experience on this board that says so.

No personal affront taken on this exchange - opinions are meant to be shared here.

98 TJ Sport
D44ARB/D30Detroit/Teralow/35" MTr's

[MJR]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ace!:
Yes, it's a "modified" 241 (the t-cases are somewhat modified depending in what vehicle they are used). For instance, the Dodge 241_D_ uses a slip-yoke (if I remember correctly) and has a 2.72:1 ratio. The 241TJ or "OR" will have a fixed yoke and have a 4:1 ratio. The listing on the the NVG site shows the models without the vehicle designations (TJ/KJ/D/DHD/etc.) because they are slightly different between models. Like the 242, it's different between XJ, KJ and Grand (depending on what engine, whether it's the V8), and there is also an AMG version.

Another example is the 231, which is .5" different in length depending on whether it's in a TJ or a KJ, so there are different designations: 231TJ or 231KJ at NVG

Áron O'Proinntigh is ainm dom[/quote]

In these cases we just go by assembly part # for correct parts. You forgot the 242HD.

Got Groceries ?