I got a raise retro back to May 1st! I ordered me up some Longfield u-joints for the front axle. I am running spicers with Moser inners and Yukon outers. I am hoping to run some extreme trails this fall and the u-joints are the last week link.:thumbup (except the nut job behind the wheel) I'll also go with a 42" or 44" tire when I wear out the 39.5 IROK's.:beer

Nice man!! Those spicers held up to that abuse pretty well.Im still debating to go back with ox joints or maybe ctm's for my 44.Still looking and reading

The longfileds have a lifetime warranty and are almost half the price. The Ox's and CTM's are rebuildable but are more complex. The Longfield is a basic U-joint, with no bearings, and made out of stronger material than stock.

Congrats on the raise!! I just got some Yukon shafts and was thinking about the Alloy ujoints, they still have needle bearings in them but they are stronger than the 760 spicers...(and only 40 buxs a peace). But I realy need to do some more research beore I decide.

Where did you order your Longfields from??

Congrats on the raise!! I just got some Yukon shafts and was thinking about the Alloy ujoints, they still have needle bearings in them but they are stronger than the 760 spicers...(and only 40 buxs a peace). But I realy need to do some more research beore I decide.

Where did you order your Longfields from??

http://www.longfieldsuperaxles.com/

Congrats on the raise!! I just got some Yukon shafts and was thinking about the Alloy ujoints, they still have needle bearings in them but they are stronger than the 760 spicers...(and only 40 buxs a peace). But I realy need to do some more research beore I decide.

Where did you order your Longfields from??


How do you know they are stronger than stock spicer 760x's? they have one advantange in that they come with a full circle C clip if your shaft can use one.

How do you know they are stronger than stock spicer 760x's? they have one advantange in that they come with a full circle C clip if your shaft can use one.

JBG states its strength is between a 760x spicer and ctm. I also googled it and found info claiming it is 15% stronger than the 760x spicer. No I dont remeber the site that made that claim. But the strongest was the Longfield in a test done by Washington State IIRC.

JBG states its strength is between a 760x spicer and ctm. I also googled it and found info claiming it is 15% stronger than the 760x spicer. No I dont remeber the site that made that claim. But the strongest was the Longfield in a test done by Washington State IIRC.

There was a test done, paid by Longfield (not that I doubt the results, but it's worth mentioning).

on the other hand, why would one believe what JBG states on their site about the Alloy USA ujoint? they are just printing what the supplier asks them too. They do research and testing on NOTHING.

In any case, if you want a possible little step up from a 760X then by all means.

Otherwise go with one of the alloy ujoint choices that also use full circle clips, and NO needle bearings, mainly CTM, Longfield, Yukon Superjoint, or OX.

As I recall when looking at all (except the alloy USA joint, I ruled those out right off), the CTM was most expensive, followed by Longfield and Ox pretty close, and then Yukon superjoint. I have not looked at today's prices, but my recollection from about 2 yrs. or so ago was that CTM was about $220 (D44 joint here), longfield and ox in the $140-160 range, and superjoints I bought at $120ea.

And Congrats Swat!

And Congrats Swat!

Thanks!

Remember the Jantzjoint? I beleive it is the Yukon Superjoint? Not sure though. http://www.jantz4x4.com/


Redbeast9 Consider the Longfields. I basically wasted cash on the spicers and the JBG joint is not much stronger. If you can afford it, go directly to the better joint and don't waste the cash on the JBG's.

When a jont breaks it often can take out a shaft at the yoke or in the least spread the yoke. Then your expensive alloy shafts are fawked. I at least have been careful and have not done any trail that are extreme/over an 8 rating.

I should have the joints early this week.:chili:

Dont get me wrong Swat and Shadofax, I think the Longfield and other molly joints are awesome!! Even thought I have never used them I am sure they are way better than other options. But the price is what holds me back when I consider my build , I went with the Detroit True trac, 4.10, and running 35'' at/s at the time. I went with this set up to take some of the stress off the D44. I wheel smart and try not to allow alot of tire spin to avoit breaking parts(experince talking lol). I got the Yukon shafts for 265 so I couldnt pass them up and thought I would install them at a later date when i upgrade tires to something more aggresive. Maybe I will be able to score some joints cheaper used....I hope! I can afford them but Daummn!!

