Cheap Axle Alternative
#76
Sure it does. The transaxle always twists a certain way when under acceleration, and over time as the already loose tolerance trans mount wears, it allows more movement. This movement is always the same, twisting more and more as the mount wears, and binds the cage at angles it cant handle. This angle twists and moves in a way that puts more stress on the drivers side. That is why the drivers side is more apt to break.
This^
I have also looked into another reason the axle cages break after many miles and I have come to the conclusion that the cage and ball wear gets to the point where the ***** extend past the cage enough to become dis-engaged.
I found this when I heard the axle hitting the outer hub. I am working on a delrin plug that will limit the total lateral travel of the axle shaft so it will remain in the optimum position even when worn.
#77
I have also looked into another reason the axle cages break after many miles and I have come to the conclusion that the cage and ball wear gets to the point where the ***** extend past the cage enough to become dis-engaged.
I found this when I heard the axle hitting the outer hub. I am working on a delrin plug that will limit the total lateral travel of the axle shaft so it will remain in the optimum position even when worn.
#78
Sure it does. The transaxle always twists a certain way when under acceleration, and over time as the already loose tolerance trans mount wears, it allows more movement. This movement is always the same, twisting more and more as the mount wears, and binds the cage at angles it cant handle. This angle twists and moves laterally in a way that puts more stress on the drivers side. That is why the drivers side is more apt to break.
#79
Regarding cages breaking, there are some known issues with breakage sometimes when people buy a kit and rebuild themselves. Bill & I discussed this and the importance of re-assembling the cages correctly when repairing the joint. Although it’s relatively simple, there is a way the Cross Grooved Joints are to be reassembled that can be overlooked. Because Cross Grooved Joints are cut at an angle, unlike a Double Offset CV Joint which the grooves are cut perpendicular, (or parallel with the axel bar), the orientation of the Outer Housing to the Inner Race must be correct. If not, the cage will definitely break. Attached is a PDF specifying how to re-assemble the joint.
Last edited by lejams; 03-14-2013 at 12:42 AM.
#80
No offense but there is some conjecture here. All things being relatively equal on both sides of the TA, how do you establish everything always twists in a certain way? How do you know that the movements are always the same and how is it known that it always puts more stress on only the driver’s side? For all practical purposes, my TA mount looked as good as new. After I cleaned it up good, I could not find any cracks or striations of any kind. This is my point.
#82
I take it you have never seen an engine twitch to the passenger side during free rev before. Certain BMWs have issues with moneyshifting solely due to the engine twisting enough to cause the user to think he is shifting up, but rather shifting down. Worn motor and trans mounts tend to expedite the situation.
#84
#86
Great thread!
I found this thread searching for information about installing 944 axles onto a Vanagon and thought I would throw in my $.02.
Just to be clear, Vanagon axles are 21.25 (540mm) inches long. I think that lejams meant that the 944 axles measured 21 1/8, not 24 1/8.
Anyway, some of us in the 4WD Vanagon Syncro world have lifted our vans for better off road performance and are looking for a CV joint with a greater “Maximum Angularity”. The internet reports that the type 2 CV’s on a Syncro are rated at 17*, whereas the type 4 CV’s on the 944 are rated at 22*.
Thanks to lejams we now know that EMPI claims no variation in maximum angularity exist between the different types of CV’s. However, I replaced one of my stock Syncro axles with the EMPI 90-6805 and noticed that my maximum suspension droop (before the CV starts binding) increased by over an inch with the EMPI axle. So apparently there is some difference in maximum angularity, just maybe not with EMPI CV’s. The EMPI axle also measured 2-3mm thicker than the original Syncro axle. This all seems like good news for those of you running EMPI Vanagon axles on a 944, as they seem to offer a thicker (stronger?) shaft and greater maximum angularity than the original Vanagon shaft.
However the general wisdom of the Syncro community is that EMPI axles and CV’s are not to be trusted off road and are breaking at a significantly higher rate than the OE (GKN/Lobro) axles. These failures are in off road conditions, many times with one wheel off the ground and diff locks engaged and not while on a track (ha!) or daily driving. Being that AAA does not come get me if I break an axle up some Jeep trail I have just bought a pair of new Lobro 944 axles for my Syncro. Ironically new GKN Syncro axles are not available. Once they arrive I’ll compare them to the EMPI and OE Syncro axles and report back.
I found this thread searching for information about installing 944 axles onto a Vanagon and thought I would throw in my $.02.
