Another Broken Axle / CV Joint

[Bronco cat]

I don't think I have seen anything larger than the BD 32s offered. What comes stock with 33s? (Ranger Tremor and FX$ also only come with 32s). My Badlands has 33's stock, but also has the 210 axle (Dana 44 equivalent). Same story with Jeep from what I remember. It has been gone over a lot, just because a 33" tire "fits" doesn't mean it won't have some compromises, including durability. I had an 06 LJ, super simple, professional 2" lift and 33" KO3s. By 60K the steering and knuckles were toast. Adding a lift just multiplies the weakness. All that being said, this situation could be as simple as a bad half shaft from the factory.

The BL does. I drive one at the off rodeo. It was the only vehicle that wasn’t a sas and it did very well.

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/thre...r-height-width-bolt-pattern-center-bore.1674/

Sponsored

 

[Mattwings]

The BL does. I drive one at the off rodeo. It was the only vehicle that wasn’t a sas and it did very well.

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/thre...r-height-width-bolt-pattern-center-bore.1674/

Stock Badlands is the 210 Axle, not 190. Mine is sitting in the garage right now.

I have not seen 33" tires or front locker on the lighter axle from Ford or any other manufacturer. Jeep Rubicon is the same. Exception (not sure on the 21/22 spec) Willy's sport-Maybe you can get the 33" but no front locker?

 

[Jr87mustang]

Honestly not picking a fight here. But, a "proper lift" like a "Fox/King/Billstien coil over" looks no different to the CV angle than a "$50 Rough Country lift" or a stack of washers for that matter. The lifts you recommend will increase the CV angle - Period.

Lowering the differential can help control the CV angle on these lifts, but is also controversial in this community.

A spring preload can limit the amount of droop, at the expense of limiting travel, but this is no different than putting on a strap to limit the droop on a spacer lift. These will both limit the maximum droop, which will limit the maximum CV angle, but the CV angle is still increased at all times due to the lift imparted.

Control arm geometry does not impact the CV angle either. And, it is well documented that the stock upper control arm is quite capable of handling a 2 inch lift (with corresponding adjustment of the LCA).

No lift is more "proper". There is just the understanding and expectation of the end user.

I totally get what you are saying, and you are right. I was trying to over simplify my point and didn't include all parts of lifting a vehicle. My main point was people with a non-Sasquatch Bronco can't just put on a RC lift and 35"-37" tires and not expect things to break and be covered under warranty. If your starting from a non-Sas a proper lift is going to cost way more than just getting it from the factory.

 

[Rkgzx9leftcoast]

With any lift or spacers, you have to full droop front end, each side, while trying to turn axle shafts. You can raise with jack until spins free....this will tell you if they are binding. Can turn with screwdriver in rotor. Also disconnect sway bar if that's how you are going to drive it off road. Many times at the bottom after lift they will bind, you can add aftermarket limit straps, pain in tha ass. But with CV joints geometry is crucial. Not saying that's what happened here, but CV axles are a weak point if not addressed

 

[rainman23]

IFS rookie. To do it right and gain some lift/articulation, how do you keep the CVs happy? What’s the solution to be able to lift and still drive it off road ?

 

[Spooled]

Stock Badlands is the 210 Axle, not 190. Mine is sitting in the garage right now.

I have not seen 33" tires or front locker on the lighter axle from Ford or any other manufacturer. Jeep Rubicon is the same. Exception (not sure on the 21/22 spec) Willy's sport-Maybe you can get the 33" but no front locker?

ZR2 uses an M200 front diff. That's the smallest currently out there I'm pretty sure. Mine has been flawless, but there are a few people who have broke front axles with 33's and bigger. I'm sure that's why they come factory with 31's.

 

[Mattwings]

ZR2 uses an M200 front diff. That's the smallest currently out there I'm pretty sure. Mine has been flawless, but there are a few people who have broke front axles with 33's and bigger. I'm sure that's why they come factory with 31's.

I am sure each application and set up is easier or harder on certain parts. I was super light on my 06 LJ, 2" lift and KO3 33" MT (stock 3.73 gears, factory rear LS). Very light off-roading and at 60k miles, it was really heavily worn. It needed tie rod ends and ball joints. I am sure a D44 axle with the same lift and tires would have tolerated the set up better, but the 30 "worked". If I went off road in that as hard as I have in my Bronco, it wouldn't have lasted nearly as long. I would expect upgrades pretty quick for those lifting and or going bigger than 33" tires. I am curious to hear from the OP on the problem, solution and warranty outcome. Good info for the group!

