Poor Little Cone Style

-
RustyRatRod

RustyRatRod

I was born on a Monday. Not last Monday.
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
104,784
Reaction score
102,318
Location
Georgia
Why is everybody so down on cone style sure grip units? Between a cone and a clutch type, if both are in good condition, the cone style will achieve just as much lockup percentage.

They take years, perhaps even decades to wear out. In fact, I have never seen one worn OUT. Worn, yes, but not worn slam out like I HAVE seen a clutch style. I think people put too much stock in what they read on the internet.

Fact is, a good cone style SG is fine for most any street car and will hold up fine for racing as long as it's in good shape. In fact, I would rather have a cone style for a car no faster than say 11.50.

They lock up just as good and you can get them for a song. Plus, going in a straight line, you don't have to worry about much wear. Not saying the cone style is better, because technically they are not rebuildable, although I have successfully reconditioned several.

They have fewer parts. So far, I have seen zero evidence one is stronger than the other as far as abuse. I just don't understand why people feel like they have to have a clutch style for nothing more than a warmed up street car, when the cone style can handle all that and more.
 
I had a cone style in my 340 duster in the 80's sold the car to a buddy of mine in the 90's and it's still going strong today, and I wasn't a bit easy on it.
 
Look what Auburn Gear decided to go with. They don't even make a clutch style. But their Pro Series cone style is billy badass. Might as well be a spool. lol
 
I got a cone style in my Dart Sport, and i love it.
In fact, it is the one that came in my '69 Super Bee, and I have no problem with it hooking up.
I'll take all of the unwanted cone sure grips I can find for cheap.
It all comes down to hype, just like the 340 is supposedly better for a performance build than a 360. What a bunch of bullshit.
 
I have a bucket full of cone style that have the spider gear seized to the center shaft, breaking the lock pin and the cross pin spinning in the housing and destroying the whole unit.
 
THANK YOU Rusty!

I have an Auburn cone-style diff in my lowly 8.25" rear end behind a pretty stout 340 with a 4-speed.
According to a lot of posts, the rear end should explode if I try to put it in gear, and the differential will wear out in less than a week if I don't go straight.

Yet somehow I've been burning up the tires since I put the car together a year ago and it seems to be holding up just fine (knocking on wood now). I have plenty of parallel lines up and down my street indicating that both tires are indeed trying to grab the road and launch my car forward.

Additionally, I can't turn a corner too sharp without barking the tires. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I am here to say the cone-style differential holds up just fine from where I'm sitting.

-Mike
 
Glad you addressed this, Rusty, as I have TWO of 'em to choose from. For a street machine I think they should be just fine.......
 
They do work pretty well for street use, run plenty of them myself. The new auburn units seem to have a reputation for spider gear breakage though from what I hear. Now, the clutch style, DOES increase its clamping load as torque increases, due to the crosspins running on the ramps in the case, very good design. The cone style has a spring loaded design, so increasing torque does not cause them to grip any harder.
 
I've got a client that has a 71 Dart 340,, it used to put down 2 strips,,

I made him some power,, now it's intermittantly 1 strip,..

I'm betting it's a cone style,, but, thnx to this site, I know how to repair it.. cheers
 
replicaracer43 said:
They do work pretty well for street use, run plenty of them myself. The new auburn units seem to have a reputation for spider gear breakage though from what I hear. Now, the clutch style, DOES increase its clamping load as torque increases, due to the crosspins running on the ramps in the case, very good design. The cone style has a spring loaded design, so increasing torque does not cause them to grip any harder.
Click to expand...


Oh but it most certainly IS a torque sensing unit. That's why the cones are threaded on the outside. As torque increases to the differential, the cones are forced into the carrier ends and they tighten up against the inside of the carrier. The cone style is perhaps more of a torque sensing unit than the clutch style.

The clutch style is spring loaded too. Look at the Dana Power Lock. The springs in either unit are not there to provide 100% of the load on the clutches or cones. They are there to press the clutches or cones together allowing them to ramp up from the torque being applied and do their job. Both styles are torque sensing. That's how they work by design.

I've seen or heard nothing about failures in Auburn units. I think it's funny that suddenly someone brings it up in a thread about this. Do you have links to some destroyed Auburn units? I am sure I can find some mutilated clutch style units as well. IMO, if someone is making enough power to break either one, they should step up to a Detroit Locker or spool.
 
