DodgeTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Okay I know its been said that the biggest tire the D can run on sthe stock front axle is a 33" but is anyone running anything larger?

I ask b/c the same thing is true on a Wrangler with stock axles but if you do not offraod then 35s will be okay so lonag as you regear; but you take the chance of breakeage if you do push the Jeep too hard. Is this something possible with the D or will the front axle crap out with the 35s?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
It depends on the year of your D. I have a 99 D, which has the Dana 35 front end (which is the same as what Jeeps run).... You would be fine with 35's but your brakes wouldn't like you much...... and wouldn't stop very good.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
I'm running 35x12.5x15s and regeared with 4.56s and have had no problem. Been running that combo for over 40k miles.
 

·
Work in progress...
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
Michael, do the 98's have a dana 35 front end too? I guess I was under the impression that we didn't have much up there but a dana 35 isn't too bad. I guess it's just the linkages that like to start breaking?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
a Dana 35 axle with 35" tires is not a stong axle configuration on a 5000# vehicle like the Durango.
 

·
Work in progress...
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
That durango is huge. I've seen it before...that guy is on the forums here. Maybe he'll stop by.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
canyonD said:
a Dana 35 axle with 35" tires is not a stong axle configuration on a 5000# vehicle like the Durango.
Better than the 2000+ Durango with the Chrysler POS up front.... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I have a 2000 5.9L 4wd

I thought they all had the D35 up front and the chrysler in the rear? Both those axles should hold up to the 35" (keep in mind its my grocery getter - nothing but curbs and the occasion highway off ramp mud hole).
 

·
Pimp On Sir Don
Joined
·
12,782 Posts
No, they mixed danas and Chryslers for a year or two and I think anything over 01 has a chrysler front and rear.
 

·
Work in progress...
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
What's wrong with the chryslers? My D has a 9.25" and my dad's ram has a 9.25" and they seem to be pretty beefy axles. If they would put them on a full sized truck I would assume they were pretty decent. Anyways I crawled under my D and looked at my front axle. It has "Dana" on the front of it but it looks kind of puny. I can definitely see how you wouldn't want anything more than a 33" on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
DodgeEnthusiast said:
What's wrong with the chryslers? My D has a 9.25" and my dad's ram has a 9.25" and they seem to be pretty beefy axles. If they would put them on a full sized truck I would assume they were pretty decent. Anyways I crawled under my D and looked at my front axle. It has "Dana" on the front of it but it looks kind of puny. I can definitely see how you wouldn't want anything more than a 33" on it.

I am not talking about Chrysler rear... I am talking about the Chrysler front end.. the 8.025 or something like that.... The Dana 35(which is what is up front on your D) is the same thing that is in the Jepp Cherokee and no it is not GREAT.... but it is defidently better....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
The Chrysler front axle used on Durangos made in 2000 - 2003 is the 7.625. It is essentially a knockoff of the Dana 35. Neither is strong enough for 35's if you believe the experts (which I tend to believe). Here is an axle strength guide for the Dana 35 and the Chrysler 7.625.

As you can see, neither the Dana 35 nor the Chrysler 7.625 is advised for tires over 33". The Dana is only advised with 33" tires if you have proper gearing, a 6 banger, an automatic tranny, and a smooth accelerator foot. The Dana 35 can be reinforced to handle 35's in a solid axle setup, but the Durango mounting setup will not accomadate the trusses.

The Chryco 7.625 is only advised for use with 31" tires, although 33" tires have been used effectively offroad. 33" tires are definitely going to accelerate the front axle wear and tear, but they are manageable on a Chryco 7.625.

There have been many hot discussions on this topic including this funny flame session with Kpatty http://www.dodgetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77877

The only safe and logical way to run 35's on a Durango is to swap the front axle to a larger diff solid axle.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Im sorry but calling an aluminum based axle the same strength as a iron based axle is ridiculous. you have ALOT more things to worry about if you are running 35" tires than axle strength. i would be more worried about brakes if I was thinking about putting 35's on my D.

yes, a SAS would be the best way to run 35's but I have seen wranglers with D35's run 37's or 39's before... of course they don't off-road... but the axle would hold up for on-road driving.....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
michaelrice said:
Im sorry but calling an aluminum based axle the same strength as a iron based axle is ridiculous.
Who ever claimed that they were the same?

The reviews I posted stated that 33" tires were the largest advised for a Dana 35 and 31" tires were the largest advised for a Chryco 7.625.

The Dana 35 may run tires that are 35" on little lightweight Jeeps, but Durangos are considerably heavier and have a heavier payload capacity.

If you look at those that know how to build Jeeps, they would never advise using 35" tires even on a little lightweight Wrangler. The conventional wisdom is to swap in a Dana 44 for tires that are over 33".

Putting 35" tires with a full load on a Durango will be over the limit for a Dana 35 whether it is cast iron or not.
 

·
User
Joined
·
873 Posts
canyonD said:
The Chrysler front axle used on Durangos made in 2000 - 2003 is the 7.625.
I beg to differ, canyon. I have the Corporate 205 in my 2000.

C205 = 205 mm = ~8.07"
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
that is odd. The switch from the Dana 35 to the Corp 7.625 was in 2000 (see chart below). I was under the perception that to get the corporate 8.0 IFS axle, you had to get a Ram 1500.

Maybe they mixed in some of the Corp 8.0's into the 2000 model years too, but this is odd since the C205F front axle did not get put into Rams until 2002 (again see chart below).

If you have the Corporate 8.0 front axle, you are very fortunate since the 8.0 can handle 33's with no trouble, and probabably could manage 35's if it werent for the braking and steering system problems.
 

Attachments

·
User
Joined
·
873 Posts
Fortunate? Maybe, maybe not, since I don't plan to run anything larger than 32's. Maybe if it was mine, but since it's the wife's car... ;)

Anyway, my manual (I have a 2k Durango FSM) doesn't even list the 7.625 as an option for the front. It only lists the C205F. Maybe the article was based on info from a Dakota, and the author made the assumption on the Durango? I dunno.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
Hey Jason,

Wanna trade? lol
 

·
User
Joined
·
873 Posts
LOL Well, sure, drive on up to MI, and you do the swap.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top