I am realy glad you started this thread Swat. I never even considered the Longfield joints, I thought they only made Toy parts to be honest. At this point from the info I have read, if I buy new it would be the Longfields!!

Nice - I'm looking forward to stuffing Longfields in my D60 - I'm not looking forward to stuffing them into my budget...

Thanks!

Remember the Jantzjoint? I beleive it is the Yukon Superjoint? Not sure though. http://www.jantz4x4.com/


Redbeast9 Consider the Longfields. I basically wasted cash on the spicers and the JBG joint is not much stronger. If you can afford it, go directly to the better joint and don't waste the cash on the JBG's.

When a jont breaks it often can take out a shaft at the yoke or in the least spread the yoke. Then your expensive alloy shafts are fawked. I at least have been careful and have not done any trail that are extreme/over an 8 rating.

I should have the joints early this week.:chili:

yea, except the yukon (and maybe Jantz now) no longer use that spring/piston deal. I only have a seal, and the zerk, and the crazy grease.

EDIT: one of the things I always found interesting on the Jantz site is when you scroll to the bottom, the example of the Rubicon jeep and torque multiplication......

the jeep with the 6 has a decent 235 ft/lb of torque, but when you multiply that by the 4:1 first gear, and the newer 4:1 rock ready or whatever Tcase, and a 4.10 gear, well that's about 15,000ft lbs of torque out at the axleshafts and joints.

Even though the auto tranny is much more complex than a manual, this is why I like the slush box better, less chance for breakage.

With my E4OD I'm roughly looking at 325 (motor torque), 2.84 1st (as I recall), 2.69 TC, 4.56 = 11,320 and I believe the torque convertor helps bring this on more slowly than the direct engagement you get once the clutch is fully engaged on a manual.

I'm getting off track here, but I wish there was more data on axleshaft/joint breakage on vehicles equipped with auto tranny vs. manual, and what overall gearing they end up with.

yea, except the yukon (and maybe Jantz now) no longer use that spring/piston deal. I only have a seal, and the zerk, and the crazy grease.

EDIT: one of the things I always found interesting on the Jantz site is when you scroll to the bottom, the example of the Rubicon jeep and torque multiplication......

the jeep with the 6 has a decent 235 ft/lb of torque, but when you multiply that by the 4:1 first gear, and the newer 4:1 rock ready or whatever Tcase, and a 4.10 gear, well that's about 15,000ft lbs of torque out at the axleshafts and joints.

Even though the auto tranny is much more complex than a manual, this is why I like the slush box better, less chance for breakage.

With my E4OD I'm roughly looking at 325 (motor torque), 2.84 1st (as I recall), 2.69 TC, 4.56 = 11,320 and I believe the torque convertor helps bring this on more slowly than the direct engagement you get once the clutch is fully engaged on a manual.

I'm getting off track here, but I wish there was more data on axleshaft/joint breakage on vehicles equipped with auto tranny vs. manual, and what overall gearing they end up with.

Not entirely off track bud. I have worried about Spicers in my front axle for all the torque that is applied through them. 390 X 5.72 X 1.96 X 2.7 X 5.38 = an unGodly amount of torque! 50,000ftlbs after a 20% reduction for all them bearings and gears meshing/friction.

On this topic I have a question. We know about what the breaking point is for various u joints. So what is the conversion for foot puonds of torque to pounds per square inch?? I ask because the study i saw the breaking points for the ujoints were given in PSI IIRC. (do I just divide the PSI # by 12?)

Also check my math here; 300 ft/lbs torque x 6.69 1st gear x 1.96 tcase x 4.10 gears = about 16,000 ft/lbs ???

I don't think it's a simple division by 12. In my converter program if I put in 300 pounds/foot squared it yields 2.083333 PSI.

