chopperfreak2k1:
if wider has no benefit why do i see so many jeeps running full width axles? the reason we call full width axles "full widths" is because it is so popular to swap them into narrow vehicles such as jeeps. you would also gain a ton of strength by using a d60 and 14 bolt. i dont think it adds a detrimental amount of weight either. in fact i think the pros out weigh the cons here.

If I want a big heavy 4x4, I drive a P/U. If I want a light a nimble one I like a old CJ. Weight is never a asset and neither is width unless you want a little more side hill stability. Many go to wide axles because it is easier and cheaper than having them narrowed. ALso more axle than you need is a waste of weight and the axles you suggest are way over kill here.  

so your saying that guys that sink thousands into their rigs simply cant afford to have their axles narrowed? interesting. so we should let all these mud racers know that their axles are a waste of weight and also overkill? what about all those rock crawlers? are they also wasting weight with overkill on their axles? or maybe they simply cant afford any other options as you suggest? i dont know snoman, your theory isnt holding water with me! when you start doing some serious wheelin maybe you'll change your tune. theres more to 4x4's then pushing snow. i have all the respect in the world for you but you cant really think your right and the rest of the world is wrong, do you? you said it all in the begining of your last post, if YOU want, well we're not talkin about you or what you want are we? if you wanna give your opinion, fine, i can respect that, but your gonna respect mine as well.  

btw, if stability has no place in the world of off roading, maybe we should stop altering wheel bases too.  

why do you guys always go off on snoman, all he said was that d60 and 14 bolt would be overkill in a little jeep which is supoosed to be affordable, he never said anyting about mud racers and rockcrawlers not needing big strong axles.  ALso i do find less weight is better for off roading but i really like extra width off road which is why i wheel a full size CHEVY!!  

no what the point was is this he put down 12 bolt & d44 cuz its not his flavor. i threw in the d60 & 14 bolt after. mud trucks & rock trucks came into it cuz he said the extra weight and width has no place on a jeep so i showed him otherwise. pay attention next time. i could put full widths on a jeep and go where you cant cuz it'll still be lighter then your rig!!  

I just fell on the floor ........way to funny  

Well i see what ur saying about 12 bolt and d44 being okay choices and how snoman was all like its not his favorite, but now to the point how dare you  say a jeep will go somewhere a chevy wont!!!   ALL in good fun  

geo it killed me to say it but i had to make my point. i know lighter is better but on a jeep even big axles are good cuz it's still pretty light. i hope i never again say something so terrible as i did above. i am shamed and dishonored.    but my truck forgives me    

QUOTE SnoMan:
Then why not just buy a P/U then??? The Jeep is lighter and narrower and can get in tighter spots and with your suggestion it will gain a lot of weight and width and I have NEVER found extra weight and width to be a asset off road. Old Jeeps were cool because the were small and light and his is one of the last good ones with leafs in all 4 corners too before Chrysler civilized it to boost sales and morph Jeep into something that it was never meant to be. (the new Commander is little more than a Jeep style body and name plate on a modified Dodge Durango chassis with a Dodge power train too. I am a bit of a Jeep purist in that you should keep a Jeep a Jeep and when you start putting 350's and P/U axles in it, it is really no longer a Jeep. AMC actually offered a 304 V8 in a CJ in the later 70's so if you retro fitted a 304 it would still be a Jeep because that engine as in there before. I have a 79 J20 Jeep truck that I have owned for over 22 years now that I plan to restore one day. It is still 100% Jeep/AMC and complete too and it will be when it is restored too. It is "Jeep" thing. END QUOTE.

wait.. in 1970 didn't jeep have the "dauntless 350 v8" and the "dauntless v6"?  both actually Buick engines....  

Kiaser/Willy's Jeep (not AMC Jeep) did briefly use a Buick 350 in a few Jeeps but as far as the V6 it was a little different because though GM/Buick designed the 225 V6, they sold it and all the rights to it to Willy's in mid 60's so in effect it was now a Jeep motor because Kiaser/Willys owned the engine fully and GM no longer had any rights to it. A few years after AMC bought Jeep, they sold the 225 back to GM in mid 70's and GM then changed it to a 231 and a few years later modified crank shaft so it became a even fire engine too.  

I wonder,,,head and beard skratch...if a 9 inch axle is used behind a top fueler with an (@&@^ssload of torque,upwards of 1500lbs or so, with the stickyest tire on earth,with an instant and continuos torque load,and running upwards of 7000 rpm..my wonder is, if it has 40 spline axles a good size ring and pinion,aftermarket support out of the wazoo..why dontcha run one inna jeep???
i figure ya dig one out the pile outback,change the mounting pads..and totally avoid the controversy? and while ur at it,isnt there a front axle out there/with a high pinion and all the ground clearance??
some times i wonder..happy wheelin!