Theories why the Rubicon went with D44s vs upgraded Dana 30/35?

[Fouledplugs]

Like the title says. Any theories? It would be exceptional if legitimate proof was provided. Ex being; engineers write up or something similar. But theories are welcome. A lot on here about how the TJ 44 isn't worth the swap (expense:strength return) which I agree with considering only gen 1's.

The TJ Dana 44's use the same tubes front and rear, same Dana 30 outers for the front, same Dana 30 steering u-joints, Dana 44 axle shaft strength is marginally better than the Dana 35 (from what I have read here), The Dana 44 has a 8.5 ring gear vs the Dana 35 7.6. Was the rubicon's 44's just used to market it?

So why did Jeep distance themselves from the Dana 35 and not just upgrade it with the Rubicon's and unlimteds VS going with Dana 44's?

Surely some engineers had reason and had to have reason to sell it to the execs...


Not looking to debate about which is stronger. Ron, owner of Superior Axle and Gear resolved that on another forum when addressing his whole idea behind the super35. School me.

 

[Chris]

You want to know my theory? It was a way for the Chrysler to make more money.

One of the number one ways that auto manufacturers make money is by charging people for trim level upgrades (often with unnecessary options). Problem is, with the TJ, there was never really any difference between the trim levels. Look at all of them and they were all pretty basic. Sure, you could get a "Columbia Edition" or whatever, but that was nothing more than some decals, seats, etc.

The Rubicon on the other hand was quite a bit more than the basic TJ, but in order to justify that extra cost, they had to have something to sell. You had the NP 241OR transfer case, the lockers, the better gear ratio, but that's really it. They needed to add something more, and that was the axles. Most people who didn't know any better probably just heard "Dana 44 upgraded axles", and thought, "Wow, that's worth the extra cost!", without knowing they were the same housings as the standard axles (my guess is people didn't realize this until the TJ had been out for a while and they started discovering this first hand).

So that's my theory. I think it was a way to sell an upgraded model and make more money.

 

[Shane Mckinley]

Wait are we saying a built 35 can hold its own against a 44 for cheaper or the same amount of money?

Or just tossing around opinions on why they added the option then standard in the Rubi?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fouledplugs]

Wait are we saying a built 35 can hold its own against a 44 for cheaper or the same amount of money?

Or just tossing around opinions on why they added the option then standard in the Rubi?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lets keep on topic. Just sharing opinions and ideas on why they went to a Dana 44 in Rubicons and Unlimteds.

 

[StG58]

It has to be a sales thing. Like why did they go to the time and expense to develop a locker / limited slip for the Dana 44, and then not offer it in anything as an option? You have to get the "package", the Rubicon, to get the Dana 44 with the Rubi locker in it. I can see the Sahara as a package, and oh, bye the way throw in a Dana 44. The other packages are a way to get more cash out of people's pockets that are going to buy a Wrangler anyway.

 

[Shane Mckinley]

But you don't get the locker without the rubi package :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StG58]

But you don't get the locker without the rubi package :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But why? I bet it was all about sale volume and money.

 

[Mike_H]

Pretty sure it was mostly marketing. When I got mine, I didn't know any better....I thought the Dana 35 was garbage and Dana 44 was the way to go. Super 35 wasn't even on my radar.

To be fair though, most people who buy wranglers new don't have ANY idea what axle is back there. They just buy the "best" (most expensive) they can. That's why you can't get the good off-road stuff in a pickup or suv or wrangler without getting all the interior upgrades...Its why the we have 50K + Pick-ups and 45K Jeeps.

I don't have a NEW rubicon, but I do have some experience with Pick-ups. I used to have a Chevy Avalanche, Z71 package. I do enough hunting and backroads that I want skidplates and locking rear end. Only way to get there is the Z71 (well, in 02 anyway). Problem is, the Z71 bundles leather, autoclimate, Memory seats and Mirrors, etc, etc, etc...So pretty soon you have a GIANT price tag. Fast forward a few years, and its time to retire the avalanche...I picked up an F150. Again, to get the locker, skid plates, decent tires, etc...you gotta go whole hog and get everything else. Sticker is north of $52,000.

I think @Chris is spot on...The way the MFG's make their money is packaging the upgrades. The base vehicle is expensive to build and would scare people away at the price...(takes pretty much the same equipment to build base level as High end). So they drop the price on the base level, to get people in the door, then package the good stuff with the stuff people don't need, but will make a huge profit for them.

