Search results

Technical writing, no, that's not it specifically. I mean sometimes its part of the job, but I'm a development/application engineer that pretty much specializes in differentials, axles, drive systems. So, I'm more on the design/development side of things. In this case, I happened to get a hold...

No, that would've been the better answer - if they had an exit hole. But they were in blind holes, which seems to be more and more common these days.

In this case, the pins serve double-duty as guides for the casing end cap. After I had removed that (which I was able remove by working split line around the outer diameter with a pry bar), they were sticking out of the diff housing about a 1/2", which was enough to clamp into a vice and twist...

I'm not sure if that's true. I know Dana tried to acquire GKN Driveline, but I thought that deal fell apart? Guess I'm not sure... They're both certainly on my radar. But priority has been to get the M220 done first, since that's used very widely. I'm hoping that the 210 is similar internally...

You'd have to remove the solenoid, as its slightly larger in diameter than the diff body. But as I said, that comes right off (and goes back on again). the only catch is that doing that forces you to remove the bearing on that end, something you normally wouldn't have to do.

This is actually the first thread I've started here. In case anyone is interested, I put together this look at workings of the M220 e-locking differential. I got my hands on a sample part through work for development purposes. I thought it would be interesting to show it in depth, going through...

Running a lift and bigger tires both put more stress on CV joints. They're forced to run at an angle more then they were designed for, there's more inertia from the heavier tires across the axle and the lift forces the CV joint to operate in a more extended position. This also pulls the spline...

I'm pretty sure that is exactly what I said, before making a single typo...

I was talking about the rear - the whole post was with regards to the M220 axle.

Well, I've said as much in other posts and its a small world either way. I'm on here as someone that still has a reservation on a Bronco (though I guess I'm waiting '23s now), not in an official capacity. But if I can help answer questions I will.

Hello, I've been here right along. Small world... :cool:

Clutch type diffs have a not-undeserved bad rap, but a lot of modern ones aren't that bad. Ford switched to using carbon clutch plates about a decade ago, and they are considerably more durable than the older versions. My own anecdotal evidence is that the 85K mile diff in my F-150 is also still...

Great. That'll just put more demand on Bronco and make them harder to get as well... 😁

I think it is a good answer. Just not the best answer. But for a lot of people, its all you need.

I ask because just like with the rears, people are conflating the names of these axle models. Jeep still says Dana 30, 44, etc. But these new axles are not interchangeable with the earlier ones. The M190 / Dana 30 are a lot more similar to each other than the 44 /M220 though. But still have...

Is that for the actual Dana 30, or for the Advantec M186/190 that is often called a Dana 30? Ratcheting lockers are kind of horrible for street use.

TracLoc has long been Dana's trade name for their clutch-type LSD. If the Jeep had a TracLoc, that's what it would be. They would also have brake traction control, as literally just about every car made today has that. At one point, the Rubicon had a lockable LSD in the rear, though I don't...

That's worth noting - I was going to point out that the M/T tires that came on the Rubicon (as I understand) are pretty crappy in the snow, whereas a lot AT tires do OK. But if you eliminated that variable, that helps make a more direct comparison.

Any non-locking differential needs to be able to react against something on both sides in order to work and deliver torque to the ground. The simplest way for me put explain is if there's no reaction, there's no equal and opposite action to allow applying a driving torque. Normally, that...

Numerically smaller ratios are considered "higher" (or "taller") because they will produce a higher vehicle speed at a given engine RPM than numerically larger ratios. You go faster, but at the expense of less gear multiplication when it comes to torque output. Conversely, numerically larger...