Just to be clear, Vanagon axles are 21.25 (540mm) inches long. I think that lejams meant that the 944 axles measured 21 1/8, not 24 1/8.
Anyway, some of us in the 4WD Vanagon Syncro world have lifted our vans for better off road performance and are looking for a CV joint with a greater “Maximum Angularity”. The internet reports that the type 2 CV’s on a Syncro are rated at 17*, whereas the type 4 CV’s on the 944 are rated at 22*.
Thanks to lejams we now know that EMPI claims no variation in maximum angularity exist between the different types of CV’s. However, I replaced one of my stock Syncro axles with the EMPI 90-6805 and noticed that my maximum suspension droop (before the CV starts binding) increased by over an inch with the EMPI axle. So apparently there is some difference in maximum angularity, just maybe not with EMPI CV’s. The EMPI axle also measured 2-3mm thicker than the original Syncro axle. This all seems like good news for those of you running EMPI Vanagon axles on a 944, as they seem to offer a thicker (stronger?) shaft and greater maximum angularity than the original Vanagon shaft.
However the general wisdom of the Syncro community is that EMPI axles and CV’s are not to be trusted off road and are breaking at a significantly higher rate than the OE (GKN/Lobro) axles. These failures are in off road conditions, many times with one wheel off the ground and diff locks engaged and not while on a track (ha!) or daily driving. Being that AAA does not come get me if I break an axle up some Jeep trail I have just bought a pair of new Lobro 944 axles for my Syncro. Ironically new GKN Syncro axles are not available. Once they arrive I’ll compare them to the EMPI and OE Syncro axles and report back.
#88
Great thread!
I found this thread searching for information about installing 944 axles onto a Vanagon and thought I would throw in my $.02.
Just to be clear, Vanagon axles are 21.25 (540mm) inches long. I think that lejams meant that the 944 axles measured 21 1/8, not 24 1/8.
Anyway, some of us in the 4WD Vanagon Syncro world have lifted our vans for better off road performance and are looking for a CV joint with a greater “Maximum Angularity”. The internet reports that the type 2 CV’s on a Syncro are rated at 17*, whereas the type 4 CV’s on the 944 are rated at 22*.
Thanks to lejams we now know that EMPI claims no variation in maximum angularity exist between the different types of CV’s. However, I replaced one of my stock Syncro axles with the EMPI 90-6805 and noticed that my maximum suspension droop (before the CV starts binding) increased by over an inch with the EMPI axle. So apparently there is some difference in maximum angularity, just maybe not with EMPI CV’s. The EMPI axle also measured 2-3mm thicker than the original Syncro axle. This all seems like good news for those of you running EMPI Vanagon axles on a 944, as they seem to offer a thicker (stronger?) shaft and greater maximum angularity than the original Vanagon shaft.
However the general wisdom of the Syncro community is that EMPI axles and CV’s are not to be trusted off road and are breaking at a significantly higher rate than the OE (GKN/Lobro) axles. These failures are in off road conditions, many times with one wheel off the ground and diff locks engaged and not while on a track (ha!) or daily driving. Being that AAA does not come get me if I break an axle up some Jeep trail I have just bought a pair of new Lobro 944 axles for my Syncro. Ironically new GKN Syncro axles are not available. Once they arrive I’ll compare them to the EMPI and OE Syncro axles and report back.
I found this thread searching for information about installing 944 axles onto a Vanagon and thought I would throw in my $.02.
Just to be clear, Vanagon axles are 21.25 (540mm) inches long. I think that lejams meant that the 944 axles measured 21 1/8, not 24 1/8.
Anyway, some of us in the 4WD Vanagon Syncro world have lifted our vans for better off road performance and are looking for a CV joint with a greater “Maximum Angularity”. The internet reports that the type 2 CV’s on a Syncro are rated at 17*, whereas the type 4 CV’s on the 944 are rated at 22*.
Thanks to lejams we now know that EMPI claims no variation in maximum angularity exist between the different types of CV’s. However, I replaced one of my stock Syncro axles with the EMPI 90-6805 and noticed that my maximum suspension droop (before the CV starts binding) increased by over an inch with the EMPI axle. So apparently there is some difference in maximum angularity, just maybe not with EMPI CV’s. The EMPI axle also measured 2-3mm thicker than the original Syncro axle. This all seems like good news for those of you running EMPI Vanagon axles on a 944, as they seem to offer a thicker (stronger?) shaft and greater maximum angularity than the original Vanagon shaft.
