Author Topic: front wheel bearings (Read 13251 times)

mr.mindless · « **on:** February 20, 2012, 04:04:38 PM »

I was hoping for a local source with the Caterpillar p/n (5p-2931) but had no luck. Closest my Dodge dealer network got me with the Mopar J3238141 was in western PA. I guess I should have done better on pre-planning.

I'll be replacing the bearings in the driver side and greasing and resealing the passenger side tonight. Anyone have any results good/bad with just using RTV on that interface? that's what I'll be doing...

amkfken · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:39:39 PM »

O rings available from American Parts Depot

P/N 982 4001 $2.00 ea

I still have 2 ordered and paid for from the Eagle Nest store since last June!

mr.mindless · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2012, 11:48:32 PM »

Well the orings are the least of my worries... Seeing how the hubs are put together and that one of my orings was in 2 pieces from the factory I'm not worries.

My concern is that I've bent the 1/2" plate I built my 5073 press plate from and I fear stripping the hub or breaking the bolts. Stalled a 12 ton press trying to push the hub out of the body.

Guess I'll be taking my Cummins to Cleveland next weekend at this rate, not sure what to try next. Oh well at least it has working cruise.

mr.mindless · « **Reply #3 on:** February 21, 2012, 02:13:16 AM »

Spent a couple more hours fruitlessly applying heat and force after my last post.

Then pulled out some Jeep parts and decided on my course of action. The 27 spline D30 unit bearing and 27 spline CV seem to be a perfect match. The bolt pattern is the same, just need to open up the hole in the knuckle a bit (3 5/8 to 3 7/8 if I remember right) so that's the path I'm going down.

I was all excited for rebuildable hubs instead of expensive unit bearings, but that's only worth anything if they'll come apart and go back together again. Traditional spindles with nuts holding bearings on sure, this pressed crap is for the birds! so to speak

captspillane · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2012, 03:29:19 AM »

Dana30 unit bearing? I'm at a loss at what you mean by that. Are you replacing the entire bearing assembly with one compatible from another vehicle?

mr.mindless · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2012, 09:37:38 AM »

Exactly. I may need to play with the spline depth a little bit to get full engagement, but everything else is a little boring away from bolting right up. The bolt holes and splines are correct, wheel mounting surface is the right diameter and within 0.100" of depth. Should be pretty easy.

I'll be running a unit bearing from an 84-89 application Jeep Dana 30. I don't have pics of the part I'm actually going to use, the sample I had laying around was from a 90-99 application and is a little larger in depth and diameter. Stock brake rotor hats wouldn't clear that one.

After breaking the brake drum I initially was going to press with, I cut out a 5073 plate fro 1/2" steel, and after putting heat on it for a good hour and stalling a 12t press, I bent 1/2" plate.... And that's it.

broken drum:

plotted 5073:

drilling holes:

Set up:

Applying heat:

Bent plate, still assembled:

mr.mindless · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2012, 10:26:22 AM »

I updated the subject to reflect where this thread is going...

I should have one new bearing at lunch today and the other EOB or tomorrow, I'm hoping to get to my machinist tonight or first thing tomorrow with my knuckles.

Here's the OE Eagle hub:
Flange diameter measures 5.70", hub pilot diameter measures about 3 5/8" and the knuckle steps down beyond that diameter to hold the inner seal. I'll get it bored out to 3.75" through.

Here's the 90-99 application Jeep unit bearing, TIMKEN Part # 513084:
Bolt Quantity=5 Flange Dia=6.043" Bolt Circle Dia=4.5" Bolt Size=1/220" Wheel Pilot Dia=2.812" Brake Pilot Dia=2.832" Flange Offset=2.133" Hub Pilot Dia=3.942" Splines=27

And yet to come is the 84-89 application unit bearing, BCA/ Timken 513107

Hub Assembly; Front Wheel Bolt Quantity=5 Flange Dia=5.69" Bolt Circle Dia=4.5" Bolt Size=1/220 Wheel Pilot Dia=2.81" Brake Pilot Dia=2.83" Flange Offset=1.81" Hub Pilot Dia=3.75" Splines=27

mr.mindless · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2012, 03:04:03 PM »

Got one new bearing at lunch. The old style is much deeper, need to see how this will effect CV shaft depth and alignment, I may have to go for the newer style after all and figure out what to do for brake rotors $:-\$

\

I've got a couple things to check before I pull the trigger on milling, I think. Still hoping to do it first thing tomorrow though.

