Cecil14 wrote: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.
Cecil14 wrote: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.
Stuka wrote: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.