What's new
By:
Filters
  • Check out our new Group Buy Program! We're kicking it off with Baja Designs! $10 Flat rate shipping no matter how much you order!

'05+ Ford Super Duty Dana 60 Axle Tech & Info

'84 Bronco II said:
None of what he has suggested makes sense, unless he means machining the caliper mounting ears on the knuckle .065" to scoot the calipers in board.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't be a bad idea actually.

I still think you should get f250 knuckles and BJEs.

Stronger than 450/550 with stock BJs and the brakes are a no brainer
 
Last edited:
Wuz-A-zuk said:
Answered my own question but thanks for the info.

I also have these pictures someone posted for me in this thread or the 60 vs. 9" thread, don't recall which one or who posted them but figured I'd repost them up here on the same page as YeeP numbers.
PXL_20220315_012036631.jpg
50502796971_8c893a7f4b_c.jpg
Click to expand...
That's copyright infringement puto! :flipoff2:

That axle is still sitting in my garage if anyone needs anymore reference measurements btw :homer:
 
You can, they are just deeper than the SD specific covers and people has been running into issues tie rod to diff cover touching each other.
 
Bebop said:
You can, they are just deeper than the SD specific covers and people has been running into issues tie rod to diff cover touching each other.
Click to expand...
Right, I knew that, but with custom full hydro I figure it's a non issue
 
pennsylvaniaboy said:
Soo anyone see a reason you couldnt run an older diff cover on the superduty 60? I like the ones that have the ribbing or the cover that spans the ring gear to flange like the riddler, crane, or dana

PERFORMANCE DIFFERENTIAL COVER - DANA 60-Broncograveyard.com


Riddler Manufacturing Riddler Manufacturing Differential Cover for Dana 60 Axles


Or am i over thinking the lip being an issue :flipoff2::homer:
Click to expand...

First run out going from a Toyota axles to a D60 front I underestimated a small rock and it dead stopped me on that stupid 1" lip. The shape of the Toyota axle would never do that unless it was ~1/3 of the way up the diff.

I'm with you on that shape making a difference.
 
 
I am not sure where John Cappa got his information from, but in his article on Dana 60s in the current issue of Fourwheeler, he claims that the 10" '05+ gear sets are 16% stronger than the older 9.75" gear sets. I figured I would share since that is something I have been curious about.

03E8F345-1042-437F-B6E1-2744E4E213DA.jpeg
 
I know it’s been discussed in the other site’s thread, but I don’t remembered it being discussed here. Is anyone running a parallel 4 link up front on the factory axle side mounts on a wheeling rig? I know there are several running radius arms on the factory mounts, but it seems like a 4 link could be made to work fairly easy.

From the looking I’ve been doing online, the only example I’ve been able to find so far is the ‘13 UA Super Dirty build. It seemed to have somewhat limited flex for being linked front and rear.
 
stan1688 said:
I know it’s been discussed in the other site’s thread, but I don’t remembered it being discussed here. Is anyone running a parallel 4 link up front on the factory axle side mounts on a wheeling rig? I know there are several running radius arms on the factory mounts, but it seems like a 4 link could be made to work fairly easy.

From the looking I’ve been doing online, the only example I’ve been able to find so far is the ‘13 UA Super Dirty build. It seemed to have somewhat limited flex for being linked front and rear.
Click to expand...
would also like to hear about this.. trying to decide if its worth it to convert my rad arm setup to a separate 4 link. would eventually like a bit more flex than the bind will allow. not a fan of just pulling one upper link...
 
A parallel 4 link with a track bar is going to have just as much if not more bind than a radius arm set up. If you want to keep the stock mounts, just do a Y-link radius arm and inboard your frame side mounts if you are concerned with binding. All a parallel 4 link buys you is better control of caster/pinion angle change. If you want something completely bind-free, do a 3-link or a triangulated 4-link.
 
'84 Bronco II said:
A parallel 4 link with a track bar is going to have just as much if not more bind than a radius arm set up. If you want to keep the stock mounts, just do a Y-link radius arm and inboard your frame side mounts if you are concerned with binding. All a parallel 4 link buys you is better control of caster/pinion angle change. If you want something completely bind-free, do a 3-link or a triangulated 4-link.
Click to expand...
This is wrong. A radius arm set up has way more bind than a three link or four link.
 
'84 Bronco II said:
A parallel 4 link with a track bar is going to have just as much if not more bind than a radius arm set up. If you want to keep the stock mounts, just do a Y-link radius arm and inboard your frame side mounts if you are concerned with binding. All a parallel 4 link buys you is better control of caster/pinion angle change. If you want something completely bind-free, do a 3-link or a triangulated 4-link.
Click to expand...
not to derail too bad. I am probably just retarded, but, why would a parallel 4 link w/ trac bar bind at all?
edit I've heard about *axle is over constrained but i fail to understand how it would be equal to, or worse then radius arms..
 
F***roads said:
not to derail too bad. I am probably just retarded, but, why would a parallel 4 link w/ trac bar bind at all?
Click to expand...
If you use the stock rubber mounts on the axle end in your four link instead of rod ends, there would be some binding. If it’s all rod ends there wouldn’t be any. On my build (3 link), I had to make swivel bushing on the axle end to get it a bit more free. Obviously, a rod end can swivel with almost no force. Rubber keeps getting harder the more you twist or pivot.

Edit, even so, rubber mounted 3 or 4 link will have much less binding than a radius arm set up.
 
WaterH said:
This is wrong. A radius arm set up has way more bind than a three link or four link.
Click to expand...

WaterH said:
If you use the stock rubber mounts on the axle end in your four link instead of rod ends, there would be some binding. If it’s all rod ends there wouldn’t be any. On my build (3 link), I had to make swivel bushing on the axle end to get it a bit more free. Obviously, a rod end can swivel with almost no force. Rubber keeps getting harder the more you twist or pivot.

Edit, even so, rubber mounted 3 or 4 link will have much less binding than a radius arm set up.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. Please build a parallel 4 link with a track bar using all rod ends and report back how bind free it is :laughing:

Also, a 3 link is totally different than a parallel 4-link.
 
F***roads said:
not to derail too bad. I am probably just retarded, but, why would a parallel 4 link w/ trac bar bind at all?
edit I've heard about *axle is over constrained but i fail to understand how it would be equal to, or worse then radius arms..
Click to expand...

It is over constrained just like a radius arm setup is. both require bushings to compensate for the inherent bind. A radius arm suspension is functionally the same thing as a parallel 4-link where the upper and lower links share the same frame side pivot location.

Theoretically, if all of your links shared a common frame side pivot point, there would be no bind in the system. This is much easier to apprach with a radius arm suspension by inboarding the frame side mounts than trying to bring four separate links to a single point (not that this is an ideal way to set up the suspension and would make it behave the same way as radius arms anyway).

Removing the upper "link" from one of the Y-link radius arm effectively makes it act like a three link with the upper link and lower link on one side sharing a frame side pivot. This configuration has no bind.

You would be better off leaving the upper link off one side of a parallel 4-link configuration (effectively making it a 3 link) if your goal is to eliminate bind.
 
'84 Bronco II said:
It is over constrained just like a radius arm setup is. both require bushings to compensate for the inherent bind. A radius arm suspension is functionally the same thing as a parallel 4-link where the upper and lower links share the same frame side pivot location.
Click to expand...

No!

look at it this way. If you jack up the front end of a radius arm set up, you change the caster. Now jack up just one side. Are you going to change caster on just one side? You would have to twist the axle. Mayor problem, wouldn’t you agree?

When you jack up one side (or both) of a parallel 4 link the caster doesn’t change. Get it?
 
Well, if a parallel 4 link works so well, why don't we see it more often in our world???
Why would people opt for radius arms over that system as the compromise, if they work better then radius arms? Don't say simplicity because that's not the answer... you wouldn't see 3 links as the compromise over both if the paralell 4 link worked so well....
 
Have you ever tried to package parralel 4 links ? Not really friendly for our cars, unless you're building a mega mud truck.
 
I guess what had me thinking a parallel 4 link is the ORD 4 link front kits. They seem to do really well both on and offroad. I just wasn’t sure if that could be emulated with the factory axle mounts.
 
Bebop said:
Have you ever tried to package parralel 4 links ? Not really friendly for our cars, unless you're building a mega mud truck.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, you have 4 links and the track bar to consider...:laughing: but i don't think that's why it isn't used over a 3 link or even radius arms for us. Hell a triangulated 4 link has it's own packaging issues, but the function outweighs the negatives.
I see pulling trucks use parallel 4 link as well, but they have very little suspension movement.
 
Parallel 4 links (also called 5 links) don't bind anywhere near as bad as radius arms in my experience.

FJ/FZJ80 land cruisers have radius arm fronts and parallel 4 links (5 links) in the rear. The rear of those trucks is famous for having tons and tons of flex. The front is terrible.
 
Sterlingfire said:
Well, if a parallel 4 link works so well, why don't we see it more often in our world???
Why would people opt for radius arms over that system as the compromise, if they work better then radius arms? Don't say simplicity because that's not the answer... you wouldn't see 3 links as the compromise over both if the paralell 4 link worked so well....
Click to expand...
There are compromises to every design. When you say “they work better than radius arms”, you sound like bind is the only consideration. A three link and triangulated 4 link has the ability to change the pinion angle as it cycles. Of course, the triangulated system can be built with zero bump steer not really possible with a track bar.
 
WaterH said:
There are compromises to every design. When you say “they work better than radius arms”, you sound like bind is the only consideration. A three link and triangulated 4 link has the ability to change the pinion angle as it cycles. Of course, the triangulated system can be built with zero bump steer not really possible with a track bar.
Click to expand...
Correct
Isn't bind most of the consideration in the offroad world? The more travel you can get without bind the better?
Are we still talking about rod ends or are you now saying you'd use stock style rubber bushings? That will make all the difference IMO.
You can get pretty close to 0 bump steer with a track bar, placement of the track bar and the drag link is everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh