C-clip axles suck.

Area for post regarding Jeeps other than an FSJ. This area may contain technical post regarding those vehicles as well.
Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
FSJunkie
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona

C-clip axles suck.

Post by FSJunkie »

The Dana 35 rear axle in my parents' 1993 Grand Cherokee is getting noisy, so I tore into it expecting to find bad bearings. Sure enough, I did.

I've rebuild axles before, but this is my first c-clip axle. As I pulled the shaft out, I expected the wheel bearing to be pressed-on to the axle shaft, but to my surprise the bearing rides on the shaft itself. The shaft is the inner race for the roller bearing. The axle shaft bearing surface had some pretty nasty spalling on it, which now means both shafts will need to be replaced.

If this was a traditional bearing-retained axle, the bad bearings could simply be pressed off and new bearings pressed on, but because of the c-clip design where the axle shaft is the bearing surface, the whole shafts need to be replaced.

What kind of stupid design is that!? A stupid one is he answer.

Not to mention the axial load on the wheel while cornering is routed through the full length of the axle shaft and into the differential side gears and center pin, through the carrier, and through the carrier bearings to the differential case, causing extra stress on all of them and likely shifting the relationship of the gears. A bearing-retained axle isolates the major length of the axle shafts and the entire differential assembly from axial cornering loads.

Stupid design. it made it 250,000 miles, so I can't curse it too bad, but it's stupid from an engineering and repair standpoint. $60 to replace wheel bearings on a bearing-retained axle verses $400 on a c-clip axle.
1972 Wagoneer: 360 2V, THM-400, D20, D30 closed knuckle, D44 Trac-lok 3.31.
1965 Rambler Ambassador: 327 4V, BW M-10 auto, AMC 20 3.15.
1973 AMC Ambassador: 360 4V, TC-727.
1966 AMC Marlin 327 4V, T-10 4 speed, AMC 20 Powr-lok 3.54.
User avatar

Stuka
Site Admin
Posts: 11789
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:53 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: C-clip axles suck.

Post by Stuka »

If the shaft is damaged it means the bearing should have been replaced quite a while ago. Although unless it's deep, I would not bother replacing them. Throw new bearings on and run it.

C-clips may suck for strength, but it's way cheaper to build and repair.


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
2017 JKU Rubicon
Pevious Jeeps: 1981 J10, 1975 Cherokee, 2008 JK, 2005 KJ, 1989 XJ
User avatar

carnuck
Posts: 3881
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:48 pm
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Contact:

Re: C-clip axles suck.

Post by carnuck »

You might be surprised to know most shops only replace the bad shaft. The bearing is still good 8 out of 10 times. There is a C clip eliminator you can buy for them. I have a rebuilt D35 in a '93 Grand Cherokee with 3.55 posi. Wish I could use that posi carrier with the 4.10 axles going into my Comanche, but my new rear diff is an 8.25 from a '98ish XJ with 2.5 and 5 speed. The old one is 3.73 D35.
Check my parts for sale near Seattle

rocklaurence
Vendor
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:53 am

Re: C-clip axles suck.

Post by rocklaurence »

Yep, easier during the build process. Just like unit bearings. Now the assemblers only have to install two C clips instead of 8 bolts [4 on ea side]. The diff' cross pin has to be installed regardless, so you cant count that as an extra step.

jamesdart
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: C-clip axles suck.

Post by jamesdart »

they are all stupid, other than FF.

Locked and Loaded
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: C-clip axles suck.

Post by Locked and Loaded »

Dana Turdy 5s suck.
Drink more Water

rocklaurence
Vendor
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:53 am

Re: C-clip axles suck.

Post by rocklaurence »

Locked and Loaded wrote:Dana Turdy 5s suck.
I believe the the D35 was originally built for golf carts :P
User avatar

carnuck
Posts: 3881
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:48 pm
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Contact:

Re: C-clip axles suck.

Post by carnuck »

Seriously though, it was a Rambler Model 15 axle with slight upgrades. 1 piece axle shafts and bigger bearings than the Model 15 in my Eagle originally. Now I have an XJ 8.25 instead (also C clip) Only '91 up D35s are C clip. I have 250,000 on the non-C clip D35 in my Comanche running 33" tires and 3.73 gears. It's getting swapped for an 8.25 with 4.10s soon. (By the end of Jan because that's when I rented the garage to and my helper is sort of stuck with it in lieu of rent)
Check my parts for sale near Seattle
User avatar

Topic author
FSJunkie
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona

Re: C-clip axles suck.

Post by FSJunkie »

I can't complain about the Dana 35 aside from the c-clip design, which many other axles also used. It's gone 250,000 miles and the gears look fine still, just the bearings gave out. The bearings in my Wagoneer's Dana 44 died at half that mileage.

My Hornet is the AMC 15, so basically the same axle but without the c-clips. It's been a good little axle as well.

I just hate the c-clip design for a repair standpoint.
1972 Wagoneer: 360 2V, THM-400, D20, D30 closed knuckle, D44 Trac-lok 3.31.
1965 Rambler Ambassador: 327 4V, BW M-10 auto, AMC 20 3.15.
1973 AMC Ambassador: 360 4V, TC-727.
1966 AMC Marlin 327 4V, T-10 4 speed, AMC 20 Powr-lok 3.54.
Post Reply