Front Driveshaft Removal Myths [Archive] - North American Grand Cherokee Association

: Front Driveshaft Removal Myths


SOLITUDE
10-26-2006, 05:10 AM
Ok, once and for all, please explain plainly for everyone why it is not good to remove the front driveshaft off of a 249(AWD) transfer case. And please explain for everyone what happens inside the case if you remove it. I found this:

My whole thing with removing the front driveshaft is that it causes uneven load on the chain and output shafts. I've known a few cases where the Tcase has basically self distructed as it is still sending load to the front output yoke where there is nothing there. It binds up and then the chain becomes floppy. I'm pretty sure that its also not good for the VC since since it is always then sensing a variance in load from the front end. If you plan on using the 249 again, then its really not good for the Tcase.

fr3db3ar
10-26-2006, 07:09 AM
From what I understand it's bad to remove the front shaft from 93-95. I believe it's bad for the VC not the TC itself. From 96 - 98 it seems they used a different pump or something.....might have something to do with those years having an actual low lock. I'm not an expert. The only other bad thing about removing the front shaft is when you park...the pump will lose pressure and release the driveline and your rig could roll away.

KJK
10-26-2006, 07:59 AM
This is what I've found while overhauling my '98 249:
In a nutshell, The '96-'98 249 has essentially a straight shaft (made up of two seperate shafts) from the input side to the rear output yoke. These two shafts are "locked" together when the transfercase is in high range and the VC takes care of any speed differential between the front driveshaft and the rear one. In low range the VC itself is locked and taken out of the equation.
It is on this "main" shaft that the VC resides. The ID of the VC is splined to the shaft and the outside of the VC is connected to the front output shaft by the chain.
Keep in mind that the VC is very stiff and is very difficult to turn by hand. If the front driveshaft is out, the VC simply turns on it's shaft and easily turns the chain driving the front output yoke. It never locks up because there is no shearing action to heat up the fluid. It just spins because there is not enough resistance to make it slip. You have to have both driveshafts in and turning at relatively different rpm's in order to get the shearing action in the VC which heats up the fluid and causes it to lock up.
This is only for the '96-'98 249. In high range all the torque to the front wheels is transferred through the VC.
On the '93-'95 249 the VC acts on a planetary gearset which transfers the torque. The input shaft and the rear output shaft are not locked together. That's why these tend to burn up the VC and will roll if left in "park" when the front driveshaft is out.

This is just my opinion from first hand experience at taking a 249 apart.

SOLITUDE
10-26-2006, 10:49 AM
All time 4x4. Think of it this way...If you park on a hill with a 2 wheel drive car and the right tire is in the gutter on ice, it can roll backwards. While the left tire on dry pavement is rolling backwards, the right tire is actually rolling forward and pilling out on the ice.
Now apply this to the jeep...When the front driveshaft is out, tires can spin independently. The front tires are not going to prevent rolling at all because the driveshaft is gone.
If the VC is going out, when it cools down it will allow the front driveshaft output to slip with respect to the rear driveshaft output. So the rear tires can roll on the pavement while the front output shaft spins freely in the air because the stationary front axle is not connected and cannot prevent the front output shaft from spinning.
I have not only seen this happen to others, but it has also happened on my ZJ. It isn't fun to come out of the store and find the jeep in the middle of the road.
I really don't think that this will net much benefit on mpg. Unless you have changed your front axle and have locking/unlocking hubs... while you are driving down the road, both axle shafts are still spinning. The diff is still spinning as well. The only thing in your drivetrain that is no longer sucking gas milage is a rotating front driveshaft that doesn't weigh that much. I think a better solution to milage is to take it easy on the throttle.
If you are set on running without it, I recommend setting your park break very tight. I share my experiences so that others don't have to see the same crazy things that I have. I would hate for someone's jeep damaged from rolling while parked. Luckily mine didn't hit anything.

modzj
10-26-2006, 06:23 PM
It is a diff, if one tire spins on a open diff the other doesn't go anywhere. Yes it will burn it up if you try to do it, I have learnt this from experience.

bigrubbers4x4
10-26-2006, 09:44 PM
i have had no issues at all with my front driveshaft out of my 5.9. the only issue i do have is that the rear tires spin real easy on dry and wet roads. its fun.

grand rapids
10-29-2006, 04:55 PM
its bad. jeep had a recall cause grands with the 5.2 and 249 came with a space saver spare. so when you had a flat tire, you put on the spare and you could get about 50 miles before you needed a tire repaired and a new viscous coupler. i dont believe anyone that says they run without a driveshaft without issue.

AndyZJ
10-29-2006, 06:15 PM
Geez i sure hope i wasn't talking out my arse on this one. All i have ever heard is that if it is designed to run 4 wheels, don't re-invent the wheel.

bigrubbers4x4
10-29-2006, 09:58 PM
think about this, when you put your transmission in park you are in a sence locking it from moving correct? well, when you lock it from moving how in the heck is the driveshaft going to move. on the 249 the front and rear turn together, when you remove the front driveshaft the front output will still spin like as if the driveshaft is still there. the rear will spin also, but when you put your tranny into park it cannot move. just cause the fronts not there doesnt mean the rear isnt going to lock. i have been running my 5.9 for almost 9 months without a front driveshaft with absolutely no problems. i have smoked my tires off in 1st thru 3rd gear and still have no issues. a good friend of mine has a 5.2 he removed the fornt driveshaft on his for awhile also had no issues.

grand rapids
10-30-2006, 08:05 AM
with the front driveshaft out, the vc is constantly slipping. i wonder if you were to reinstall the front driveshaft if the vc would be locked up and chatter like mad on turns.