Looking at the knuckle, I think I'll want to gusset the top where it necks down, going all the way through with that diameter will take away a lot of the material that holds the top to the body. The caliper bracket bridges the back side but I think I'd want to add some material back in for long term durability.

captspillane · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2012, 03:40:48 PM »

I once confused a set of new XJ rotors that were piled next to two new Eagle rotors. I put the XJ rotors on the Eagle and didn't notice a problem until I tightened down the lug nuts. The wheel would turn fine with the lugs fingertight and then bind up as soon as they were torqued down. It confused the heck out of me until I put the two new rotors next to each other and the old Eagle rotor and figured out which was which. The XJ is nearly identical to the Eagle rotor except slightly deeper.

I'm betting an XJ rotor would make up the difference in hub depth and put the rotor back inline with the caliper where it belongs. Otherwise the deeper hub might interfere with the caliper.

I love the idea of getting a few pairs of Eagle spindles machined to accept an off the shelf bolt in wheel bearing. If you are successful I will certainly do this for all of my Eagles as well. I'm quite thankful and have given you an egg.

One question: what year and application wheel bearing did you use? I found this picture off Rockauto for a 92 XJ. It seems shallower than yours. I also found a website that says the distance between wheel mounting surface for a '87 to '93 XJ is 70.5 inches but the WMS distance for a '94 to '96 XJ is 67.7 inches. This would explain why I have a set of XJ rims with a very small backspacing while all the rest are deeper.

mr.mindless · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2012, 04:02:39 PM »

I'll get some side-by-side-by-side pictures tonight while I make my plan... I need to look at the seal situation too, I'm potentially unhappy about that as well.

That's an odd year break on widths, RockAuto was telling me that 89 to 90 is the break for all the Jeeps.

Good call on the rotor position, I hadn't thought about that. With slide pins where they are on the back side it'll be quite sensitive to that before the caliper runs out of room to slide.

captspillane · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2012, 05:16:21 PM »

Wikipedia says that the XJ width was:

'87-'93 70.5"
'94-'96' 67.7"
'97-'99 67.9"
'00-'01 69.4"

If true that means that the numbers I quoted before were definately not wheel mounting surface numbers. Most of the difference is likely because of changes in rim backspacing.

I figured if there is a difference in depth of wheel bearings, then it will translate to a difference in caliper. I looked up an '87 Cherokee rotor and it was different than a '92 Cherokee rotor. A '00 Cherokee has the same rotor as a '92.

Then I hit jackpot. I found out that the '92 rotors have a 3- 3/16" height and that the '89 XJ has a "77 mm Depth" which I believe means it has a 3-1/32" height. The part numbers agree exactly with an AMC Eagle. If thats true than its highly likely that the early XJ's used the same wheel bearing and hub assembly as an Eagle. Its available as a unit for 106.89 each on Rockauto. I also found it elsewhere for 80 dollars.

mr.mindless · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2012, 05:25:26 PM »

Those are definitely overall widths, not axle widths. Fullsize trucks are 67-69" WMS-WMS, so those quoted widths will be affected by wheels, tires, trim, door handles, fender flares, whatever the widest part is... Not sure if mirrors count

Similar, but not the same - all were unit bearings not "serviceable" like the Eagles. Check out the bearing applications on Rock and you'll see the year breakdown I mentioned.

I'm OMW home to take some comparison pics and do some decision-making before hopefully a trip to the machine shop in the AM.

hypereagle · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2012, 06:26:48 PM »

Quote from: mr.mindless on February 21, 2012, 05:25:26 PM

Those are definitely overall widths, not axle widths. Fullsize trucks are 67-69" WMS-WMS, so those quoted widths will be affected by wheels, tires, trim, door handles, fender flares, whatever the widest part is... Not sure if mirrors count

Similar, but not the same - all were unit bearings not "serviceable" like the Eagles. Check out the bearing applications on Rock and you'll see the year breakdown I mentioned.

I'm OMW home to take some comparison pics and do some decision-making before hopefully a trip to the machine shop in the AM.

Strange? Front hubs on my 81 SX4 were serviceable.

maddog · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2012, 06:37:39 PM »

same for the ones on Eagle Eyes my 1980.

mr.mindless · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2012, 01:29:08 AM »

Quote from: hypereagle on February 21, 2012, 06:26:48 PM

Quote from: mr.mindless on February 21, 2012, 05:25:26 PM

Similar, but not the same - all were unit bearings not "serviceable" like the Eagles. Check out the bearing applications on Rock and you'll see the year breakdown I mentioned.

