Dana 60 HP king pin "wide spring"

[mineral co]

I am going to start a project that will, hopefully, result in a HP D60 front axle in my GW.

The following are some photos of the axle I am hoping to use. This axle is currently in an '86 F-350 4x4 "Cab & Chassis" truck.

IMG_0531_mid.jpg

IMG_0532_mid.jpg

IMG_0534_mid.jpg

IMG_0535_mid.jpg

IMG_0536_mid.jpg

[mineral co]

IMG_0538_mid.jpg

BOM is "610220-4"

This axle is the later "wide spring" version, having a ~37" spring spacing rather than the 32" spacing of the Jeeps. Normally, a person would use the earlier version from a '78-'79 Ford truck that already has the 32" spring spacing, and this is a really good solution if you plan to use the axle as a "full width" axle. If you are going to do any cutting, though, there might be a better choice, depending on what your goals are.

I have the donor truck at home now, so I can start working on getting more accurate measurements to better determine how well this might work out. Progress will be relatively slow as winter is descending on the high country, but the hope is to have it ready for installation in mid-Spring if the math holds up!

[AwesomeJ10]

Sell it to someone who is going with links. Take the $$$ and buy the older one with the correct spring perch spacing.

Or go down the road of shortening the tube and getting custom shafts made $$$

or use the ford frame on your GW.

IMHO.

[mineral co]

Thanks Blake,

I have no doubt that is some excellent advise , but having considered it for several days now I cannot pull the plug on the project without at least refining and completing the math part of the exercise (which looks very encouraging). I'm not going to pull that truck apart yet, and if I hit a wall I can certainly sell the truck for what I've got in it. It was quite cheap.

[EDIT] Another option is to just keep the F-350. It runs good and drives reasonably well. In fact, right now, it drives better than the GW does with the screwy caster.

Best regards,

Chris

[mineral co]

Okay Blake, I have to press on you little bit here! (This is supposed to be fun BTW. )

So I got your advise to rotate the knuckles on my D44, or to go to a link type suspension, or use the early Ford D60 axle, but to not do the wide spring D60. What gives?

The goal here is to keep the axle mods limited to shortening the right tube and axle, which, of course, would mean the correct positioning of the right knuckle relative to the rest of the axle. Other than that, other changes required by using this axle should be the same as those required to use the earlier Ford axle to get correct caster, pinion angle, steering, etc.

What makes this axle seem more appropriate than the earlier axle is that it only requires shortening one side rather than both sides. Of course, this is a valid argument only if a person didn't want to run a full-width axle. I should state this approach gets me a narrower axle (about 65" across WMSs), but does not result in the standard 62" dimension of my Wagoneer. However, this is a number that suits me just fine. This number also lets me retain the stock wheel offset (very close to it, anyway) even with wider wheels, which I think is important.

So, what am I missing? Please take me through it as I do value your opinion.

Thanks,

Chris

[Stuka]

There have been plenty of people that have swapped these axles into FSJ's. The most documented one I have seen was in Whitefoot (Rockjeep44's old FSJ).

He just put new spring perches on, which were out boarded. He ran 39.5's and beat the hell out of that thing. Tires didn't rub the springs, and as long as the perches are welded on well, it should not have any issues.

[AwesomeJ10]

My advice usually stems from three things; Easiest, cheapest and strongest.

The D60 you have doesn't fall into all three of those categories. Plain and simple.

Can it done? Sure, just like Stuka said. But should it? I guess you have to make that decision....

[mineral co]

Thanks Blake, I appreciate your comments and perspective.

But I also am a bit relieved by Stuka's comments. If plenty of folks have already succesfully done this, then I'm not breaking new ground or going down a blind hole.

I also think I need to start researching competent shops to handle the narrowing of the axle. Does anybody in Colorado have a recommendation they would be willing to make? While I'm not into wasting money, I am willing to pay for a good shop. The last thing I'm going to half-ass is the integrity and correctness of the axle.

[Cecil14]

I also think I need to start researching competent shops to handle the narrowing of the axle. Does anybody in Colorado have a recommendation they would be willing to make? While I'm not into wasting money, I am willing to pay for a good shop. The last thing I'm going to half-ass is the integrity and correctness of the axle.

That's the biggest reason most people do not go this route...it's likely going to cost you more to do this (plus the really crappy part about requiring unique parts) than it would to just buy one of the older axles.

That being said, if you want a narrower axle regardless this is likely the one to start with. As the perches are already a bit wider it means you can simply narrow the other side and slap on a new perch where you need it. With the addition of a new axle shaft of course.

You may get lucky and be able to find a really nice available off the shelf axle shaft for the long side after having things cut down. Definitely something to look into before deciding on how long to go.


aa

[Stuka]

Out of curiosity, why do you want to narrow the axle so much?