VAPILOTDA
10-30-2006, 11:17 AM
For what it's worth, my first 5.9 blew out the driveshaft and I drove it around for a month or so without the driveshaft in it. I even took in on 200 plus trips in 2wd. When I put the new driveshaft back in it, it didn't complain a bit. I didn't know there could be an issue with not having it in but there was not a blatant problem with it when I put it back in. Maybe I just got lucky.

85IrocZ-28
10-30-2006, 12:23 PM
From what has been said, there are differences in the T-cases. I didn't know this, so the newer ones (96 and up) may not have this problem. Someone chime in if you have had this problem with a newer t-case.

Here is why it will roll in park. We need to think of the VC as a differential. If you jack up the rear end of a rear wheel drive car, and it is in PARK, you can still get the tires to rotate. If you rotate the tire on one side, the other will rotate in the opposite direction...even though it is in park. The transmission is locked, the drive line is locked, but the rotation from one tire can be transferred through the differential to the opposite tire. If you take out an axle shaft and cut it in half and reinstall it, you can park on a hill and the car will roll backwards. The cut shaft section that is inside of the differential will spin freely while both tires are rolling backwards.

In the Jeep, think of the VC as a differential. If you cut one side of the axle (take out the drive shaft) and leave the other one connected, the car will still roll in park. The transmission is locked in park. But the rear drive shaft can rotate and allow the car to move because the VC (acting like a differential that applies different speeds and power to the different wheels) doesn't have anything else on the other side of it to stop it from spinning. So nothing in the transmission moves because it is in park. But the front and rear output shafts (which are connected through the VC) can still spin. Again, the VC is acting like a differential and can spin even when everything else in front of it in the transmission is locked down from moving.

Putting a transmission in park doesn't lock your tires, it locks the entire system that sends power to your tires. If parts are missing from the system that will allow independent movement between tires, problems can occur.

I am not an expert on the internal workings of the t-case. I don't know if this is only a problem in the older 93-95 t-cases. But this does happen. I am not sure if running without a front ds will damage the VC. I have seen two different GC's roll with the front drive shaft out while they were in park.

grand rapids
10-30-2006, 04:48 PM
ive found real world experience is worth twice as much as book knowledge. i guess its kind of hard to dispute someone who has disproved the masses. sounds like i stank corrected, but it makes you think, its bad for a vc to have the wrong size tire on but ok to just run the back. who'd have thought!

71455vert
12-02-2006, 09:27 AM
I have had my front driveshaft out in my 98 for 3 years I drop the driveshaft in b4 the 1st snowfall & remove it in march & I think it has extended the life of the vc (now have 151k) but am swaping the case out to a 39k case I found from a 5.9
a co worker has a 94 & I heard him pulling in a spot & the tires were chirping & told him he may pop a u jount or his diff & he pulled the shaft & the truck has rolled 2 times in the last mo ( he now uses his e brake)
but at least he can turn

KajunJoe
01-02-2007, 08:06 PM
I just swapped my 98 249 into my sister's 95 and here's what I found, the early 249 mainshaft has a planetary like a 242 so the front and rear are never really connected. The late 249 has a solid mainshaft from the front planetary all the way to the rear d-shaft and when shifted into low range the VC is no longer part of the equation. I will be pulling the 98 case again this weekend to install a new VC and post pictures of the two side by side. Looking at the internal's it doesn't seem like you should be able to damage the VC in a newer case with the front shaft pulled.

Insane4x4ZJ
02-03-2007, 03:07 AM
i ran my old grand w/o the front shaft for MONTHS, wicked cool burnouts, and not a problem EVER. just not real torque like it did in awd. lol 4low both shafts u can hop the front end a ways up there if u try hard enuf.

rcjoslin
03-14-2007, 03:02 PM
yup

maytrevor
03-14-2007, 07:25 PM
alright so I want to know for sure. My vc is basically done for and am going to buy a new one to put in the 249, but I won't have the funds for awhile. If I take the front driveshaft out will I hurt anything? I don't care about hurting the vc because it's done for anyways, but will anything go wrong with my tcase? I have a 97 zj laredo. thanks.

85IrocZ-28
03-15-2007, 08:26 AM
I believe the 96 up is locked front to rear, so it may not matter. It seems that those who haven't had any problems when removing the driveline had the newer 249... the newer locking 249 t-case. The 95 and older 249 doesn't lock fron to rear. If you remove the front driveline from one, you will roll. This is what I have gathered from the comments that have been made about the internal workings. But I don't have experience with t-cases like others on this site.

Either way, I would use your e-brake. I drove for a while with my VC going bad. Even made two 600 mile round trips. It felt like crap right after getting off of the interstate, but was ok after it cooled down. How bad is it? If it really isn't that bad, just leave the driveline in till you get a new case or a new VC.

AndyZJ
03-15-2007, 06:33 PM
I just want to add to this, that i decided to try out removing the front driveshaft on my '93 GC. Well the only thing that i can say definitely is that the acceleration seemed to be off. As if it were trying to compensate for the front driveshaft being removed, it was MORE sluggish on acceleration and didn't seem to want to GO. Reinstalled the driveshaft and it went away.

