To Rock or not to Rock that is the ?

[rockdog]

I didn't vote. There wasn't a (are you out of your mind option!) I agree with most of the others. You have to have gainormass tires. lift to the moon to clear for drive lines, etc. etc. etc.

 

[jsudar]

Forget about rockwells and start looking at portals. Scouts should have had Mog axles from the factory.
If you really want an axle swap, look into the spider 9's. They have all sorts of cool options. You might loose some weight too.

 

[RockMonkey]

It's really tough to make a rig with a decent CG on portals, but for some reason I still like them. Rockwells seem to have all the drawbacks of portals, with none of the advantages.

 

[notajeep]

Oooooohhhhhhhh!!! I like the portal option! :greg:

 

[I Lean]

I voted Rockwell, simply because I don't want to agree with Carl.

Oh crap, am I *that guy* now?

 

[ChestonScout]

portals = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[LT.]

Okay my Brother, if you want to run Rockwells you need to remember that they are of a top loader design. This puts the input and output of the axle above the axle center line. This requires you to do two things. First is you MUST increase the distance between your rig and the axles. This causes your Center of gravity to be raised (to some degree). I seem to remember you landing on the front end so hard that your current axle came into contact with your oil pan. Think, you are going to have to lift your scout about 6 to 10 inches more just to clear the top loader. Second, you are going to have to put in some kind of four link, ladder bar, or other anti wrap device on the axles just to keep them under the truck. Leaf springs are not going to cut it (even if they are a spring under design). Sooooo...... if you think that you can sell your one tons, purchase the Rockwells, totaly redesign your suspension, run 47 inch tires or larger, purchase new wheels, and do all of this with the money you will make from selling your one tons then you are THE MAN!!! And all of this just to gain what? I don't think that Mike and his two steering Rockwells can turn any tighter than I can with my piece of junk.

If all you are wanting to do is gain some mobility then why not put in some cutting brakes? So, you can do front digs and the like. You would be able to turn your vehicle around in it's own wheel base (provided that you have the correct terrain following).

LT.

 

[Chevycrew]

I am one of those guys running rockwells, they serve their purpose for me, but I dont wheel it in the rocks either. I am very close on oil pan to axle and my truck is still 8 feet tall.

JUST WHEEL IT! This coming from a guy who cant leave anything alone.

p.s. I have tons of websites and done a ton of research on rocks if you want a hand...lol

 

[Vonski]

If your plan is to run another Top Truck Challenge (can you enter more than once?), then the 60's just aren't going to cut it.

However, if your rig has been retired to recreational use only, then maybe keeping the 60's is a better (and much less expensive) option. As you know, Rockwells can be found pretty cheap in stock form, but there is no sense in running them unless you can throw bitchin shafts (and related parts) in them.

BTW, if it would help to see a somewhat practical application of Rockwell's under a non-tububular frame rockcrawling rig, we've got one here. It's here to have alot of stuff re-done, but the original builder did an OK job setting it up height-wise and it has rear-steer (for the typical Rockwell strength and turning radius reasons).

 

[Bart]

Pics Von, pics.

 

[Tacoma]

That thing Von is talking about is pretty damn tall though. ...

The lowest rig I've PERSONALLY seen, is my friend Tom's M715. It has no lift, just the spring-over... and some creative fudging w/the oil pan and a hammer. I'm planning on mounting my engine as high as possible, and running the tightest-fitting oil pan I can to help a little more with that.

Pics available in Jackrabbit Press' ad in Compass.

 

[Vonski]

That thing Von is talking about is pretty damn tall though. ...

Compared to the non-Rockwell'd rigs in the shop, your right. Any lower, and a rig like that would have basically no uptravel.

If Cheston was willing to ditch his frame and start from scratch, he could maybe allow for a possibly lower rig with Rockwells, but i don't think thats the direction he's wanting to go.

 

[Tacoma]

Yeah, you're absolutely right-- with Rockwell's, things are relative LOL

That diff really mucks things up.

 

[Milner]

Compared to the non-Rockwell'd rigs in the shop, your right. Any lower, and a rig like that would have basically no uptravel.

If Cheston was willing to ditch his frame and start from scratch, he could maybe allow for a possibly lower rig with Rockwells, but i don't think thats the direction he's wanting to go.

Hey Von, how about some of those Dana 80's

 

[Vonski]

Hey Von, how about some of those Dana 80's

In an attempt to keep this thread on track for Cheston, I didn't mention Dana 80's as an option. After all, he's wanting to know whether to stick with 60's or go w/ Rockwells.

However, now that you've brought it up... I think Dana 80's are the new cool axle to have, as long as you can figure out how to (1) use the OEM size inner, ujoint, stub, and knuckle (using Dana 60 knuckles is pointless), (2) use a somewhat normal sized caliper (allowing even a 17" rim to clear), and (3) eight lug hub assembly.

The rear is easy, but the components for the front has taken time to figure out, but we almost have a finished product to install under a rig.

The best part is that I believe a front could be built for under $10k complete with calipers, shafts, gears, and a Detroit. The rear would be under $5k easy, maybe even $4k.

 

[Bear T]

Cheston, just donate your rig to me so that i can put all your cool stuff bought with your hard earned money under my scout, and the you build something around the rockwells, personally, i think rockwells are over rated.

by the way, i voted to put you into the asylum. nothin but love bud. nothin but love.

 

[Tacoma]

However, now that you've brought it up... I think Dana 80's are the new cool axle to have, as long as you can figure out how to (1) use the OEM size inner, ujoint, stub, and knuckle (using Dana 60 knuckles is pointless), (2) use a somewhat normal sized caliper (allowing even a 17" rim to clear), and (3) eight lug hub assembly.

--------snip snip---------------

The best part is that I believe a front could be built for under $10k complete with calipers, shafts, gears, and a Detroit. The rear would be under $5k easy, maybe even $4k.

HOLY CRAP. Well, I guess if you're going balls-out on a buggy build that's not crazy, but damn, $15k on axles??!?!?!

You do my heart proud pimping the 80. I have been absolutely in love w/front 70's and those Marmon-Herrington conversions. Whether it adds function or not (and obviously, strength is nice and functional), I just like the looks of those huge tubes under there.

 

[Vonski]

HOLY CRAP. Well, I guess if you're going balls-out on a buggy build that's not crazy, but damn, $15k on axles??!?!?!

Yeah, $15k for a pair of axles is tough to swallow for broke d*cks like you and I, but it's common to see the "average Joe" wheeler on local trails that have that much in custom 60's under their Jeep.

 

[Tacoma]

Point them out to me so I can mug them.

I kid! but you've inspired a poll.

 

[GOAT]

. this isn't big tire country.

exactly!


If I were wheelin gray rock every weekend then, rocks and 44"+ tires would be in order..............and so would a big block, tube chassis, 125+ wb, and a truck full of money to make it all work right.



Something like Tim Cameron's bad A$$ rockwell buggy:greg: