Force 2wd?

[Jeepsterman]

Thanks

 

[OldVetteGuy]

When you order a new FAD it will come with both the gasket and the bolts, you could easily use bolts removed from the factory cover plate. They are the exact same bolts and can be reused, just put a drop of blue locktite when you install the fad.

 

[Tank2112]

It is true that running in 2wd will add some extra stress to the rear axle especially if you have a lead foot. I will point out a couple of things, the transfer case IS the weak point on a 392 Wrangler. Consider this how many Dana 44 failures do you hear about and then, how many transfer cases are failing. When in 2wd there is no pressure on the front transfer case clutch pack, (this is the item that usually fails in our transfer cases) Also, if you do add a FAD unit to the front axle you are literally free wheeling the front differential, no carrier or ring and pinon rotation. The 392 will actually steer and drive better, zero wear on the front axle and since nothing is rotating, its smoother too. Plus, I do find a minor fuel savings. Ask those who have done this, it is a mod that pays off in spades!

Finally, for those who feel the full time 4wd is a better option I submit to you, what is cheaper to replace a 2K Dana 44 (2k) or a transfer case (4k). I will go with the Dana 44 option every time (better yet a D60 upgrade) besides, you will also have much more fun in 2wd. Obviously just my opinion and 50 years of mechanical experience!

I asked the very same questions/points you are making to several Jeep service managers with years on the job, different transmission specialists and others that seem knowledgeable on Jeep forums. Thing is, to be in FRWD the clutch motor is constantly forcing the clutch pack to open position. Doesn't seem to be that the failure is worn clutch packs....seems to be issue with electric actuator motor. No one could tell me you add life to AWD tc by forcing electric motor to hold clutches in fully open position.
Simple solution is to convert AWD tc to Rubicon style tc the has 2wd option.
Wrangler 392 should have come with stock Dana 60 rear and 2wd option tc.....period

Most that daily drive their Wrangler 392 won't have tc issues, statistically speaking. If you are a hard-core off-roader...rock crawling extreme trails, I think you will eventually overheat the AWD clutch setup in the tc and it will fail. In my custom LJ....Iv'e broken two ProRock dana 60 rear ring & pinions sets, two ARB lockers, broke/split an Atlas tc. Driving style and obstacles you are attempting change everything. Don't think Jeep expected the majority of $100k+ Wrangler owners go out and beat the shit out of their new Jeeps. For those that can afford it, better swap out some parts...stock setup ain't going to cut it.

 

[OldVetteGuy]

I asked the very same questions/points you are making to several Jeep service managers with years on the job, different transmission specialists and others that seem knowledgeable on Jeep forums. Thing is, to be in FRWD the clutch motor is constantly forcing the clutch pack to open position. Doesn't seem to be that the failure is worn clutch packs....seems to be issue with electric actuator motor. No one could tell me you add life to AWD tc by forcing electric motor to hold clutches in fully open position.
Simple solution is to convert AWD tc to Rubicon style tc the has 2wd option.
Wrangler 392 should have come with stock Dana 60 rear and 2wd option tc.....period

Most that daily drive their Wrangler 392 won't have tc issues, statistically speaking. If you are a hard-core off-roader...rock crawling extreme trails, I think you will eventually overheat the AWD clutch setup in the tc and it will fail. In my custom LJ....Iv'e broken two ProRock dana 60 rear ring & pinions sets, two ARB lockers, broke/split an Atlas tc. Driving style and obstacles you are attempting change everything. Don't think Jeep expected the majority of $100k+ Wrangler owners go out and beat the shit out of their new Jeeps. For those that can afford it, better swap out some parts...stock setup ain't going to cut it.

All valid comments, I will share some tidbits of info I have found out while doing research on this issue some of which you probably already know. The whole issue with the 4wd approach is Stellantis knew 470 ft lbs of torque was a bit to much for the Dana 44 so the best way was to dissapate it was to share it over 4 wheels. Not only that they knew a Jeep isn't a sports car and doesn't handle that well to begin with. So what the best way to keep owners from wrapping them around trees were with 4wd, torque limiting and so on. And that's the reasoning.

Why not use the original Rock-Rack transfer case? I was told by a Jeep mechanic that you could not use a standard rubicon transfer case because of its 4:1 low transfer ratio plus it would require additional vehicle programming. On top of that it still was a transfer case built for a V6 and not a 392 so now were back to the original issue.

Personally I would just bolt in an Atlas before screwing around with the V6 transfer case. It would be interesting to know how well it the NV241 Rock-Trac would work and hold up and how useful it would be going thru the rocks.

As far as the 392's MP3022 transfer case front clutch is concerned, it is directly controlled by the clutch motor from data read from the front an rear wheel sensors and processed by the computer systems. As long as all 4 wheels are rotating at the same rpm little pressure is put on the front clutch pack but when you start hot dogging around in the sand and mud thing begin to go bad. If you chose to go boldly and are planted on the gas for extended periods the clutch pack and actuator motor start to go south.

The failure point of the FRWD clutch pack is the motor cannot provide enough force to complete lock up the front pack, the clutches overheat and begin to shed and wipe out the clutch material. This in turn send small metal through out the transfer case which inevitability kills it. This is one of the reasons Jeep increased the force on the front clutch pack (supposedly for the 24/25 MY) and have an updated motor according to Scott Blum.

No doubt even more necessary when you consider the 24/25's came with the X package with larger tires thus making the problem worse.

Based on the reported failures and tear down analysis the clutch pack motor and front clutch assembly is really not up to the task as the MP3022 was never designed for the amount of torque the 392 can deliver. I am sure the upgraded pack motor and additional clutch pack pressure helps but for the hard core Rubiconeer it not the real answer.

No doubt the best reasonable solution is an Atlas transfer case and Dana 60 even though their are better alternatives but most would be a bit extravagant and outside the purview for the average 392 owner.

Finally, The FAD implementation and Tazer RWD mode is a good cheap way to extend the life to the transfer case and front axle.

This solution is for the ocassional outdoorsmen, mall crawler, daily driver, RV toad and so on. It's easy, cheap and gives you a better driving Jeep that is smoother and handles better. It's not for everyone. Cheers all and happy motoring!

 

[Tank2112]

All valid comments, I will share some tidbits of info I have found out while doing research on this issue some of which you probably already know. The whole issue with the 4wd approach is Stellantis knew 470 ft lbs of torque was a bit to much for the Dana 44 so the best way was to dissapate it was to share it over 4 wheels. Not only that they knew a Jeep isn't a sports car and doesn't handle that well to begin with. So what the best way to keep owners from wrapping them around trees were with 4wd, torque limiting and so on. And that's the reasoning.

Why not use the original Rock-Rack transfer case? I was told by a Jeep mechanic that you could not use a standard rubicon transfer case because of its 4:1 low transfer ratio plus it would require additional vehicle programming. On top of that it still was a transfer case built for a V6 and not a 392 so now were back to the original issue.

Personally I would just bolt in an Atlas before screwing around with the V6 transfer case. It would be interesting to know how well it the NV241 Rock-Trac would work and hold up and how useful it would be going thru the rocks.

As far as the 392's MP3022 transfer case front clutch is concerned, it is directly controlled by the clutch motor from data read from the front an rear wheel sensors and processed by the computer systems. As long as all 4 wheels are rotating at the same rpm little pressure is put on the front clutch pack but when you start hot dogging around in the sand and mud thing begin to go bad. If you chose to go boldly and are planted on the gas for extended periods the clutch pack and actuator motor start to go south.