Strange? Front hubs on my 81 SX4 were serviceable.

We were referring to the XJs.

Everything will work well with the 84-89 XJ/MJ unit bearings. Got my knuckles gusseted, ready to head to Ontario Engine and Machine first thing in the morning to bore the holes. Plenty of comparison pics and a couple videos too tomorrow, assuming I have some time to burn at work.

mr.mindless · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2012, 12:00:47 PM »

My machinist had some rush jobs he was working this morning, so I won't have the car back together today; I left the knuckles and a sample bearing with him.

Here are the bearing comparisons I promised. They're spaced under the lug studs to even out the wheel mounting surfaces.

90-99; Eagle; 84-89
You can see what I'd consider an "external" seal on the 84-89 bearing vs the internal on the new bearing and the separate on the Eagle hub.
You can also see the different flange height on the "new" unit bearing, which would likely require a different rotor, and add CV wear by extending it further when installed.

The total height of all three from WMS To bearing face is nearly identical:

Comparing the depth of the bearing faces between "old" and "Eagle"

Comparing the depth of the bearing faces between "new" and "Eagle"

Eagle CV compared to Jeep stub

Jeep stub sealing surface size

Eagle CV outermost sealing surface size

Sealing surface on the Jeep stub over the "old" bearing - that seal is meant to ride on the outside shoulder of the shaft with a double lip seal.

A little more comparison of the bearings
http://youtu.be/OlbgDvLrIbA

mr.mindless · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2012, 12:10:35 PM »

As I said, boring out the knuckle is going to reduce the amount of material that attaches the top leg to the bearing mount, so I gusseted that point on both sides. I've read here that the knuckles are unique side to side but that sure doesn't appear to be the case; the hole for the caliper bracket exists on both ends and everything else appears to be symmetrical.

Caliper bracket and brake clearance didn't appear that it would be an issue.

Gussets tacked on

Post-heating in the oven

Finished, pre-smoothing and paint.

mr.mindless · « **Reply #17 on:** March 06, 2012, 02:31:52 PM »

ALLLLmost got this buttoned up last night but not quite.

Freshly machined from Vic at Ontario Engine and Machine

Big bore from the front side

Big bore from the back side

Nearly assembled

I trimmed the outermost dust ring off the seal after thinking it was binding on the edge but it turns out I was mistaken...

I packed the void with grease since this is making a face seal instead of a through seal. We'll see how that behaves.

On the driver side only I had a clearance issue with the CV and the steering arm. The passenger side had no such issue, I still have a little more grinding to do as it sits now.

After first disassembly

After third disassembly

After fifth disassembly

Hopefully next time I put it together gets to be the last. I'm trying hard not to take more material than I need to.

All fresh brakes on the front, fresh shoes on the rear, and I mounted my Grizzlies too. Hopefully I'll wrap this up and then I'll just have headlights and a muffler to take care of before I bring it in for an alignment and inspection.

captspillane · « **Reply #18 on:** March 07, 2012, 03:27:03 PM »

This really is an awesome conversion. Great job in the quality of your work and the description you've posted. Eggs!

I ordered and recieved the 1992 version last time I was home. I also have a brand new pair of rotors for my 1992 XJ in stock in my garage. I went with the 1992 version because I want the extra tire width and I also hope to have less aggressive boring and grinding modifications. I'm back at work now, but next time home I'll make the measurements to confirm if they will work or not. I suspect that the rotors themselves, and only the rotors, make up the difference in height for caliper alignment. I'll confirm this and then do a similar conversion to three or four pairs of spindles I have in stock. Thanks for the inspiration!

mr.mindless · « **Reply #19 on:** March 07, 2012, 04:19:14 PM »

I'd be concerned with CV axle alignment with the newer style, unless you do something to space the axle back in - which if I recall right you'd need to do anyway with the spline style difference.

mr.mindless · « **Reply #20 on:** March 07, 2012, 04:23:21 PM »

Back on the road! New wheels; the 215 tires rub a bit. Still needs alignment, muffler, new headlights & an inspection...

mr.mindless · « **Reply #21 on:** May 05, 2020, 10:45:09 AM »

Sorry all the embedded images broke.
Here's the source album. I get a PM on this thread every couple years and the photos are probably useful.

https://www.facebook.com/michael.maskalans/media_set?set=a.732498390228&type=3

vangremlin · « **Reply #22 on:** May 05, 2020, 11:58:20 AM »

Thanks for providing the photos, they are very helpful