Also, my GC rolled down a hill while in park and i luckily noticed it happening before it hit anything.

maytrevor
03-15-2007, 11:17 PM
so some people say it's safe to remove the front driveshaft and some say it isn't....so what is it?

85IrocZ-28
03-16-2007, 02:50 PM
BAD idea on 93-95, the thing can roll. 96 and up may be a different story.

Matt M
03-16-2007, 09:50 PM
I have a 96 and took mine out for a few days after I put my lift on. The only difference I noticed is that it turned a little better with the front tires completely free, and of corse the burn outs [smilie=bal_cool.gif] . I put it back in just because I was told it would damage the Tcase. But I am thinking the idea of the 96 and newer being OK is right on.

I also was thinking about putting in a front D44 with lock outs, but was told it was a bad idea to run it unlocked. I wish I knew for sure [smilie=bal_ask.gif] .

atonyhu
03-16-2007, 10:38 PM
My transfer case is always locked in 4WD. I run with my drive shaft off and I gain about 10 more mpg. I go from about 9 to 19. Even with the engine off I can not turn the front output shaft at all. When I would turn to the lock you could tell the transfer case was engaged. I also noticed no abnormal temp increase or lack f staying put on a hill while in park. I have had the 98 Grand Cherokee for about 3 months. When it snows I just put the shaft back on because it is helpless with out it in any kind of snow.

dean shirley
04-30-2007, 10:34 AM
93-95 = very bad idea
96+ = not an issue... but still not a good practice

i ran 6 months w/o a front shaft in the hills of pittsburgh... never had any issues. have a new shaft and haven't had any issues of late with the t-case in either high or low.

silver97orvis
06-24-2007, 06:01 PM
Hey Grand Rapids, I saw on one of your posts something about a recall on ZJ's with compact spares. My Orvis has the little "donut" and I had to useit once. Put it on the passenger front to get it home, and when I got on pavement at about 30 mph the thing started screaming like I was doing a burnout or soemthing. I guess it was trying to spin faster than the big tires to try to keep up. I did a search online and couldn't find anything. Any info would be great. [smilie=bal_thanx.gif]

Dmntxn77
07-20-2007, 08:58 PM
I have always heard that running without a front drive shaft it will ruin your VC... I dunno about that..

What I do know, for a fact, is if you remove the front drive shaft on a early GC with a 249, you WILL roll while in park. It is not a maybe, it is simply a fact. I do it all the time. Meaning when I forget, and leave my front hubs unlocked, I WIll roll. All I have to do is lock my hubs, and it stops every time...

85IrocZ-28
07-21-2007, 06:52 PM
This may be true because you have a 93. The 96 up 249 t-case is a little different. Those who have that t-case don't seem to have the rolling problem that you and I have had.

Dmntxn77
07-23-2007, 06:06 PM
Yep, that is why I stated on an "early" GC.. Early, of course, meaning 93-95..

marcoleo
08-22-2007, 02:39 AM
how to test, on a table, if the VC is cooked?
I've here a 249 '93 ready to be installed on the my GC but I would like to test it before do the work

RockZJ
08-22-2007, 07:44 AM
ive had my front removed for three months now and no issues what so ever. Works like a charm and I can actually spin the rear tires in dirt that is...its a 4.0 gimme a break.

RockZJ

hockeyref
08-22-2007, 05:21 PM
1) The small spare thing is real. Mopar had a lot of repairs to do on 249's with donut spares running for long periods of time, on their own dime and didn't like it. They cooked the VC. This is fact. By the time I bought my '98 ZJ the full size spare were a part of the option of the 249 T-Case. They didn't come any other way. Only choice was steel wheel or "matching" full size spare. Lots of nice "5th" wheels out there I guess.

2) The testing of the VC is something I tried to fight with Mother Mopar on for years. How does one test for a "bad" VC??? It should be quite simple as there is a procedure in the '83 Jeep manual for all the SJ's that came with 229's that were VC'ed. It's a 3 tires on the ground, chocked, in park with brake set thing. Then put a front wheel up in the air, put a torque wrench on a wheel stud and read how much torque it takes to get the free tire to move. I think (it's been years since I've really read my reprint '83 manual so forgive me here) there is a similar "Bench Test" for such things.

So anyway if you look at let's say the '98 ZJ manual (which I have, so this is where I fought from) the diagnosis section at the front of the 249 section makes references to things that imply it is a switchable, almost part-time style T-case. Worse yet, there are no such on car or bench style tests what so ever in their own factory service manual!!! No test drive diagnosis thing either. It's like this is not even an issue which is pure bull. So if Mopar won't publish how to test a VC, then how will anybody else know how to test one? Trust me when I tell you I have personally had both my ZJ and my SJ up on one front wheel as I described from the older '82-'83 manual, and have witnessed the slow movement of the front wheel under torque such as trying to tighten the front lug nuts. So why won't they publish similar torque specs for testing a VC on a ZJ 249? It's like they are scared to talk about burnt out and poor performing VC's that then they would have to hold themselves to their own published specs.

NVG is right here is Syracuse and a guy I used to skate with told me that there were a whole lot of funky VC's that came out of NVG. And instead of pulling them and doing the right thing, they shipped the things as is anyway. I had my VC swapped once under warrentee and my friend thinks that probably (nice, right) that by the time I had mine swapped most of the bad ones were probable out of the system by then.

