Jerry I have run the 5-1310x for years in the muck now with great success and would recommend them over the greaseable at this point.
non-greaseable u-joints are stronger than greaseable u-joints aren't they?
Generally speaking yes, those with the single grease zerk in the body are not quite as strong. Those with a grease zerk on top of each bearing cap can be as strong.
So if you are comparing the Spicer SPL (ie 5-1310x) to a 10 series (5-153x) the SPL is tougher due to the cold forged cross.
Just speaking on same materials, solid versus having a grease channel across the legs of u-joint. It certainly should be stronger due to not having a void in the center.
Yes, I believe that they are stronger. You can easily find 100 people who will tell you that non-greaseable joints are stronger, including me. What you won't find is a single person who can tell you how much stronger they are, including me. Spicer and Neapco has some "information" on this but they are really marketing flyers and don't put it into clear terms. That's the problem I've always had with the "stronger" claims, they need to be backed up with clear numbers. If I tell everyone that I'm taller than all of you but I can't/won't tell you how tall I am everyone will surely call BS, surely people wont assume I'm a giant. Here's the information Spicer has published https://d3qx1uccksbb2n.cloudfront.net/docs/J3349-22019.pdf They are reporting "Fatigue cycles" to "failure" but what exactly is a fatigue cycle and what are they defining as a "failure"? To make it even more confusing Neapco has their own testing and data which says their performance series joints can withstand twice the fatigue cycles to failure as the "leading competitor". https://www.neapcoaftermarket.com/products/performance-series-u-joints/ If the leading competitor isn't Spicer I don't know who it is. But then if you refer back to the spicer flyer their spicer life series can withstand more than 10X the fatigue cycles as their leading competitor. So if spicer is 10x stronger than Neapco but Neapco is 2x stronger than Spicer, does that mean Spicer is 20x stronger than Spicer?
The grease channel is not a big deal just like comparing tubing to solid stock. The zerk in the cross is the bigger issue when it comes to strength.
Ironically Spicer used to publish some torque ratings for their joints but that was long ago.Yes, I believe that they are stronger. You can easily find 100 people who will tell you that non-greaseable joints are stronger, including me. What you won't find is a single person who can tell you how much stronger they are, including me. Spicer and Neapco has some "information" on this but they are really marketing flyers and don't put it into clear terms. That's the problem I've always had with the "stronger" claims, they need to be backed up with clear numbers. If I tell everyone that I'm taller than all of you but I can't/won't tell you how tall I am everyone will surely call BS, surely people wont assume I'm a giant. Here's the information Spicer has published https://d3qx1uccksbb2n.cloudfront.net/docs/J3349-22019.pdf They are reporting "Fatigue cycles" to "failure" but what exactly is a fatigue cycle and what are they defining as a "failure"? To make it even more confusing Neapco has their own testing and data which says their performance series joints can withstand twice the fatigue cycles to failure as the "leading competitor". https://www.neapcoaftermarket.com/products/performance-series-u-joints/ If the leading competitor isn't Spicer I don't know who it is. But then if you refer back to the spicer flyer their spicer life series can withstand more than 10X the fatigue cycles as their leading competitor. So if spicer is 10x stronger than Neapco but Neapco is 2x stronger than Spicer, does that mean Spicer is 20x stronger than Spicer?
These are some of the reasons I don't take the claims of the joint manufacturers at face value.
I just want them to apply force to a joint until it breaks and tell me what that number is, how much force was required. They can do that on rock climbing carabiners, it's stamped or etched right on the carabiner, why can't they do that with universal joints?
View attachment 312953
Neapco at least lists ultimate strength in newton-meters in their info but there are no numbers! It's just (read in caveman voice) "This graph bigger, this one better".
I blame it on the internet and intellectual property protection. Companies now are so worried that any actual data will either be used to copycat or be used by keyboard cowboys to trash them over whatever perceived deficiencies they believe the product has. So only putting out generalized propaganda they believe is their best defense.
