Thread: 32s" vs axle damage

Originally Posted by Disco Mik

I'm going to ask the only logical thing I can think of, as I am in the midst of currently upgrading the capabilities of my 92 3 Door Disco.
I'm installing a 2 inch suspension lift and am going to attack the guards with my grinder in an effort to fit 33's under there. I currently have a set of 32's for offroading and run 29's on the black stuff.
What is the best replacement parts to counteract the forces applied by bigger wheels, I have read early range rover cv's are stronger than Disco ones. But I'm open to suggestions on better gear to stick in there to lessen the chance of snapping something when I'm out enjoying the bush?

In the rear, HTE/Ashcroft/Etc halfshafts (axles) and any of the aftermarket diff centres will hold up to 33" tyres and smaller and whatever you can throw at it.

In the front the same goes for the inner stuff, then for CVs the bolt-in options in terms of stongest to weakest are Ashcroft / 110 county / RRC (however then you have fusible stub axles).

Another choice is KAM chromos with fuseable stubs as well.

Thanks for the info, I hope the standard ones hold up for little while until I can source some parts. What is the difference between fusible stubs and factory ? Is it a new weak link?
Cheers

I would lean towards Ashcroft CV's over the County and Rangie ones. There is a big difference between them if you want reliability with big tyres and plan on playing. When a CV breaks there is often collateral damage.

Is there much strengh difference between 10 and 24 spline axles???

Sent from my GT-I9507 using AULRO mobile app

Originally Posted by rowland0

Is there much strengh difference between 10 and 24 spline axles???

Sent from my GT-I9507 using AULRO mobile app

If they are made from the same material the 24 spliners are at least 33% stronger. The only problem with oem axles is lr switched to crappier steel when the discos and rrcs went to 24 spline, so oem 10 and 24 are similar in overall stress resistance - but the 24s are probably still better at resisting fatigue failure. D2 axles seem ok though.

To get back to the original question... the greater the rolling resistance in whatever form the more strain/load on the drivetrain. Increasing the rolling diameter significantly ( larger wheel/tyre combination) above standard trim, coupled with DIY destructive testing regimes on difficult tracks is sure to lead to catastrophic failure at some stage

Disco 1 300tdi, manual, detroit in rear, standard axles 3.5 tonne, Birdville to Alice via the Simpson disintegrated front drive flange no front propshaft & 5 months later no trouble with rear axles. Only pulled over 6 dunes for about 10 mitres each time.