3) Lastly, we all know or should know that the VC's work on heat being generated by the sheering action of the two parts of the VC moving at different speeds. From day one I was always concerned about if it is somewhat heat related how fast and effective will it be there on really cold winter days. Remember it's bathed in pints of tranny fluid too that all need to warm up too. Well, from my personal experience after 9 years of driving this thing on hot summer days and freezing cold winter ones, there is an issue. First thing in the morning when the roads really stink and they are still half covered with Ice and Snow up here, the poor thing is almost in 2WD forever. Meanwhile on a hot summer day, with the trac-loc kicking in for good measure, do my tires churps and the steering kicks back when making slow sharp turns in parking lots and gas stations. So when you really want it and need it 4WD is barely there, and when you could almost care less on a hot dry summer day, boy do you have 4WD in exess.

Question: I heard that the older VC's where more of a full-time even 50-50 split thing that needed to proportion torque around very little. Where as I know from the literature of the time, that the newer ones like my '98 had a 10-90 split front to back until there was slip and then hopefully the thing will do it's job. That is why on cold days frequently my '98 is almost a rear-wheel drive sled on bad snow and ice. Does anybody know anything about that???

I don't know about you but this whole VC has always left a bitter taste in this long term Mopar fans mouth....I so wish that they would have offered a 242HD option for the V-8's back then. I begged for one. And there was a 242 option for such thing on the 5.2-5.9 Durango's of the time. So Mopar had the drivetrain worked out and available if they cared to offer it to GC buyers. But they wouldn't.......

Paul

cLAYH
08-29-2007, 09:01 AM
Om my sisters '93 GC V8 with the NP249 and the front shaft removed, the VC would slip then suddenly grab with a bang untill the case got warmed up. Thought it was the tranny at first untill I climbed under to look at things and realized it was missing. She bought it that way at an auction. [smilie=bal_ask.gif] Once the new shaft was in it was ok except for the typicall binding that a NP249 does on tight turns with a worn out VC.

goldjeep99
09-05-2007, 02:08 PM
Driving without front driveshaft should not be an issue. TC's role is to transfer power to wheels that have traction. If shaft is removed, TC senses front wheels have no traction, sending all power to rear.
I had mine out for 3 weeks until got replacement. Driveshaft CV joint had been damaged due to ruptured rubber cover, grease dried and bearings got wasted due to dirt and heat.
Driving with small spare is an issue on pavement. VC subject to turning speed differential of wheels, creating massive damaging force. It is analogous to one wheel slipping in mud, but it is not really because it is on pavement. Never put different size wheel on 4X4s, nor different wheels for that matter.

doseyg
09-05-2007, 02:50 PM
I own a 95 GC and a 97 GC, and have changed the 249 in the 95 to a 242, rebuilding it and using the front case half from the 249 with the rear and innards of the 242. I've worked on Dana 18 and 20 cases as well as NP231 cases. I've run with and without the front driveshaft. That hopefully qualifies me to speak on this.

The first thing to get straight is that there are 2 very functionally different 249 cases used on the GC's. The case used from 93-95 is quite different in how it works compared with the case from 96-99. Unlike a 242 or 231, both versions of the 249 use a Viscous Coupling. The VC is basically a hydraulic coupling, and is sensitive to heat. Overheating a VC will cause it to fail, and the easiest way to make it overheat is to spin the input with no couter-torque on the output.

On the 93-95 transfer cases, the input shaft connects to the chain drive for the front driveshaft and the VC. This means there is no speed difference between the input shaft and the front driveshaft, ever (well except when the planetary is used for reduction, but it's still fixed). In the early 249 the rear driveshaft is driven by the VC and can spin faster or slower than the input and front shaft.

On the 96-98 transfer cases, the opposite is true. In AWD the input shaft is connected directly to the rear driveshaft. The VC is driven off the input shaft and turns the chain for the front driveshaft. The input shaft and rear driveshaft always spin at the same speed, and the front can spin faster or slower because of the VC.

Removing the front driveshaft from a 93-95 NP249 is just as bad as removing a rear driveshaft from a 96-98 NP249. In either case, the VC is left with a severely unbalanced torque load to transfer and will spin continuously, causing is to heat up and wear out the fluid.

I should also note the VC is a sealed unit and it's fluid does not mix with the transfer case fluid.

I've seen people say all kinds on unfounded stuff about what a transfer case it supposed to do and how it should work. Despite how you think it should work, there is a truth about how it really works. All wheel drive transfer cases with a viscous coupling are very different from a transfer cases with a planetary hypoid gearset or typical spider gear differential or even a standard non-all wheel drive transfer case. They all accomplish something similar but do it in very different ways with different effects and quirks.

( I have taken liberty with what I'm calling the input shaft and what it's connected to for clarity sake. I know there is alot more involved, but it's functionally equivalent to leave out the intermediate shaft, planetray gearset, and anything 4wd related for this discussion)

hockeyref
09-05-2007, 06:11 PM
Thanks for the great reply. If you don't mind I'm gonna ask a few clarifying questions. Now that you have substanciated the fact the there are two very different cases and couplers, was the older one a more balanced 50-50 split of torque when going straight down the road? As opposed to my later model one that Jeep claims is at a 10-90 split until there is slip to start proportioning the torque?

