Dodge gen 2 front axle

Mike_H

Mike_H

autos are better - WRWD508
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
11,721
Location
Grand Rapids, MI, United States
Something came across my Facebook marketplace feed the other day and been worming into my brain. I can't get it out, so I thought I'd see if anyone here has information. Gen 2 Dodge Rams used a Dana 44 front axle in the 1500 and gasser 2500. It's a driver drop, 4 link axle with CAD. Beyond that, I can't really find out any more information about it.

I'm curious about the tube diameter and wall, WMS to WMS distance, are the ball joints heavier, etc.

My thought is that it might be a decent way to get a real 44 under the front of a Wrangler (heavier tubes, bigger ball joints, knuckles, brakes) Plus, with the CAD and a cable actuation system (instead of the troublesome vacuum actuator) it's another alternative to a locking hub kit.

There is one for sale near me, almost cheap enough to buy "for science."

The thing that intrigues me is is that I should be able to run my factory locker in that axle and maybe gain some strength in the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedom_in_4low
All Gen 2 axles - 1/2 or 1-ton - are generally big piles of steaming dog $hit...
  1. Tubes are of average thickness (I can't recall off the top of my head) but the CAD section is known for cracking and splitting at the bottom tube-to-CAD interface (note that the Dana 60 Gen 2 is thicker, and not as prone to cracking).
  2. Unit bearings are barely better than the TJ Dana 30.
  3. Brakes suck donkey d*($.
  4. WMS width is also 72"
There is no reason to use a Gen 2 axle in anything TJ related, with the exception of "I just wanted to be really different".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike_H and imahnu
pc1p said:
All Gen 2 axles - 1/2 or 1-ton - are generally big piles of steaming dog $hit...
  1. Tubes are of average thickness (I can't recall off the top of my head) but the CAD section is known for cracking and splitting at the bottom tube-to-CAD interface.
  2. Unit bearings are barely better than the TJ Dana 30.
  3. Brakes suck donkey d*($.
  4. WMS width is also 72"
There is no reason to use a Gen 2 axle in anything TJ related, with the exception of "I just wanted to be really different".
Click to expand...
The only thing I recall being good is the diff cover is thicker, but I may be completely wrong on that since I haven't read anything about it in a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1p
jesseshoots said:
The only thing I recall being good is the diff cover is thicker, but I may be completely wrong on that since I haven't read anything about it in a while.
Click to expand...
This is accurate - Dodge has used thicker covers on their Dana 44's since ~1990.
 
pc1p said:
All Gen 2 axles - 1/2 or 1-ton - are generally big piles of steaming dog $hit...
  1. Tubes are of average thickness (I can't recall off the top of my head) but the CAD section is known for cracking and splitting at the bottom tube-to-CAD interface (note that the Dana 60 Gen 2 is thicker, and not as prone to cracking).
  2. Unit bearings are barely better than the TJ Dana 30.
  3. Brakes suck donkey d*($.
  4. WMS width is also 72"
There is no reason to use a Gen 2 axle in anything TJ related, with the exception of "I just wanted to be really different".
Click to expand...
Well. that explains why the guy is sitting on a Dana 44 for less than 150 bucks and can't move it then! I figured it would be something like that, but couldn't find any information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1p
pc1p said:
All Gen 2 axles - 1/2 or 1-ton - are generally big piles of steaming dog $hit...
  1. Tubes are of average thickness (I can't recall off the top of my head) but the CAD section is known for cracking and splitting at the bottom tube-to-CAD interface (note that the Dana 60 Gen 2 is thicker, and not as prone to cracking).
  2. Unit bearings are barely better than the TJ Dana 30.
  3. Brakes suck donkey d*($.
  4. WMS width is also 72"
There is no reason to use a Gen 2 axle in anything TJ related, with the exception of "I just wanted to be really different".
Click to expand...

I'm not looking for reasons to make the swap but could #1, #2, and #3 be problems because the truck is fairly heavier than a TJ and/or just driven by people that beat the crap out of the whole truck because they're trying to get the job done ASAP?

Would the Dana 60 from the Gen 2 be worth the swap?
 
JEEPCJTJ said:
I'm not looking for reasons to make the swap but could #1, #2, and #3 be problems because the truck is fairly heavier than a TJ and/or just driven by people that beat the crap out of the whole truck because they're trying to get the job done ASAP?

Would the Dana 60 from the Gen 2 be worth the swap?
Click to expand...
The weight of the truck will indeed make a difference. However, one would assume that if you're swapping out axles the intent is to run larger tires, harder trails, and more likely put a lot of stress on components. Adding an axle that has known issues with people running 35"s on a 1/2-ton truck is asking for trouble IMO and should be avoided. There are other Dana 44's that don't have these issues and are better options.

