Jason,
>From 1987 thru 1995 the Jeep Wrangler had a front axle with a vacuum
assisted axle disconnet system. On the front passenger side of the axle
there is a slip collar that will slide over to make the front passenger
wheel and axle piece connected/disconnected to the axle piece that is
connected to the differential. I.E. the right front axle is a two piece
affair with a slip collar that is moved via a vacuum actuator. When you
slide your transfer case into 4wd the transfer case sends a vacuum signal to
the axle's vacuum actuator which causes the collar to slide over and engaget
the two axle halves. When in 2wd the front driveshaft does not rotate due to
the disconnected axle half. If you put a front autolocker in this beast like
I have the front driveshaft will rotate all of the time due to the nature of
the locker. It will rotate whether or not you are in 4wd. Since the there is
no power applied to the driveshaft from the engine there is no problem when
you are in 2wd. No additional wear, except for the rotating driveshaft
bearings and seals on the front of the transfer case assuming the front
driveshaft is properly balanced.
>From 1997 thru the present the Jeep Wrangler has had this axle disconnect
system removed. The front driveshafts on these vehicles rotate all the time
whether the vehicle is in 4wd or not. It rotates due to the action of the
front differential. Chrysler apparently figured that the additional wear and
tear on the transfer case bearings and seals was worth the trade-off for
removing the axle disconnect system. An autolocker in this axle has no
apparent effects. When in 2wd, again, there is no power being applied to the
front axle from the engine so the front axles are always in "coast" mode and
no one I've ever talked to can discern any difference between a autolocked
axle and an open axle in 2wd on the street.
Any of the real differences in behavior seem to be when in 4wd. Some drivers
report a reduced turning ratio while others, like me, cannot discern any
effect other than the additional traction provide by the locker. I too, was
afraid the front locker was going to have negative effect and that's why I
installed the manual override on my 95 Wrangler. Much to my surprise, I had
nothing to be concerned about and the only time I've ever used my manual
override is the day I mentioned in a previous note where I forgot to
re-connect the axle while trail riding after using the manual override to
try and isolate a squeak in the front. One cautionary note here, I don't
typically run trails with high degrees of traction like the slickrock you
find in Moab. I'd probably be switching between 2 and 4wd a lot in those
kinds of areas with the front locker and one of the items on my Christmas
list is a 2wd low kit but for now I don't really need it.
I'm not real familiar with the Dakota 4wd but from the e-mail I've read here
it seems this truck went through a similar evolution as regards the front
axle disconnect. At this point, I have no reason to believe that this axle
would act any differently than the Jeep's.
Regards, Mike Klinke
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Yates <onebad4x4dak@yahoo.com>
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Date: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: DML: locker in the front--axle disconnect? ATTN: Mike K
>So Mike,
>You seem to have a good handle on locker behavior/installation.
>With this discussion, I realize I'm not sure I understand a term
>that has been tossed around since the beginning of this
>thread--what exactly is the "axle disconnect system." The
>original poster (the other Jason) said the Gen III Dakota
>doesn't have one and you say you have a manual override. I
>guess all I know is that when I take the transfer case out of
>4WD into 2WD, the front axle is no longer receiving power from
>the engine. Is that the "axle disconnect system" we're speaking
>of or is there more to it? Thanks for your previous responses
>and in advance for helping me understand this complex world of
>4WD. ;)
>
>JY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:59:14 EDT