However the general wisdom of the Syncro community is that EMPI axles and CV’s are not to be trusted off road and are breaking at a significantly higher rate than the OE (GKN/Lobro) axles. These failures are in off road conditions, many times with one wheel off the ground and diff locks engaged and not while on a track (ha!) or daily driving. Being that AAA does not come get me if I break an axle up some Jeep trail I have just bought a pair of new Lobro 944 axles for my Syncro. Ironically new GKN Syncro axles are not available. Once they arrive I’ll compare them to the EMPI and OE Syncro axles and report back.
#89
Great thread!
I found this thread searching for information about installing 944 axles onto a Vanagon and thought I would throw in my $.02.
Just to be clear, Vanagon axles are 21.25 (540mm) inches long. I think that lejams meant that the 944 axles measured 21 1/8, not 24 1/8.
Anyway, some of us in the 4WD Vanagon Syncro world have lifted our vans for better off road performance and are looking for a CV joint with a greater “Maximum Angularity”. The internet reports that the type 2 CV’s on a Syncro are rated at 17*, whereas the type 4 CV’s on the 944 are rated at 22*.
Thanks to lejams we now know that EMPI claims no variation in maximum angularity exist between the different types of CV’s. However, I replaced one of my stock Syncro axles with the EMPI 90-6805 and noticed that my maximum suspension droop (before the CV starts binding) increased by over an inch with the EMPI axle. So apparently there is some difference in maximum angularity, just maybe not with EMPI CV’s. The EMPI axle also measured 2-3mm thicker than the original Syncro axle. This all seems like good news for those of you running EMPI Vanagon axles on a 944, as they seem to offer a thicker (stronger?) shaft and greater maximum angularity than the original Vanagon shaft.
However the general wisdom of the Syncro community is that EMPI axles and CV’s are not to be trusted off road and are breaking at a significantly higher rate than the OE (GKN/Lobro) axles. These failures are in off road conditions, many times with one wheel off the ground and diff locks engaged and not while on a track (ha!) or daily driving. Being that AAA does not come get me if I break an axle up some Jeep trail I have just bought a pair of new Lobro 944 axles for my Syncro. Ironically new GKN Syncro axles are not available. Once they arrive I’ll compare them to the EMPI and OE Syncro axles and report back.
I found this thread searching for information about installing 944 axles onto a Vanagon and thought I would throw in my $.02.
Just to be clear, Vanagon axles are 21.25 (540mm) inches long. I think that lejams meant that the 944 axles measured 21 1/8, not 24 1/8.
Anyway, some of us in the 4WD Vanagon Syncro world have lifted our vans for better off road performance and are looking for a CV joint with a greater “Maximum Angularity”. The internet reports that the type 2 CV’s on a Syncro are rated at 17*, whereas the type 4 CV’s on the 944 are rated at 22*.
Thanks to lejams we now know that EMPI claims no variation in maximum angularity exist between the different types of CV’s. However, I replaced one of my stock Syncro axles with the EMPI 90-6805 and noticed that my maximum suspension droop (before the CV starts binding) increased by over an inch with the EMPI axle. So apparently there is some difference in maximum angularity, just maybe not with EMPI CV’s. The EMPI axle also measured 2-3mm thicker than the original Syncro axle. This all seems like good news for those of you running EMPI Vanagon axles on a 944, as they seem to offer a thicker (stronger?) shaft and greater maximum angularity than the original Vanagon shaft.
However the general wisdom of the Syncro community is that EMPI axles and CV’s are not to be trusted off road and are breaking at a significantly higher rate than the OE (GKN/Lobro) axles. These failures are in off road conditions, many times with one wheel off the ground and diff locks engaged and not while on a track (ha!) or daily driving. Being that AAA does not come get me if I break an axle up some Jeep trail I have just bought a pair of new Lobro 944 axles for my Syncro. Ironically new GKN Syncro axles are not available. Once they arrive I’ll compare them to the EMPI and OE Syncro axles and report back.
Interesting about your findings on the differences between the EMPI & GKN/Lobro’s. You may find it beneficial to talk with Bill @ EMPI sometime. Apparently, although the SAE standard on all Cross Grooved Joints as Bill read from the book, is a maximum angularity of 25 degrees. Maybe globally not all manufactures comply for one reason or another? I don’t know under what circumstances, if or how, SAE standards interact globally, but in accordance with your finding, sounds like there can be differences.
I don’t have many miles on the EMPI’s yet, but so far so good. However, even though your use is off-roading, which probably neither manufacture intended to warrant, I’m a little disappointed to hear that the EMPI’s are not meeting some of the same stresses as the Lobro’s.