 

[glwood]

It was an idea by a couple of Jeep engineers, who knew owners were always looking to upgrade their Wranglers. The Rubicon almost never got off the ground. These two pitched their ideas to Jeep/Chrysler for a couple of years before getting the go ahead to come up with a few viable pre-production models that were basically put together piece by piece. What they were trying to sell to Jeep was an 'ultimately capable off the showroom floor' Jeep. I believe they originally wanted lockers, Dana 44 axles, swaybar disconnects, the NV241 TC, more lift, off-road M/T tires, and then some. Most of it got implemented. Jeep sold over 10,000 Rubicons the first year, and sales have climbed since. The Dana 44 axles with lockers were always meant to be Rubicon-specific, and not just options you could add to any other model.
The marketing dept. at Jeep initially thought the Rubicon would never get off the ground, and were against the idea.
The Rubicon-specific Dana 44 axles must've been a good idea. They're still in effect after 15 years...

 

[Shane Mckinley]

I'm glad I have a sport with the 44.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris]

Wait are we saying a built 35 can hold its own against a 44 for cheaper or the same amount of money?

Or just tossing around opinions on why they added the option then standard in the Rubi?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think what we're saying is that if you have a Dana 35, it isn't worth the cost to upgrade to a Dana 44 (not one from a TJ at least) unless you're getting it for a damn good price. You're better off upgrading your Dana 35 at that point.

However, if you have a Dana 44 from the start, then yes, stock vs. stock, is it stronger than a Dana 35.

 

[billiebob]

Heres my theory.

The Dana 30/35 is fine for most off roading. In 2WD the Dana 35 offers lots of durability. In normal 4WD use the Dana 30, up front is only handling half the torque. The other half goes to the Dana 35.... and in 4WD that Dana 35 is also only getting half the torque.

BUT throw in lockers and ALLL that torque can get to any single wheel. Since 4LO is geared for rock crawling the loads on any one wheel can be considerably higher than the stock Sport with Dana 30/35 axles.

Lockers and a 4:1 Transfer Case dramatically change the loads the axles handle. Plus the Rubi came with a bit larger tire.

 

[billiebob]

15 Years later,.... experience shows with a few mods the Dana 30/35 combo is pretty much equal to the stock Rubi D44s.

 

[Rob5589]

Chris called it. What is one of the first questions asked when looking at a TJ; "does it have a 44?" Throw in lockers and 4:1 case and it became a must have. Not a bad thing, it makes for a damn capable rig in stock form.

 

[Fouledplugs]

Heres my theory.

The Dana 30/35 is fine for most off roading. In 2WD the Dana 35 offers lots of durability. In normal 4WD use the Dana 30, up front is only handling half the torque. The other half goes to the Dana 35.... and in 4WD that Dana 35 is also only getting half the torque.

BUT throw in lockers and ALLL that torque can get to any single wheel. Since 4LO is geared for rock crawling the loads on any one wheel can be considerably higher than the stock Sport with Dana 30/35 axles.

Lockers and a 4:1 Transfer Case dramatically change the loads the axles handle. Plus the Rubi came with a bit larger tire.

I think I follow you. my question is, why do you think Jeep just didnt upgrade the shafts in the Dana 35?

Why do you think they steered away from the 35 completly and went with Dana 44's?

 

[JMT]

I think I follow you. my question is, why do you think Jeep just didnt upgrade the shafts in the Dana 35?

Why do you think they steered away from the 35 completly and went with Dana 44's?

I think they reasoned that if you don't have lockers, you probably don't need stronger shafts, as you're not going to be getting into those kinds of situations. At the same time, I've read, that if you really want to build a Jeep, get a non-Rubicon since you're going to replace all those parts anyway, including the Dana 44, so why pay twice...My .02c...

 

[billiebob]

I think I follow you. my question is, why do you think Jeep just didnt upgrade the shafts in the Dana 35?

Why do you think they steered away from the 35 and went with Dana 44's?

That answer could be anything from parts available to engineering to marketing. But odds are someone on a computer figured the ring and pinion were the weak points and or they did not want the expense of fitting new brakes, maybe different wheels etc to fit Dana 44 yokes and steering gear. At some point in the evolution the $$$ crunchers always say STOP!

 

[glwood]

I think I follow you. my question is, why do you think Jeep just didnt upgrade the shafts in the Dana 35?

Why do you think they steered away from the 35 completly and went with Dana 44's?

I think because Dana 44s were pretty well known in 4x4s, and if they were going to have lockers front & rear, they would use locked D44s in both axles, just to make the Rubicon seem more offroad calable. IMO

 

[bobthetj03]

Is it even possible to have the same type of locker that is in the Rubi Dana 44 fit in a Dana 35? Maybe there was an engineering setback that made it more viable to package the Dana 44 with the Rubi locker.

 

[Fouledplugs]

Is it even possible to have the same type of locker that is in the Rubi Dana 44 fit in a Dana 35? Maybe there was an engineering setback that made it more viable to package the Dana 44 with the Rubi locker.

This is definitely something that may have been a factor.