JLU Sport - Axle tube thickness

Smirty

New member
I am having a hard time finding any info on the wall thickness or relative strength of the JL Sport or Sahara as compared to the JK. Everything I see is related to the Rubicon but for us that have the Sport of Sahara models, what are our options for tire size without bending the axles. The JK had known problems and all were addressed with sleeves or trusses and other weld on gussets. With the new axles for the Sport and Sahara, is there any info on wall thickness or over-all strength?

FWIW - I want to run 37's on a Sport S and was hoping to find more info with this configuration. Every response I see is just buy a Rubicon...great response but not what I am looking for as I am on a beer budget.:beer:
 

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
I am having a hard time finding any info on the wall thickness or relative strength of the JL Sport or Sahara as compared to the JK. Everything I see is related to the Rubicon but for us that have the Sport of Sahara models, what are our options for tire size without bending the axles. The JK had known problems and all were addressed with sleeves or trusses and other weld on gussets. With the new axles for the Sport and Sahara, is there any info on wall thickness or over-all strength?

FWIW - I want to run 37's on a Sport S and was hoping to find more info with this configuration. Every response I see is just buy a Rubicon...great response but not what I am looking for as I am on a beer budget.:beer:

First off, sleeves seemed like a good idea 10 years ago but time and experience has shown me that they really did a whole lot of nothing. Over the years, I've seen seen a ton of bent and broken axles that all had sleeves. Same goes for trusses and in a lot of cases, I've seen plenty that were incorrectly installed and actually CAUSED bending of the axle.

With all that said, I don't know if there is any real information regarding wall thickness of the M186 being that it's still so new. That being said, the diameter of it is bigger than older JK Dana 30 and of course, the end forgings are definitely beefier and the same could be said about the brackets. Overall, it does seem like it'll do a better job of holding up but time more than anything will tell for sure. For me, I seriously doubt my Rubicon M210 will hold up to my 37's long term.
 

13_gecko_rubi

New member
I am having a hard time finding any info on the wall thickness or relative strength of the JL Sport or Sahara as compared to the JK. Everything I see is related to the Rubicon but for us that have the Sport of Sahara models, what are our options for tire size without bending the axles. The JK had known problems and all were addressed with sleeves or trusses and other weld on gussets. With the new axles for the Sport and Sahara, is there any info on wall thickness or over-all strength?

FWIW - I want to run 37's on a Sport S and was hoping to find more info with this configuration. Every response I see is just buy a Rubicon...great response but not what I am looking for as I am on a beer budget.[emoji481]
The tubes are roughly 2.75" vs 2.5" on JK. The wall thickness is also up a tad. Both make it stronger. The inner Cs are much bigger amd thicker. Dana told me this weekend you can actually fit 1410 joints in them so let's see what aftermarket does there.

Sent via....
 

doubletapdaddy

Caught the Bug
The tubes are roughly 2.75" vs 2.5" on JK. The wall thickness is also up a tad. Both make it stronger. The inner Cs are much bigger amd thicker. Dana told me this weekend you can actually fit 1410 joints in them so let's see what aftermarket does there.

Sent via....

Interesting. As usual, thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge regarding the JLs.
 

Last edited:

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
The tubes are roughly 2.75" vs 2.5" on JK. The wall thickness is also up a tad. Both make it stronger. The inner Cs are much bigger amd thicker. Dana told me this weekend you can actually fit 1410 joints in them so let's see what aftermarket does there.

Sent via....

1410's?? :eek:

Very cool - thanks for the inside scoop :thumb:
 

Smirty

New member
Given the increased size and possibilities of larger u-joints, the aftermarket will certainly have more creative options. The CAD seems to me seems to be the only limiting factor for shaft upgrades assuming you don't want to bypass it altogether and deal with the transfer case synchro issues.

I agree that time will tell on the durability of components but its been more than half a year and plenty of people wheeling the JL and I haven't read anything about stuff breaking. You'd think people would be wheeling these things hard by this point and report back some found weaknesses. Maybe its just the calm before the storm.
 

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
Given the increased size and possibilities of larger u-joints, the aftermarket will certainly have more creative options. The CAD seems to me seems to be the only limiting factor for shaft upgrades assuming you don't want to bypass it altogether and deal with the transfer case synchro issues.

I agree that time will tell on the durability of components but its been more than half a year and plenty of people wheeling the JL and I haven't read anything about stuff breaking. You'd think people would be wheeling these things hard by this point and report back some found weaknesses. Maybe its just the calm before the storm.

Yeah, I broke my first factory locker by about this time 11 years ago but it took a little over a year to break an axle. Took about a year before most people were seeing significant bending of the axles. Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping these new axles will hold up better than the JK 44's but I'm not holding my breath.
 

13_gecko_rubi

New member
Given the increased size and possibilities of larger u-joints, the aftermarket will certainly have more creative options. The CAD seems to me seems to be the only limiting factor for shaft upgrades assuming you don't want to bypass it altogether and deal with the transfer case synchro issues.

I agree that time will tell on the durability of components but its been more than half a year and plenty of people wheeling the JL and I haven't read anything about stuff breaking. You'd think people would be wheeling these things hard by this point and report back some found weaknesses. Maybe its just the calm before the storm.
I don't think the FAD will be a limiting factor. I bet other folks do something similar what Dana is doing for their elimination kit. Basically pull out the motor, put in a fixed collar with a cover that holds it in place and replace shafts. Having seen the FAD interface that's not a weak point. Just need to see how the motors hold up. Hasn't been an issue on RAM so not expecting it to be on JL either but time will tell.

As for the synchro so far the majority of folks I know who have done axle swaps haven't had to do it. It's working as is. So many variables it will vary Jeep to Jeep. Won't really know til more people start swapping axles or removing FAD. It won't be easy to do a one piece shaft so we'll see what people come up with. I love waiting for all the new invention. I bet we see companies that never existed just pop up. So much money to be made it attracts new people.

Sent via....
 

RMC2

Member
Since I haven’t seen it yet, what is the wall thickness and tube size on the Rubicon axles?
 

silverbullet88

New member
Since I haven’t seen it yet, what is the wall thickness and tube size on the Rubicon axles?

I would guess it is the same. The part numbers for the Unit bearings, knuckles, ball-joints and U-joints (both being 1350) are the same for the m186 and m210. I was considering buying a JL Rubicon crate axle so I did a bunch of calling and research. Crate axle is a decent price and I would re-use my bearings/ knuckles. Axle housing itself comes with locker, 4,10's and shafts.

I know both the rubicon and sport have dual piston calipers but the rubicon has bigger rotors and bigger calipers? So not sure how that would work.
 

Last edited:
Top