I never meant that the viscous was tranny fluid or was working off of the tranny fluid that is in the case, I do know that the VC is a sealed, and unservicable unit. It's just that the whole thing is bathed in a few pints of tranny fluid, that probably act as a heat sink, coolant. If the whole world is 10 degrees, so is the VC and the tranny fluid, so it would seem to me that such a situation could negatively impact VC warm up for proper transfer of torque on a very cold morning or evening just when you might need it most. Just from my nothern cold clim observation here.

So on cold days when a lot of Jeep owners would really want fast torque lock up or tranfer there is a strong likelyhood that the tranny fluid bath kind of impedes this heat generation, acting as a heat sink, and therefore one has less 4WD or torque tranfer on those cold snowy days when you want it most. I regularly do a few donuts and figure 8's in my office parking lot, late at night to "warn up" the VC, on cold snowy nights before trying to pull out across 4 lanes of traffic. Just seems to have a whole lot more 4WD when it is warm than when it is cold. just the opposite of what us lake effect snow land folks need or want.

Lastly, could you perhaps post a detailed explaination of this front half 249, back half 242 with 242 guts thing you spoke of. Sounds interesting and I think I know why you did it. Was it for input staft issues like splines and depth??? Or was there some other reason and if so, why??? I would love to hear anything else you know about the engineering of the VC and the case.... Thanks much...

Paul [smilie=1wj2.gif]

doseyg
09-06-2007, 11:44 AM
I understood what you meant WRT to the VC and fluid, I just wanted to make it clear. Sorry if it came across any other way.

When working properly (which I think is never anymore) the older 249 had a much stronger front bias whereas the newer models have a much stronger rear bias. When worn out it's bascially what you could call a 50/50 split.

You're correct I ended up using the front 249 half because of the different gear cuts in the planetary gear set. Basically I used the 249 front case half, input shaft and planetary set with the rest of the 242 innards. It all bolts together nicely, although there are slight differences in the 249 and 242 front case halves. It's been about a year and 30,000 miles with no issues. I've done heavy towing through the mountains and off roading etccc. The chain is loose, but I think it's because the chain was stretched out to begin with on the used 242 and not because of the different parts.

hockeyref
09-07-2007, 03:39 PM
Very interesting (Arty Johnson?). And this allows you all 5 positions on the 242. With the 249 gearset do you think it is a little stronger than a standard 242? I think I've heard that the weak link in the 242 is the extra slip thing on the input shaft ? It is hollow and therefore the lower torque capability, yes? I may have to try this conversion out. If I were to buy a new chain (might as well while it is all apart and out) should I buy a 242 chain or a 249? It is the 242 case's gears that are being reused? Did you come up with this idea on your own, or did you hear or learn about it else where? Is there an article about this split case swap? Anyway, Any other insight you and suggestions you have about this would be much apperciated. Thanks so much and no hard feelings. Have a great weekend....
Paul [smilie=1wj2.gif]

RockZJ
12-09-2007, 11:17 AM
I ran my 249 (97) without the front driveshaft for 7 months and never an issue or complaint. The thing did great without it in it! I dont know what the deal is but after 95 I think they fixed all that shiz with the 249. Hope that helps

RockZJ

BigD
12-09-2007, 06:42 PM
Ran my '93 ZJ for 3 weeks without the front drive shaft. the only problem I had was the roll of the jeep when not parked on a flat surface, just placed a note on the front dash to always put on the e-brake.

Other than that, I have the drive shaft back in and have not had any problems with the tc. I do have a 231 in pieces in my garage to put back together shortly and swap into my rig.

BigD

geesaw
03-18-2008, 12:18 PM
My 95 with the 249 will roll with the front ds removed, this I know from experience. My question has to do with the 231 conversion I want to do so this is a little off topic, other than my real question concerns the input shaft in the current 249. I have read every thread on this topic on Nagca and other forums. I keep reading that of there is an input shaft change (regarding gear cut) sometime in 95, never had it narrowed down by t-case ID tag or exact date. Did this perhaps relate directly to (or at least happen at the same time as) the VC change? I already know my 95 with the 5.2 has a pretty rare input shaft (1.550" exposed), so I'll need to swap this into the 231. But can I assume that the gear cut should match the earlier cases, not the new? Even if I decide to go 242 or hybrid combo I'll need them to match. Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated, money is tight, I can get T-cases real reasonable at the local self-serve boneyard, but I don't want to buy or pull two or more searching for the right one. The yard no longer allows us to bring in parts for comparison, so that's not a option either.

KPatterson
05-02-2008, 02:39 PM
Im going to bring this thead back to life: I bought a cherry $550 laredo with the 5.2 and 249. Got it cheap because the "tranny has problems" got it back to my house and it goes in revers flawlessly, drive= nothing! The girl I bought it from had the front driveshaft taken out because the joints were going bad. When "tranny" wnet out she heard a squeel and it would not move. The jeep wont stay in park without the e brake. Bad tranny or 249?

85IrocZ-28
05-03-2008, 04:45 PM
The rolling Jeep isn't a tranny problem. The 93-95 (249 T-case) can roll without the one of the driveshafts in. The only reason yours is rolling is because the front driveline isn't in.

The VC could also be bad in the 249, but you won't know if that is the case or not until you fix the tranny and start driving it.