One of the advantages of going with 1 ton axles is the added stability thanks to their width. Its the one thing I did not like about my old Cherokee. The skinny axles made it less stable than a wider rig. Heck even my JK is quite a bit wider than an NT FSJ.

[ElkyRacer]

Fwiw, Austin with the crew cab j truck used a super duty front 60 in his rig. Those have the same spring spacing as this 60. His bolted right up to the post mount leafs of the 3/4 ton frame. Another 3/4 ton j truck build on another board used the same axle as well.

Don't know where you are at, but around me, an old 78-79 60 is just about as hard to find as an honest politician. And when you do they are easily $1000 for something that looks like it was unearthed from the abyss.

Outboard the springs, keep it wide, and go beat the snot out of it!

[REDONE]

There have been plenty of people that have swapped these axles into FSJ's. The most documented one I have seen was in Whitefoot (Rockjeep44's old FSJ).

He just put new spring perches on, which were out boarded. He ran 39.5's and beat the hell out of that thing. Tires didn't rub the springs, and as long as the perches are welded on well, it should not have any issues.

Whohoo! Whitefoot!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qoyyk35crY


EDITED FOR WARNING>>> Totally safe for work and all that, but DON'T GET STUCK IN A YOUTUBE CHAIN. You'll spend hours watching teenage girls rollover full cage tube buggies and tow trucks yanking cars out of houses and what not.

[mineral co]

That's the biggest reason most people do not go this route...it's likely going to cost you more to do this (plus the really crappy part about requiring unique parts) than it would to just buy one of the older axles.

From what I have read on some of the other 4x4 sites, this shouldn't actually be the case. Most of those guys are getting gutted axle assemblies shortened on one side for around $200. However, I want to start talking to decent shops to get my own prices before estimating any total costs to do this. Once that happens, we may have to revisit this subject.

That being said, if you want a narrower axle regardless this is likely the one to start with. As the perches are already a bit wider it means you can simply narrow the other side and slap on a new perch where you need it. With the addition of a new axle shaft of course.

Using one of the older axles at anything less than full width would require shortening both axle tubes so, on the surface, this seems this would be a more expensive way to go and is the whole reason for considering this later axle.

Out of curiosity, why do you want to narrow the axle so much?

One of the advantages of going with 1 ton axles is the added stability thanks to their width. Its the one thing I did not like about my old Cherokee. The skinny axles made it less stable than a wider rig. Heck even my JK is quite a bit wider than an NT FSJ.

There is one principal reason why the WMS spacing is going to go to approx. 65". If you want to run anything less than the full width and want to keep modifications to a minimum, there really is only one "natural" length that pops out of the math.

Criteria:

1. Only modify one tube, not both.

This means that the distance from the left spring perch to the left WMS is fixed. Let's call that dimension K.

2. Retain a balanced axle mounting configuration.

This means that the distance from the right spring perch to the right WMS must be the same as dimenion K for the left side.

3. Retain stock FSJ frame spring spacing.

This is fixed at ~32".

So, mathematically, the WMS-to-WMS dimension can be specified as (2*K)+32.

Dimension K on this axle is ~16.5", so the WMS-to-WMS dimension will be ~(2*16.5)+32, or 65".

Keeping with the criteria above, this is the only length the axle can be shortened to and still fit the stock spring spacing. This will place the wheel 1.5" further out, on each side, than the stock axle width of ~62" would.

Next, I am a firm believer of staying with a stock wheel offset for any rig that will be driven on a public road or at more than 15 mph off road. I also don't want to risk sacrificing turn radius or having the tires hit the springs, so maintaining proper wheel back spacing is important. Additionally, I don't want the tires getting into the front fenders, though I am willing to add the WT fenders to provide some margin for accomodating this requirement.

My stock Waggy wheels are seven inches wide and have an offset of about 0.25" I would like to go with an eight inch wheel with the same offset. Stock Waggy wheels have a backspacing of about 3.75" (it depends on what you read), so an appropriate backspacing on an eight inch wheel would be about 4.25". Likewise, a ten inch wheel should have a backspacing of about 5.25".

So, using an eight inch wheel with the correct backspacing results in a tire position where the outer edge of the tire is 2" (1.5" + 0.5", 1.5" because of the wider axle, 0.5" because of the wider wheel) furthur out (on each side, for a total of 4") than where it would be in a 100% stock configuration (assuming the same tire is used in both situations). This is, pretty much, ideal for use with the WT fenders from a cosmetic perspective. It would be very nice to have the rig look as "stock" as possible when this is all said and done.

Whoops! Gotta run! I'll get back to this in a bit.

[TUDrewser]

EDITED FOR WARNING>>> Totally safe for work and all that, but DON'T GET STUCK IN A YOUTUBE CHAIN. You'll spend hours watching teenage girls rollover full cage tube buggies and tow trucks yanking cars out of houses and what not.

