What options do I have for keep the tie rod out of the diff at full lock? Im also not the biggest fan of the offset tre, But it was a solution for the moment.
DIY Big Brakes
- Thread starter Shank
- Start date
What options do I have for keep the tie rod out of the diff at full lock? Im also not the biggest fan of the offset tre, But it was a solution for the moment.
Ditching the giganto diff cover I would think would do it. Something like a Currie/Barnett would probably fix the problem there.
Get rid of that stupid diff cover for a start. Go back to a factory style like the Barnett or stock with the Warn lower half shell. Then hammer in the cover where the tie rod makes contact.
Would a stock style diff cover be up to having the hydro assist mounted to it? I've trimmed both rod ends on my cylinder, and still fighting for space.
I know, i'm asking a lot for a factory 44.
Edit* Reviewing more of your steering set ups, I need to reconsider my cylinder mounting location.
Last edited:
Doesn't matter, you should be able to grow a mount right off of the front of the spring perch or right beside it.
B00mb00m
The Church of Cutting Brakes of Atlas-Front Digs
Supporting Member
Ride of the Month Winner
What's the alternative on a 44 that doesn't have the high steer knuckles that allow a straight tie rod / tre because i know you don't like to limit steering angle for something like tie rod to diff cover clearance.
I prefer a full scope build that takes into account all the aspects I deem appropriate. If I mistakenly saddled myself with something I had to solve that problem on, I would build a 4340 heat treated tie rod after dialing in my toe angle so I could run splits and clamps and as close to full thread on the shanks as possible.
Provided there is no other way to solve the problem.
I through some rough numbers/links together to budget. This includes new ball joints, and bearings as well. I figure if its all coming apart I may as well. I can't remember if I did new TRE's but if I didn't I'll switch to the ZJ setup. Hoping to get by without having to do axle seals.
Jackjack97
TJ Enthusiast
I’m looking into doing this, I have recently replaced my 97 TJ hubs and am wondering if you know if those would fit on the 88 XJ knuckles. It seems like all of the bearings and knuckles were interchangeable after 99.5. Maybe @mrblaine knows more.
Pretty sure the 90-99.5 and 99.5-06 bearings should both fit fine on the 80’s knuckles. The 80s did have a different unit bearing part number than 90-99.5 but I can’t figure out a difference besides some minor dimensions. Hell, even Timken refers to the 3 different bearings as Generation 1, 2, & 3. It is interesting that they call the 90-99.5 tapered bearing and the other two ball bearing. Not sure if that might just be a misprint.
Timken 513107
84-89 XJ/87-89 YJ
Timken 513084
90-95 YJ/97-99.5 TJ
Timken HA597449
99.5-06 TJ
Ultimately I think the important part for you will be a rotor that works. The list of parts for DIY BBK appears to use the HA597449 unit bearing which is 99.5-06. If that’s what’s needed to go with the Ranger rotors, then you will need to get the 99.5-06 unit bearings or you will need to shim the calipers outward because the dimensions are different (flange offset referenced in clips above).
Jackjack97
TJ Enthusiast
Wow this is great info thank you, per the original post on Cherokee forum I am going to use a centric rotor from an early 2000s ford sport trac. In the post he talks about the use of washers to space the caliper out and I’m thinking this is where that would come into place. It looks like the flang off set is further out on the 90-99.5 than in the 80s. There is a guy on YouTube named @HeBeGB501who did this DIY on his 86 Cherokee and he used the same sport trac rotos just from motor craft and appeared to have no spacing issues.
From what I understand you are correct with the washers. I have most of the parts to do this, hoping to have it done by fall.
The early unit bearing for pre-90 just has a longer section that goes into the hole, but, that is due to how they seal the back of it which does have a seal that goes around a smooth seal area on the stub shaft. If you measure the face that the stub butts up against, it is roughly the same distance back from the flange as the other two versions. Not exact, but pretty close.
Correct, whatever you would need for the 99.5-06 bearing, you’d need around 1/4” additional for the older bearing. I believe blaine supplies 1/4” caliper spacers for the older bearing when required, whereas he had his knuckles built for the calipers to fit perfectly with 99.5-06. So the different should be around 1/4”.
Good to know. Comparison pictures did show it looking differently (both longer and the seal), so I was wondering about that.
They are around 1/4", actually .220" and I use them to space the caliper saddle outward to work with the early unit bearing. I do not supply them for the two larger kits since those need rotor centering rings which don't register correctly on the very thin rotor pilot on the early UB. Those two kits necessitate a switch to the later bearing if you don't already run them.
Slightly unrelated, but you probably have enough experience with the different types of bearings to answer....have you noticed either model (early or late YJ/TJ) lasting more or less time than the other? Is the later version an "upgrade" to your knowledge, or just different? Of course assuming both are installed with the stub nut torqued properly and running the same tire size and wheel BS. I'm curious if there are any advantages of one over the other at this point that you've noticed.