The Gen2 Dana 60 is better (in regards to strength) but also has crappy unit bearings and weak brakes. I'd assume a person running a Gen 2 Dana 60 is looking for +38" tires, for which these two issues still remain problematic (even if the Dana 60 is less prone to cracking at the CAD).

Still - at 72" WMS wide, there is a very small window as to where these axles would be ideally or even preferrably suited.
 
pc1p said:
The weight of the truck will indeed make a difference. However, one would assume that if you're swapping out axles the intent is to run larger tires, harder trails, and more likely put a lot of stress on components. Adding an axle that has known issues with people running 35"s on a 1/2-ton truck is asking for trouble IMO and should be avoided. There are other Dana 44's that don't have these issues and are better options.

The Gen2 Dana 60 is better (in regards to strength) but also has crappy unit bearings and weak brakes. I'd assume a person running a Gen 2 Dana 60 is looking for +38" tires, for which these two issues still remain problematic (even if the Dana 60 is less prone to cracking at the CAD).

Still - at 72" WMS wide, there is a very small window as to where these axles would be ideally or even preferrably suited.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that information. I'll keep it all in mind whether I ever do anything that needs larger axles or if I just end up needing to inform somebody while sitting at the bar. I think I could pass that on to someone while starting into my 5th beer. I make no promises if I'm on beer number six. I'm pretty good at mistakes by then.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pc1p
IMHO the cheapest axle swap option is Ford Superduty...but the trade off is incorrect WMS, fitment... zillion issues...all of which can be solved with a lot of time, patience, brackets, cutting, welding and hackery.

I gave up scheming and just ordered Super 30 and 35 parts. All I want is 35s and that'll be the path of least resistance.

-Mac
 
macleanflood said:
I gave up scheming and just ordered Super 30 and 35 parts. All I want is 35s and that'll be the path of least resistance.
Click to expand...
Not just the path of least resistance, but also the optimal path considering the tire size, wheelbase, clearance, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macleanflood
This whole stupid idea is generated around the fact that I have a Rubicon with a "hybrid" Dana 30/44. It irritates me. Its not a real 44, and I know that going with a HPD30 would actually be a "better" axle for my uses (35's). But anyone that isn't as "enlightened" sees that I changed a Dana 44 for a Dana 30 and they would be like, "WTF did you do that for."

So, I've been trying to figure out ways to get a "real" Dana 44 under there, or maybe I should just bite the bullet, sell that stupid front axle and build myself a real nice HP30 out of an old Cherokee.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SvtLdr and psrivats
bummer. How awesome would that be to find an axle that already had the right brackets, plus the width and ball joints to handle 37+ but not be ridiculously wide. It would be the unicorn of TJ axles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike_H
freedom_in_4low said:
bummer. How awesome would that be to find an axle that already had the right brackets, plus the width and ball joints to handle 37+ but not be ridiculously wide. It would be the unicorn of TJ axles.
Click to expand...
JT overland or sport axles could almost do that if you used more of a stock backspacing on the wheels (67" WMS). IIRC, the spring perch center widths are reversed of what the TJ is... rear on JT is about what the front TJ is, vice versa... They are the new AdvanTek axles, M210/M220 (f/r). Spicer compares the strength of them to the previous generation Dana 60.
 
jesseshoots said:
The only thing I recall being good is the diff cover is thicker, but I may be completely wrong on that since I haven't read anything about it in a while.
Click to expand...
The Dodge 44 cover is a hair over 1/8". The Jeep 44 cover is a hair under 1/8".
 
Dirt Lifestyle...Nate...did a Superduty axle swap on his Range Rover on YouTube... basically came to the conclusion that even if you do all your own work it's cost comparable to a prebuilt and shipped axle.

I can dig up the video if you want.

-Mac
 
Mike_H said:
This whole stupid idea it generated around the fact that I have a Rubicon with a hybrid Dana 30/44. It irritates me. Its not a real 44, and I know that going with a HPD30 would actually be a "better" axle for my uses (35's). But anyone that isn't as "enlightened" sees that I changed a Dana 44 for a Dana 30 and they would be like, "WTF did you do that for."

So, I've been trying to figure out ways to get a "real" Dana 44 under there, or maybe I should just bite the bullet, sell that stupid front axle and build myself a real nice HP30 out of an old Cherokee.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, @mrblaine said he prefers the D30HP to the TJ44...
 
Top Bottom
Back