Forums
New posts
Search forums
Image search
Shop
Amazon Store
T-Shirts
Stickers
Members
Current visitors
Supporting Member Upgrade
Sponsors
About
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Image search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Jeep Wrangler YJ
YJ Build Threads & Member's Rides
1994 Hunter Green SE “Back to Stock” Thread
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="machoheadgames" data-source="post: 439839" data-attributes="member: 18789"><p>I did end up reaching out to Denny’s today. $425 plus shipping which includes a 3” X 0.083” tube as opposed to stock 2.5” X 0.083”. I think I’m going to go through with that. A local build with me supplying parts will cost nearly that, and the local dude only balances to 1200-1500 rpm. He maintains the “once it’s balanced, nothing changes above that so it’s still balanced” theory, which I guess is true except at higher speeds sometimes things could flex and no longer be balanced as well. Seems more proper to balance it beyond the speeds you know it will live at to truly guarantee problem free operation.</p><p></p><p>They are suggesting I do a 1330 at both ends instead of 1310 at transfer case/slip yoke and 1330 at rear axle. I already have the rear axle yoke so I’m definitely doing 1330 there. I’m probably going to let them do 1330 at both ends like they want to, but part of me wants to keep it originally sized. The only reason to keep it purist and stock would be so you can walk into a parts store and say “get me the u-joint for a 94 at the transfer case,” or similar. Obviously I know what will be used so really in my case I’d just walk in and say get me a 1330. But part of me wants to keep it stock anyways so that there is no chance of confusion. It’s not going to matter strength wise as either is fully capable. I don’t know why Jeep decided to step up the rear axle joint only for only 94-95. Then in the TJ went right back to 1310. Makes no sense and muddies the water.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="machoheadgames, post: 439839, member: 18789"] I did end up reaching out to Denny’s today. $425 plus shipping which includes a 3” X 0.083” tube as opposed to stock 2.5” X 0.083”. I think I’m going to go through with that. A local build with me supplying parts will cost nearly that, and the local dude only balances to 1200-1500 rpm. He maintains the “once it’s balanced, nothing changes above that so it’s still balanced” theory, which I guess is true except at higher speeds sometimes things could flex and no longer be balanced as well. Seems more proper to balance it beyond the speeds you know it will live at to truly guarantee problem free operation. They are suggesting I do a 1330 at both ends instead of 1310 at transfer case/slip yoke and 1330 at rear axle. I already have the rear axle yoke so I’m definitely doing 1330 there. I’m probably going to let them do 1330 at both ends like they want to, but part of me wants to keep it originally sized. The only reason to keep it purist and stock would be so you can walk into a parts store and say “get me the u-joint for a 94 at the transfer case,” or similar. Obviously I know what will be used so really in my case I’d just walk in and say get me a 1330. But part of me wants to keep it stock anyways so that there is no chance of confusion. It’s not going to matter strength wise as either is fully capable. I don’t know why Jeep decided to step up the rear axle joint only for only 94-95. Then in the TJ went right back to 1310. Makes no sense and muddies the water. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Jeep Wrangler YJ
YJ Build Threads & Member's Rides
1994 Hunter Green SE “Back to Stock” Thread
Top
Bottom