Greatest, and yest hardest advice ever to follow.

EDIT: I finally stopped after watching a fake Japanese Tsunami. Sorry, I failed.

[Gumby]

EDITED FOR WARNING>>> Totally safe for work and all that, but DON'T GET STUCK IN A YOUTUBE CHAIN. You'll spend hours watching teenage girls rollover full cage tube buggies and tow trucks yanking cars out of houses and what not.

Greatest, and yest hardest advice ever to follow.

EDIT: I finally stopped after watching a fake Japanese Tsunami. Sorry, I failed.

I too failed, after watching a 1/8 scale rc semi truck at 4am I quit. Yeah for yube tube.

[mineral co]

To continue, with this configuration, the track would be 3" wider than stock and the outer tire contact points would be 4" wider than stock, so I am getting extra stability as part of the project.

There's a whole variety of reasons that I would like to keep the tires fully under the fenders, not the least of which is that I don't need any "fix-it" tickets for something that isn't easily changed. The WT fenders legally accomodate the natural width that the narrowed axle wants to be.

So, all said, this is an outstanding, all-around good compromise for my wants and needs. Quite honestly, it doesn't feel like a compromise at all. It feels more like it's absolutely perfect for my wants and needs.

I welcome all comments, critiques, and advise.

Chris

[Cecil14]

IF you can get it done for the right price than this is definitely the way to go. The only real downside I see is custom parts (axle shaft). It's really nice to be able to grab an off the shelf (so to speak) part for a replacement when necessary. If you have to have shafts made that really limits your replacements.

If you can find a donor shaft out of something else that's the right length that would really make this a no brainer. Only big cost would be the rework on the housing.


aa

[Tad]

This may or may not matter and I have not researched at all, but I'll toss it in the pot, maybe someone else has experience with this.
I guess the question is:
Since there will be no work done to the short/diff side of the axle what will this do to the positioning of the diff pinion/yoke with relation to the front output on the transfer case?

It would seem to me that since the axle perch spacing is 5" wider that the difference is split equally between both sides at 2.5".
So without relocating the diff side perch would this not also move the diff pinion/yoke 2.5" closer to the center of the vehicle creating a compound angle?

Again, it may not matter, or be enough to matter but I think it's worth looking into.

[mineral co]

IF you can get it done for the right price than this is definitely the way to go. The only real downside I see is custom parts (axle shaft). It's really nice to be able to grab an off the shelf (so to speak) part for a replacement when necessary. If you have to have shafts made that really limits your replacements.

If you can find a donor shaft out of something else that's the right length that would really make this a no brainer. Only big cost would be the rework on the housing.

I am going to try very hard to find a "stock" axle shaft as I agree with you. I have an Ace up my sleeve (okay, it's really probably just a Queen), and that is that the left spring perch (part of the diff housing) is dimensioned for a 3" wide leaf spring instead of the D44's 2.5" leaf spring.

Granted, some means will have to be used to keep the axle properly located relative to the spring but, assuming that a 2.5" wide spring is used, I have an extra half-inch to play with when determining the ideal placement of the axle and, therefore, can look for "stock" axle shafts in a broader range of lengths. At this point, I do think that the availability of stock shafts will determine the final positioning and overall length.

This may or may not matter and I have not researched at all, but I'll toss it in the pot, maybe someone else has experience with this.
I guess the question is:
Since there will be no work done to the short/diff side of the axle what will this do to the positioning of the diff pinion/yoke with relation to the front output on the transfer case?

It would seem to me that since the axle perch spacing is 5" wider that the difference is split equally between both sides at 2.5".
So without relocating the diff side perch would this not also move the diff pinion/yoke 2.5" closer to the center of the vehicle creating a compound angle?

Again, it may not matter, or be enough to matter but I think it's worth looking into.

Ahh, now we are getting into the real details!

I have considered this, but do not have finalized dimensions yet. However, initial measurements indicate that the horizontal distance from the inside edge of the left leaf spring to the center of the front driveshaft on the D44 is within a half-inch of that for the D60.

On the F-350 the diff is about 2.5" furthur out, but the narrower spring spacing on the Waggy will bring it back inward by that same 2.5".

It's unrealistic to hope that the D60 pinion is going to fall exactly in line with where the D44 pinion is, but the issue is no different than trying to get the pinion to point directly at the upper double-Cardan joint so that the lower joint is "straight through". Whether the misalignment has a verticle component or a horizontal component, or both, small misalignments can probably be tolerated, and larger misalignments will require some action. Worst case (and I know some folks won't like it!), a double-ended double-Cardan shaft can be used to get around the majority of these issues.

Clearly, I need to get the best measurements I can to quantify the problem before going beyond the "math" part of the project.

I thank everyone for their comments! Please continue!

Chris

[mineral co]

BTW, has anybody found any accurate D60 drawings?