The failure point of the FRWD clutch pack is the motor cannot provide enough force to complete lock up the front pack, the clutches overheat and begin to shed and wipe out the clutch material. This in turn send small metal through out the transfer case which inevitability kills it. This is one of the reasons Jeep increased the force on the front clutch pack (supposedly for the 24/25 MY) and have an updated motor according to Scott Blum.

No doubt even more necessary when you consider the 24/25's came with the X package with larger tires thus making the problem worse.

Based on the reported failures and tear down analysis the clutch pack motor and front clutch assembly is really not up to the task as the MP3022 was never designed for the amount of torque the 392 can deliver. I am sure the upgraded pack motor and additional clutch pack pressure helps but for the hard core Rubiconeer it not the real answer.

No doubt the best reasonable solution is an Atlas transfer case and Dana 60 even though their are better alternatives but most would be a bit extravagant and outside the purview for the average 392 owner.

Finally, The FAD implementation and Tazer RWD mode is a good cheap way to extend the life to the transfer case and front axle.

This solution is for the ocassional outdoorsmen, mall crawler, daily driver, RV toad and so on. It's easy, cheap and gives you a better driving Jeep that is smoother and handles better. It's not for everyone. Cheers all and happy motoring!

More and more are now converting their stock Wrangler 392 tc to a Rocktrac. Stays quiet and easy to operate. They use Tazer a a Mopar tc control module to eliminate any errors. I agree the weak point is the factory clutch pack in AWD tc. With stock sized tires, the factory dana 44 is strong enough to handle factory torque on it's own. Larger, heavier tires can be an issue. The NVG 241 RockTrac can easily handle the torque of the 392 engine.
I had a TJ with a modified 4.0L engine to 4.7L stroker, with performance cam, larger injectors, roller rocker arms, forged pistons & rods, Hesco aluminum hi-flow heads and an Avenger Super Charger running 8lbs boost..... running 42" heavy TLS, ProRock 60 axles, coiler suspension, full roll cage welded to frame, 5-point harnesses. Never had an issue with stock NV241 tc. And I guarantee that I abused that Jeep to a level you would not understand. That was back in the day where not making it up an obstacle wasn't happening.

All to say... there is more stress on axles and driveshafts than tc.

Issue with Atlas tc, and I currently run one in my rock Jeep...is they are more noisy. You can hear the gearing inside the tc at coast. Also are sometimes more difficult to engage/disengase. Atlas is great for a hard core off-road rig. I have had 3 different Atlas tc's over a 20+ years, both 2-speed and 4-speed. I would not personally put one in my Wrangler 392. If my factory tc clutch fails....I'll convert to NV241.

 

[EBYCREEK]

I've installed the Atlas 3:8:1 TC in my 392 over a year ago. I was worried about the noise but I can say that I have not noticed any additional noise. Pretty simple install and with the new adapter you can use what ever drive shafts you are using now. You do need a new DTCM and a Tazer for programing.

 

[Tank2112]

I've installed the Atlas 3:8:1 TC in my 392 over a year ago. I was worried about the noise but I can say that I have not noticed any additional noise. Pretty simple install and with the new adapter you can use what ever drive shafts you are using now. You do need a new DTCM and a Tazer for programing.

When you are cruising at say 60mph.... lift foot off of accelerator slightly (coasting in that in between spot, not accelerating nor decelerating)... or coasting down hill on the hwy where there is no pressure on drivetrain.....you can't heard the gears in the Atlas? It's so obvious with my Atlas.
You should hear a little chatter, not much, but it's there. It's the tolerances between the internal gears. They are not synchronized gears, unless Atlas has completely redesigned their tc since I last spoke with them???
Also being non-synchronized gears, make sure to engage or disengage, what ever you'll need, before suspension is bound up from uneven terrain..... because you'll have issues shifting tc. I've been bound so much I couldn't shift tc at all without violently rocking forward/reverse attempting to slightly bounce Jeep.
Most don't wheel near that hard. Point is...shift tc before suspension gets too out of shape.