Someone with more math knowledge?

Can you link that study, or at least provide what the breaking point was for each joint and we can see what we can do from there?

I failed math in high school

I dont know how to post a link but if you go to the Longfield site there is a link there under there u joint that post the testing results. Im not very computer savy, sorry.

PSI is not convertable to ftllbs.

:doh0715:pressure per square inch does not convert to torque.

I was wrong anyway, it was measured in load LBs. at the rate of 100,000 LBs per minute.

Here are the results from the site for the breaking points

1)Spicer=48,649

2)Longfield=162,400

3)Yukon=92,599

4)CTM=158,732


I also read on another site that I cant find now that the Alloy u-joint was 15% stronger than the Spicer 760X. So for comparrision sake the Alloy joint might brake at 55,946. Keep in mind that the Alloy joint was not apart of the study, this is just my owne math using that info.

there are a couple interesting things associated with this test:

1) It states all joints failed catastrophically, i.e. no bending, just sudden, complete breakage of one of the "trunnions" (which really were the only things being tested in a downward force machine placing a load on the top trunnion and the two side trunnions and caps being supported as if it were in a yoke. At least with the spicer that is equipped with roller bearings, what seems to happen with many of the breaks is that the bearings get crushed while the joint itself is still intact, this also leads to the C clip and cap spitting out, and then the whole joint self destructs and ruins one or both yokes.

2) Bobby Long supplied the samples, and the data only shows and states results from a single sample for each. So this really isn't statistically valid since there is no accounting for sample variability.

3) I think what Bobby Long was trying to prove here is simply that his statements about the 300M material being the strongest of all the alloys used (basically I think CTM and Yukon base their joints in beginning with 4340 alloy material) is true. Keep in mind this test can only be so "real world" with the machine used. This machine only provided downward force on the joint. There was no testing of actual joints secured as if they were in yokes and then twisted.

4) The spicer joint again was doomed from the start due to the smaller "trunnions"...i.e. cap is same size, then it has to have space for bearings, whereas the other three have a bigger trunnion to fill in the space where the bearings would be. Also the spicer after breakage shows it was drilled pretty deep, perhaps all the way through to the other trunnion? The other three only drill the trunnion so deep so to allow for some extra lube space.

I wish they would have done a test on say 4 each of the joints, supplied results for all tests, looked for "anomolies" or individual results that had wide variability and then posted an average for each. The vaiability of results is important. A good joint should give you pretty consistent breakage results, i.e. as an example no results that might be 20k, 22k, 48k, and 33k (that's a lot of variability).

That seems like a pour way to test a U joint. They take a twisting action and not an end to end pressure. I bet if they put the joints in a axle and videoed at high speeds the test may be different.

I am not say that the order of which joint is better but the physical numbers would be a lot different. I believe that the CTM is the better joint myself and I think if the test was conducted the way they were designed to operate with a twisting force the CTM would come out on top. This is only my opinion and not a pissing match.;)

That seems like a pour way to test a U joint. They take a twisting action and not an end to end pressure. I bet if they put the joints in a axle and videoed at high speeds the test may be different.

I am not say that the order of which joint is better but the physical numbers would be a lot different. I believe that the CTM is the better joint myself and I think if the test was conducted the way they were designed to operate with a twisting force the CTM would come out on top. This is only my opinion and not a pissing match.;)

I agree with you. If you look at my point 3) above, I believe Bobby Long fully understands this point, but given the apparatus they had to use locally, and his intent (prove his 300M material used to make his joints is strongest) this works to prove material strength, but not real world torque input on a twisting axle shaft.

I do wish they would do more testing in more real world conditions, and while at it, I would love to see testing of the main alloy shafts.....Warn, Yukon, and alloy USA.

According to real world testing by the enthusiastic crew on Pirate 4x4, the Bobby Long joints are about equal with the CTM's. The Longfields (CV style Dana 60 joints, like a Birfield, hence the term Longfield) have proven to be all but indestructible.