Romad
01-29-2009, 08:11 PM
so whats the right answer? i have and 04 GC limited..is it bad to have the front out? i have heard its bad with it out from chrysler mechanic today and went to another and said it wouldn't hurt it. i just pulled mine out an hour ago cuz the cardan locked up and started screeching cuz the seal/dust block was sucked under the ball n yoke. this is the second time i have drove with it out.

DankNesS
01-29-2009, 08:38 PM
early 249 tcases would not like driving with the front driveshaft off. more times then not it ended in a blown tcase or VC. Im pretty usre later then 95 or 96 249's it was cool but not reccomended for long periods of time. With a 242 or 231 its all G all day. rear drive shaft is a no no unless you have an SYE case you were wondering

gpelsise
02-01-2009, 03:54 PM
I drove 10,000 miles with the front drive shaft removed on a 1997 jeep grand cherokee Orvis V8 with the 249 transfer case.
Then I put the drive shaft back on and it has been fine for the last 30000 miles.
I had no rolling down the hill issues or problems.
Based on the above, first hand experience, I'm pretty confident in saying that it's fine at least on the 96-98 V8 grands.

GreenZJ
02-01-2009, 04:11 PM
I drove 10,000 miles with the front drive shaft removed on a 1997 jeep grand cherokee Orvis V8 with the 249 transfer case.
Then I put the drive shaft back on and it has been fine for the last 30000 miles.
I had no rolling down the hill issues or problems.
Based on the above, first hand experience, I'm pretty confident in saying that it's fine at least on the 96-98 V8 grands.

I concur

85IrocZ-28
02-03-2009, 09:33 PM
so whats the right answer? i have and 04 GC limited..is it bad to have the front out? i have heard its bad with it out from chrysler mechanic today and went to another and said it wouldn't hurt it. i just pulled mine out an hour ago cuz the cardan locked up and started screeching cuz the seal/dust block was sucked under the ball n yoke. this is the second time i have drove with it out.

Notice that his is a WJ, so he is talking about the 247. I don't have the answer for you, but hopefully someone else will.

stagszj
03-10-2009, 08:00 AM
ok so as i read this i have only one question. Why would you want to take the front drive shaft out of your jeep? you bought a jeep. the most capible off road machine made. if you wanted gas milege you should have bought a civic.

85IrocZ-28
03-14-2009, 09:35 AM
People take it out of the 249 for a couple of reasons...some want to spin the tires (that is Why I have the Camaro), others think that they will get better mileage (not really true b/c the entire front axle is still in movement, or because the VC is going out on the 249.

If they have the 249 and are having binding issues when turning, they take it out until they can repair or upgrade the 249. As stated before, this is only advisable on the 96-98 as the earlier t-cases will allow the Jeep to move in park.

GreenZJ
03-14-2009, 09:39 AM
For anyone wondering. Ive been driving my 5.9 for a week now with no front shaft. Its just fine

thewooddogg
03-24-2009, 07:40 AM
I have a 95 ZJ with an old 249.

So, if my VC is locking up on a normal day even 2 minutes into driving it and I make sure to set the ebrake when I park.. can't I remove the front driveshaft without damaging the case? I know my VC isn't 100% locked up.. but it's getting pretty bad...

I can't even run my big tires because I don't wanna chew them up so I'm running small craiglist take offs...

96sdgc
09-16-2009, 11:49 PM
I have a 96 zj and i went without a front driveshaft for 6 months with no problems.

Jeepy5Point2
09-17-2009, 05:00 AM
what TC did you have...

I went without mine for a while when i was in the process of regearing, but i have a 242, so there isnt anything to worry about

RockZJ
09-17-2009, 09:19 AM
The front drift shaft removal myth/issues are only geared towards the full time 4-Wheel Drive cases (ie: 249/247). It is the earlier cases, pre-96', that had issues with the VC and uneven load with the front driveshaft removed

RocKZJ

biglydogg
10-25-2009, 12:58 PM
I Have My Front Driveshaft out now for about 6 months. Love it. Except the only thing is my car tends to roll back slowly on hill and I always have to put the emergency brake on when i park it in my driveway.

ster9
11-03-2009, 05:58 AM
Hey from Minnesota, all,
Been lurking for some time, but first time posting. I took out my front drive shaft a few months ago because the transfer case was making a lot of noise. It started making noise again, so I took it to a local shop, and he said that I need to a new front drive shaft, and that without it it will roll in park and the transmission might be damaged. I know it rolls in park (I always put the ebrake on anyway), but is it true I may have damaged the transmission? Not too sure about that one.

85IrocZ-28
11-03-2009, 11:48 AM
Hey from Minnesota, all,
Been lurking for some time, but first time posting. I took out my front drive shaft a few months ago because the transfer case was making a lot of noise. It started making noise again, so I took it to a local shop, and he said that I need to a new front drive shaft, and that without it it will roll in park and the transmission might be damaged. I know it rolls in park (I always put the ebrake on anyway), but is it true I may have damaged the transmission? Not too sure about that one.

I don't see any way that this could damage the transmission, just hurt the t-case further.

