Need front u-joint part suggetion
10-13-2014, 10:24 PM
#1
Seasoned Member
Thread Starter
Need front u-joint part suggetion
Replacing the front u-joints on my 96 XJ and I got the 260x Spicers for my mechanic to press in. Evidently I got the wrong advice from somewhere b/c he's saying they're not the right size. Should I have gotten the 760x Spicers instead?
I think there might have been two different front axles offered on the 96 XJ or am I not right about that?
Actually, instead of the Spicer 760s (which I don't think has zerk fittings) would it be better to source a u-joint with zerks? Seems like they go bad when the grease runs out. And although a grease seal is good (like on the Spicers) it seems like the option to re-grease would give a longer life.
I think there might have been two different front axles offered on the 96 XJ or am I not right about that?
Actually, instead of the Spicer 760s (which I don't think has zerk fittings) would it be better to source a u-joint with zerks? Seems like they go bad when the grease runs out. And although a grease seal is good (like on the Spicers) it seems like the option to re-grease would give a longer life.
Last edited by bradleyheathhays; 10-13-2014 at 10:34 PM.
10-14-2014, 04:26 AM
#3
CF Veteran
Replacing the front u-joints on my 96 XJ and I got the 260x Spicers for my mechanic to press in. Evidently I got the wrong advice from somewhere b/c he's saying they're not the right size. Should I have gotten the 760x Spicers instead?
I think there might have been two different front axles offered on the 96 XJ or am I not right about that?
Actually, instead of the Spicer 760s (which I don't think has zerk fittings) would it be better to source a u-joint with zerks? Seems like they go bad when the grease runs out. And although a grease seal is good (like on the Spicers) it seems like the option to re-grease would give a longer life.
I think there might have been two different front axles offered on the 96 XJ or am I not right about that?
Actually, instead of the Spicer 760s (which I don't think has zerk fittings) would it be better to source a u-joint with zerks? Seems like they go bad when the grease runs out. And although a grease seal is good (like on the Spicers) it seems like the option to re-grease would give a longer life.
The 1994 had smaller front u-joints (at least here), 1995 and up had the same.
10-14-2014, 04:29 AM
#4
CF Veteran
Replacing the front u-joints on my 96 XJ and I got the 260x Spicers for my mechanic to press in. Evidently I got the wrong advice from somewhere b/c he's saying they're not the right size. Should I have gotten the 760x Spicers instead?
I think there might have been two different front axles offered on the 96 XJ or am I not right about that?
Actually, instead of the Spicer 760s (which I don't think has zerk fittings) would it be better to source a u-joint with zerks? Seems like they go bad when the grease runs out. And although a grease seal is good (like on the Spicers) it seems like the option to re-grease would give a longer life.
I think there might have been two different front axles offered on the 96 XJ or am I not right about that?
Actually, instead of the Spicer 760s (which I don't think has zerk fittings) would it be better to source a u-joint with zerks? Seems like they go bad when the grease runs out. And although a grease seal is good (like on the Spicers) it seems like the option to re-grease would give a longer life.
The 1994 had smaller front u-joints (at least here), 1995 and up had the same.
Non grease-able is considered stronger (no grease channels in the core), grease-able can be serviced...the choice is basically up to you.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SixShooterXJCherokee
Stock XJ Cherokee Tech. All XJ Non-modified/stock questions go here
9
08-30-2015 08:06 PM
cherokee01
Stock XJ Cherokee Tech. All XJ Non-modified/stock questions go here
10
08-30-2015 05:04 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)