BTW, CTM has always been 300M and were the first production joints to use it.

Congrats on the upgrade Swat! I'm running the Alloy USA CroMo's now and am anxious to see how they hold up.

According to real world testing by the enthusiastic crew on Pirate 4x4, the Bobby Long joints are about equal with the CTM's. The Longfields (CV style Dana 60 joints, like a Birfield, hence the term Longfield) have proven to be all but indestructible.

BTW, CTM has always been 300M and were the first production joints to use it.

Congrats on the upgrade Swat! I'm running the Alloy USA CroMo's now and am anxious to see how they hold up.


Thanks! I am waiting on an ARB part. I bent and cut the ARB copper line semidropping and rolling the Damn 3rd member over on it. That fricken ring gear has some sharp edges on it!

I am considering putting a sticker/reminder on the dash that reads "Part Time 4X4". No high speed long distance on these new joints! 4X4 not for highway use! I'll be double checking the lock-outs after each run. They Longfields are to be lubed every other run.

Thanks! I am waiting on an ARB part. I bent and cut the ARB copper line semidropping and rolling the Damn 3rd member over on it. That fricken ring gear has some sharp edges on it!

I am considering putting a sticker/reminder on the dash that reads "Part Time 4X4". No high speed long distance on these new joints! 4X4 not for highway use! I'll be double checking the lock-outs after each run. They Longfields are to be lubed every other run.

I've ran the joints during winter with 4wd engaged and on the highway at 50ish speeds for a number of miles and no issues. just keep them greased and they will be fine. I do mine every 4 months or so and they never seem to need much. I'd pull a side and check them for wear (pulling the shafts apart from the joint) but it's just too much a PITA. They've been in 2 1/2 years or so and really with part time 4wd I've found no bearings to be a non-issue.

You're not running slugs (or planning on it) are you?

I've ran the joints during winter with 4wd engaged and on the highway at 50ish speeds for a number of miles and no issues. just keep them greased and they will be fine. I do mine every 4 months or so and they never seem to need much. I'd pull a side and check them for wear (pulling the shafts apart from the joint) but it's just too much a PITA. They've been in 2 1/2 years or so and really with part time 4wd I've found no bearings to be a non-issue.

You're not running slugs (or planning on it) are you?

No slugs! Got to be able to stop dem axles from spinning my Longfields.

The inner axles are Mosers and the u-joints went in those yokes easily but tight. The Yukon outers bring the suck! I cleaned up the holes with a file then a little emery cloth and they was still tighter than a nuns ass! I hope I don't have to pull them anytime soon.

This thread was a good read. Thanks. Im running stock shafts in my Dana 44
and spicer joints. Havent had a problem yet but then again the front is open.
(hopefully not for much longer)

This thread was a good read. Thanks. Im running stock shafts in my Dana 44
and spicer joints. Havent had a problem yet but then again the front is open.
(hopefully not for much longer)


you most likely will , especially once locked (unless you consider ARB or other selectable, ;)). Spicer joints aside I pulled out my spare stock shafts the other day and did some caliper measuring on the neckdowns....7 mm lost at the inner shaft neckdowns, there is no neckdown on the alloys. When you get the alloy stubbies those are actually about 1mm larger than the stock where it necks down after the bearing surface by the yoke, all the way out to the splines.

http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/409156/fullsize/110_1035.jpg

you most likely will , especially once locked (unless you consider ARB or other selectable, ;)). Spicer joints aside I pulled out my spare stock shafts the other day and did some caliper measuring on the neckdowns....7 mm lost at the inner shaft neckdowns, there is no neckdown on the alloys. When you get the alloy stubbies those are actually about 1mm larger than the stock where it necks down after the bearing surface by the yoke, all the way out to the splines.

http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/409156/fullsize/110_1035.jpg

Nice, beefy. Once/If I break stuff I wont miss chasing needle bearings around the
garage.

still tighter than a nuns ass!

:histerica:histerica:histerica:rofl::chili::shocke d:eek::crazy LOL