93-95 249 T-cases will allow your Jeep to roll. After reading this thread, I don't know why those running the 93-95 249 still risk it and run without a front driveshaft. Keep the driveline in and let it chew your tires, save up the cash and get it fixed, or change to a different t-case.

nerdfestival
03-11-2010, 02:21 AM
my 249 transfer case was so bad that it was almost literally undriveable. Before learning that tires must be matching, I had 2 new tires put on the front. Before doing this, it was driveable. Since the new tires, it is not. I see the obvious correlation here but I don't have money for tires right now. The car shakes and vibrates and there are whirring noises that were previously not there. Anything over 30 mph feels like it is beating the crap out of the car. I do not want to ruin this vehicle. I need to use it and I'm broke, so I made the decision to remove the front drive shaft. I'd rather ruin one transfer case then ruin a transfer case, differential, transmission, control arm or whatever is on this thing. At some point I'll be able to put a 242 or 231 in this thing but now I need it to be able to move. I've read that the lack of front drive shaft will "ruin" my transfer case. This is acceptable to me right now as long as it is not particularly dangerous. I read that the jeep may roll, so I've been putting parking brake on. I also tested this in neutral on a hill without parking brake and it didn't roll. Still using parking brake, though. The vehicle runs pretty well without the front drive shaft. Yes, I can squeal the tires however it does lack some of the awesome handling that the full time 4 wheel drive allows. I am wondering what is meant by ruin. My transfer case was pretty bad before. I'm hoping by ruin, people mean it will gradually degrade and not necessarily mean that I'll be driving down the road tomorrow and it will suddenly seize up. I'm hoping the fact that the vc and rest of transfer case are independently cooled by there own fluids will protect rest of transfer case from damage that vc may be suffering due to overheating. At least for a few months. So if anyone knows of a more immediate danger other than the vehicle rolling, please let me know.

Delam
03-14-2010, 08:14 AM
I'm going to take off my son's front drive shaft on his '96 Limited AWD 4.0, which from reading all these posts is a very OK thing to do for a '96 to eliminate the VC problems without spending over $1K on repairs. Apparently it's a simple unbolt operation, with no other fasteners to deal with besides bolts.

I have two questions: Won't the transfer case front output shaft now possibly work its way out of the case because it's just located there with greased splines connecting to the front drive shaft, or is there a good retaining clip/boot that will keep the T-case intact/sealed?

Also, now that there will just be free wheeling of the front axle, can I put some lighter weight gear oil mixture in the front diff to improve fuel economy, like a mix of synthetic engine oil and the called-for gear oil?

95GranZJ
03-14-2010, 09:30 AM
[QUOTE=fr3db3ar;163838]From what I understand it's bad to remove the front shaft from 93-95.
I have a '95 with a 242. does this include a '95 with a 242??

Delam
03-21-2010, 11:20 AM
This on my son's '96 ZJ Limited.

So after stripping a cheap Chinese 8mm socket on the front axle shaft bolts, a quick stop into K-Mart for a Craftsman socket and 8mm little spanner, the shaft is out, and the nasty slow-speed turning sounds are gone. Funny it didn't feel locked up/bound up like a Chevy truck in 4-Hi, but it sure didn't sound good before the shaft was out.

The truck does feel a little less sure-handling; I think the engineers set up the shocks/springs/sway bars under the assumption that there was a front axle shaft there providing another linkage, so taking it away messes up the suspension set-up somewhat.

Was planning to drain/fill the front/rear axles. They were both overfilled and neither had a drain plug that I could find. I left that for another day.

nerdfestival
04-06-2010, 05:27 PM
Well I took off the front drive shaft from my 1994 jeep grand cherokee limited which is a full time 4 wheel. It's been about a thousand miles now. I believe I can hear the t case smacking into gear rather loudly sometimes or some loud noise down there. maybe it's the thing that would otherwise be turning the front drive shaft. anyway, it's drive-able right now but it was a last resort, since I was too broke to do a real fix on it and needed to drive it.

TakeThisRide
04-07-2010, 06:30 AM
I have a lifted 96 ZJ 5.2 4x4 and someone stole my first front driveshaft about 8 months ago. Ive taken several 400 plus mile trips in the jeep and never had an issue.. Well..... I take that back, it slips in the rain if i lay on it. About 4 months ago I had another front drive shaft made by Carolina Driveline, and put back in. It drove fine. No odd noises come from my transfer case on or off road. Never had any issues at all. Then someone stole that one too.. grrrrrrr.. :mad:

85IrocZ-28
04-07-2010, 09:33 AM
Well I took off the front drive shaft from my 1994 jeep grand cherokee limited which is a full time 4 wheel. It's been about a thousand miles now. I believe I can hear the t case smacking into gear rather loudly sometimes or some loud noise down there. maybe it's the thing that would otherwise be turning the front drive shaft. anyway, it's drive-able right now but it was a last resort, since I was too broke to do a real fix on it and needed to drive it.

Make sure to use your e-brake in park. If you don't, one day you will find your jeep is rolling slowly away.

TakeThisRide
04-11-2010, 07:09 AM
Make sure to use your e-brake in park. If you don't, one day you will find your jeep is rolling slowly away.

this is too true, it happened to my friend on a steep driveway, he took out his front driveshaft and it just rolled down the hill into the woods :D

gst_r
04-28-2010, 01:12 PM
Hi!

My 1995 Grand Cherokee v8 5.2l blown the cv joint from the front driveshaft, i was out of city so i drove it like 20 minutes at 20-30mph until i get my home since that day i have it parked until i change the front driveshaft (maybe getting a u-joint conversion) , i know about the issue of driving without front driveshaft...my question is, on this short period time, could be my transfer case damaged? thanks!

