Daily Driver, Go Where I Want To Build

Whenever you get to the point of damaging the rear tub corners or you know you are going to, get corners right away. I didn't do that.

20210720_224609.jpg


All the spot welds on the rear body mount torque boxes broke and the rear gate would not close without a lot of pulling and shoving. Both sides were like this. This meant that the only thing holding the rear body corners in place was the factory cage and some seam sealer.

Welding isn't a good option. The body sheet metal is galvanized and getting the layers to close up again is not at all easy. Following Blaine's suggestion, I used 1/4" stainless pop rivets with a 3/16" grip. Once the broken spot welds are lined up and the body clamped to the torque box, the rivets will pull the layers together. Stainless rivets will pull more tightly than steel or aluminum. Start in a corner and drill and rivet one broken spot weld at a time until you get to the opposite side.

It's ugly, but this is the end result. Be dazzled!
20210724_172453.jpg

20210724_185050.jpg

20210724_202504.jpg


Corners will happen soon and will cover this mess. The rivet heads shouldn't interfere and I'll remove the ones that do.

The reason corners matter here is because they use nutserts through the torque boxes to attach everything together. In my case, the plan is to add an additional tramp stamp plate under the gate that extends out to the corners. I'll add several more nutserts across the face to structurally tie the entire rear body together.
 
Last edited:
As much as I love the look of a stubby, tight bumper, this is a solid argument for a full coverage model... (though I'll probably end up with one very much like yours, anyway).
 
As much as I love the look of a stubby, tight bumper, this is a solid argument for a full coverage model... (though I'll probably end up with one very much like yours, anyway).
It's all a matter of what you want from the Jeep. My old bumper protected the corners pretty well, but it got in the way a lot.
 
TW sales did mention to me on last phone call they are having issue getting parts for the DC shafts. or at least getting the amount of parts they usually keep on hand.
i'd imagine it's more widespread than just them.

what's in the shaft currently?
Denny's driveshaft suggests that you should not switch from a grease-able to a non if the shaft was made that way.

View attachment 264725
I rebuilt the shaft with a greasable centering yoke as recommended by Denny. Though I did end up with a non-greasable 1330 centering yoke. Here are the two styles for comparison.
20210801_102247.jpg


The only two differences I could find are the seal on the ball and the deeper machining where the grease port would be. All other dimensions appear to be identical, including the depth of the hole in the ball.

So, right now without trying to assemble a non-greasable yoke on a geasable shaft, I don't see why we can't mix and match.
 
Isn't the other end, the side with the pin different? IIRC the grease able version is just open whereas the sealed version has a larger cylindrical rubber dust boot that covers the ball and seal. Without cutting the boot off I wouldn't imagine the grease able centering yoke would play well with a sealed pin end, but the other way around might work, though who knows how much longevity the dust boot adds.
 
I rebuilt the shaft with a greasable centering yoke as recommended by Denny. Though I did end up with a non-greasable 1330 centering yoke. Here are the two styles for comparison.
View attachment 268594

The only two differences I could find are the seal on the ball and the deeper machining where the grease port would be. All other dimensions appear to be identical, including the depth of the hole in the ball.

So, right now without trying to assemble a non-greasable yoke on a geasable shaft, I don't see why we can't mix and match.
i know i've seen a few threads lately about rebuilding these joints, this prompted me to read some, and i found that. not really sure if that's a Denny's parts thing or an across the board thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjvw
Isn't the other end, the side with the pin different? IIRC the grease able version is just open whereas the sealed version has a larger cylindrical rubber dust boot that covers the ball and seal. Without cutting the boot off I wouldn't imagine the grease able centering yoke would play well with a sealed pin end, but the other way around might work, though who knows how much longevity the dust boot adds.
I imagine the rubber boot would fit right over the non greasable yoke just fine. Look again.
 
What would be different about the pin side?
If you switch from grease able to non grease able you probably won't have the dust boot. Not sure if anything else is different on the pin end or how much the dust boot matters

If you switch from non grease able to grease able it either won't fit with the boot or you'll tear up the grease seal and the dust boot.
 
If you switch from grease able to non grease able you probably won't have the dust boot. Not sure if anything else is different on the pin end or how much the dust boot matters

If you switch from non grease able to grease able it either won't fit with the boot or you'll tear up the grease seal and the dust boot.
Maybe, but I'm highly suspicious of that. Either way, that isn't the reason Denny gives for why a greasable shaft can't be rebuilt as a non-greasable. If I'm reading it correctly, they refer to an incompatible fitment issue where the "greasable" pin can't be assembled to a non-greasable centering yoke.