 

[Bybotie]

Not to thread jack, but Spicer still hasn't released their Bronco half shafts.
I will be doing those after they get released.

G-Force is an option. You will have to call them as they seem to update their website annually.

 

[vrtical]

IFS rookie. To do it right and gain some lift/articulation, how do you keep the CVs happy? What’s the solution to be able to lift and still drive it off road ?

there is no cheap solution (the real solution involves moving the centerline down or hard core portals, best is sasquatch package from the factory and even then it needs upgrades, but at least that shouldn't kill the warranty if you care specially if its Ford Performance Parts.

 

[GreyZ]

there is no cheap solution (the real solution involves moving the centerline down or hard core portals, best is sasquatch package from the factory and even then it needs upgrades, but at least that shouldn't kill the warranty if you care specially if its Ford Performance Parts.

Why do you say this? With a small spring puck spacer to equal the lift of the sasquatch, everything would be identical geometry wise. Same control arm geometry, same axle shafts, same tie rod, same lengths, same angles, same droop.

The front axle internals would be weaker, but outside of that and the gear ratios, your geometries would be identical and I do not see how it would be any more stressful than the SAS.

 

[mike8675309]

Make sure you get the old parts they take out if you are going to have to fight them. Failure mode on shafts like that are typically very obvious. i.e. problems with the heat treatment, problems with stress fractures, or over-torque are all typically apparent in an axle shaft.

Axle shafts are typically very strong and regardless of any geometry change (axles are not a suspension part), a CV joint supports huge angles that you wouldn't expect. What they tend not to like is shock loads due to the momentary high shock stress that they can experience. You see CV failures related to that in the old Mustang IRS suspension when wheel hop would shock the axles and snap them off at the wheel, and sometimes the diff.

 

[Silver-Bolt]

Why do you say this? With a small spring puck spacer to equal the lift of the sasquatch, everything would be identical geometry wise. Same control arm geometry, same axle shafts, same tie rod, same lengths, same angles, same droop.

The front axle internals would be weaker, but outside of that and the gear ratios, your geometries would be identical and I do not see how it would be any more stressful than the SAS.

That would be true assuming that the Uprights/knuckle, axles, CV's, control arms, etc are all the same between SAS and non-SAS. Do we know for sure that all those parts are the same?

 

[indio22]

Why do you say this? With a small spring puck spacer to equal the lift of the sasquatch, everything would be identical geometry wise. Same control arm geometry, same axle shafts, same tie rod, same lengths, same angles, same droop.

The front axle internals would be weaker, but outside of that and the gear ratios, your geometries would be identical and I do not see how it would be any more stressful than the SAS.

Agreed. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), is the Sasquatch package uses the same A-arms and attachment points, as the non Sas. So unless the Sas front diff is lower, the angle on the axle shafts/CVs would be same between Sas and non-Sas. And therefore a 1 inch or so "puck" lift, would be essentially the same as 1 inch higher Sas springs.

Ultimately, if the non-Sas Bronco is breaking stuff on pavement with a mild lift and some larger tires, that is not a good sign for the vehicle strength. Maybe something else occurred earlier to the OP's vehicle, and it finally let loose on the driveway?

 

[Mattwings]

Make sure you get the old parts they take out if you are going to have to fight them. Failure mode on shafts like that are typically very obvious. i.e. problems with the heat treatment, problems with stress fractures, or over-torque are all typically apparent in an axle shaft.

Axle shafts are typically very strong and regardless of any geometry change (axles are not a suspension part), a CV joint supports huge angles that you wouldn't expect. What they tend not to like is shock loads due to the momentary high shock stress that they can experience. You see CV failures related to that in the old Mustang IRS suspension when wheel hop would shock the axles and snap them off at the wheel, and sometimes the diff.

That's probably the most useful advice so far for the OP!

 

[Garemlin]

That would be true assuming that the Uprights/knuckle, axles, CV's, control arms, etc are all the same between SAS and non-SAS. Do we know for sure that all those parts are the same?

That question has remained unanswered. How much of the Sasquatch suspension is shared with the rest of the line and how much is exclusive to it. Are there things on the Sasquatch suspension and drivetrain that compensate for the change in geometry angles with the added height.

Sponsored