85IrocZ-28
04-29-2010, 10:26 PM
If you removed the d-shaft to get home, you should't have any problems. Just use your E-brake until you get a new driveshaft back in.

dufunnel
05-05-2010, 11:08 AM
So what I'm gathering (although it isn't explicitly stated) is that the 247 isn't a problem to remove the front driveshaft. Can someone confirm that, or is it all speculation?

On a related note, the person I bought my 04 4.0L from lost the bolts for the driveshaft. The local dealer(s) are clueless, so before I have them order me the replacements, I want to confirm the bolts for the CV joint end of the driveshaft (to attach to the TC). The part number the guy gave me is 5015109-aa. Is this correct, and does it consist of two of the bolts with the curved washer (for lack of a better term) that connects the two? That would mean there are three of them (total of 6 bolts and three "washers"). Can someone look at a parts diagram and confirm for me? Can someone post the diagram for me?

bowtieman55
07-11-2010, 03:43 PM
I just removed my front d-shaft and am gonna drive it 13 miles to my mechanic to have him change out the front yoke (I swapped in a '98 Dana 30). I've looked at the prices of reman 249s...I can't afford that right now, so the 13 miles is all I plan to drive it without the front d-shaft in place. I'll let yall know how it all goes.

85IrocZ-28
07-11-2010, 07:31 PM
Well I took off the front drive shaft from my 1994 jeep grand cherokee limited which is a full time 4 wheel. It's been about a thousand miles now. I believe I can hear the t case smacking into gear rather loudly sometimes or some loud noise down there. maybe it's the thing that would otherwise be turning the front drive shaft. anyway, it's drive-able right now but it was a last resort, since I was too broke to do a real fix on it and needed to drive it.

The cheapest fix is usually to find a t-case with less than 100k from a salvage yard.

ROD5.9
10-31-2010, 08:59 PM
well i never had any problems either without my front one i have a zj 5.9, and i removed
just to check the gas mileage and i ran like that for 3 months no problem but the gas was about the same do
and before this i use to have a 97 zj 5.2, did the same for like a year and nothing happen
o i forgot and im always burning my tires still good

85IrocZ-28
11-01-2010, 09:09 AM
Correct, the 96+ 249 won't roll in park. Your 97 & 98 would both be fine.

Did you even notice a difference with gas mileage?

ROD5.9
11-01-2010, 05:19 PM
Correct, the 96+ 249 won't roll in park. Your 97 & 98 would both be fine.

Did you even notice a difference with gas mileage?

Not really i think city is around the same, only on highway i think i was getting 1 mpg extra. i was getting like 18 mpg going at 70 miles. but i have the msd cables, box, coil, spacer, and intake. now with the 4wd i get like 17

gaz908
11-24-2010, 08:28 PM
replacing both at the same time is wt should b done my 16 yr ol didnt believe they could be broke.......... jus a wrod f caution u can get a reman 4 like 300 or new for 800 my experiane was do them boff

JimBC
12-02-2010, 10:37 AM
OK, So 96+ 249's MIGHT be safe for temp front DS removal.......What about the 247's?

Cody
12-02-2010, 02:51 PM
OK, So 96+ 249's MIGHT be safe for temp front DS removal.......What about the 247's?


Yes the 96+ 249's are safe for DS removal. I'm not sure on the 247's.

smgordon1259
10-23-2011, 05:55 PM
think about this, when you put your transmission in park you are in a sence locking it from moving correct? well, when you lock it from moving how in the heck is the driveshaft going to move. on the 249 the front and rear turn together, when you remove the front driveshaft the front output will still spin like as if the driveshaft is still there. the rear will spin also, but when you put your tranny into park it cannot move. just cause the fronts not there doesnt mean the rear isnt going to lock. i have been running my 5.9 for almost 9 months without a front driveshaft with absolutely no problems. i have smoked my tires off in 1st thru 3rd gear and still have no issues. a good friend of mine has a 5.2 he removed the fornt driveshaft on his for awhile also had no issues.

The 93-95 249, 5.2/ 5.9 combo had the issue of rolling while in park without the front drive shaft and damaging the VC, the 96-98 does not have that issue.

Just saying

Stevie76
05-22-2013, 03:38 PM
Had the front shaft removed on my 95 Orvis after blowing the CV. Yes, it rolled if parked on a slight hill, yes it is bad on the VC. I knew this, but it is my DD and since I lived across the street from my job at the time it didn't see much driving without the front shaft, just enough to get me to the parts store then home to replace it...total of about 6 miles of driving. Would even think about much more then that...planning on replacing the NV249 with a NV242 down the line, the 242 does not have the VC and has 4 lock

Stevie76
05-22-2013, 03:40 PM
and yes I know this is an old thread

interceptor429
08-05-2013, 12:30 PM
and yes I know this is an old thread

old thread but interesting,...i have a 94 zj and my ring gear fell off looks as if the previous owner forgot thread lock and all 10 bolts snapped into ,so i have a loose ring gear making noise ,took cover off now i think i'm going to remove the gear and leave it free rolling ...or should i try to spot weld the gear to the carrier thing?...its my only ride and i am disabled and poor,...lol monthly check.any advise please......