Good point, Rusty. And, with all the failures people are sharing on the 'net, how many of those are from cars with conversions to BB/RB/Hemis, that probably shouldn't have been subjected to that to begin with? The 8.75 was designed primarily for use with the LA motors, am I right?
 
Captainkirk said:
Good point, Rusty. And, with all the failures people are sharing on the 'net, how many of those are from cars with conversions to BB/RB/Hemis, that probably shouldn't have been subjected to that to begin with? The 8.75 was designed primarily for use with the LA motors, am I right?
Click to expand...

The 8 3/4 I believe was being produced before the 340
 
Dartnut said:
just like the 340 is supposedly better for a performance build than a 360. What a bunch of bullshit.
Click to expand...

I'd be careful with a comment like that around here. There are people on here that will grab this and take off running and you'll never hear the end of it, lol!
 
I have a cone style in my Dart, and it only lays a single strip unless I overinflate the LH tire quite a bit.
I don't have a preference from the performance side of it, I just prefer the easily rebuildable nature of the plates.

That said, I'll roll a Tru-Trac next time, I think.
 
Captainkirk said:
Good point, Rusty. And, with all the failures people are sharing on the 'net, how many of those are from cars with conversions to BB/RB/Hemis, that probably shouldn't have been subjected to that to begin with? The 8.75 was designed primarily for use with the LA motors, am I right?
Click to expand...
8.75 was around before the LA family took shape. They had been seeing plenty of big block abuse and otherwise quite tremendously torquey motors even before that, including 1st Gen Hemis. The 8 3/4 rear end was first put into service in 1957.
 
jos51700 said:
I have a cone style in my Dart, and it only lays a single strip unless I overinflate the LH tire quite a bit.
I don't have a preference from the performance side of it, I just prefer the easily rebuildable nature of the plates.

That said, I'll roll a Tru-Trac next time, I think.
Click to expand...

That's a great setup. It's exactly what I'm buying to get rid of my current one legger.
 
I can always see that it takes a celebrity like Rusty Rob for others to accept what many think is wrong...

I applaud you Rob for showing support for truth, now tell us why the new Hemi is not a Hemi at all and why it was just a promotion gimmick :)
 
And I am not saying the cone style is better. I certainly thing the clutch type is better. It has 4 pinions instead of two, it is rebuildable. What I am saying is, if you are destined to build a street car and HAVE a good cone type, USE IT. There's nothing wrong with them.
 
HotLines said:
I can always see that it takes a celebrity like Rusty Rob for others to accept what many think is wrong...

I applaud you Rob for showing support for truth, now tell us why the new Hemi is not a Hemi at all and why it was just a promotion gimmick :)
Click to expand...

Even though I agree with that, It would be an uphill argument. Also.....and you and I have talked about this before, but the only "TRUE" Hemi Chrysler has ever made was the first generation.
 
I would still argue that while they are good units, the cone style is not torque sensing.. Those groves on the cones serve the same purpose as the groves in a syncro ring... def not "threaded" and not threaded into the case at all. The spring preload is ALL that keeps the cones pushed into the taper of the housing. There could be a small amount of force from the spider gears pushing away from each other too I guess. There are NO SPRINGS in a clutch style, but there do have two concave wave type plates in the clutch pack, to provide some preload. Most cone styles I have seen that fail, do so as a result of the cross pin wallowing out the case.
 
Then you are arguing incorrectly. I have had literally hundreds of them apart. It is VERY obvious that they are torque sensing. Let me put it this way. The breakaway torque specs for them in new to good condition is in the 150 LB FT to 300 LB FT range. There's no way those little preload springs can give that much. That torque comes from cones or clutches ramping up when the torque tool is applied to measure the breakaway torque. I have tested probably over 200 units working at different dealerships through the years. Both cone and clutch type. They are both indeed torque sensing.
 
...and how about those horrible, weak *** 741 cases???
 
And I can here the prices of cone type sure grips soaring already.

Good going Rob lol!
 
RustyRatRod said:
Then you are arguing incorrectly. I have had literally hundreds of them apart. It is VERY obvious that they are torque sensing. Let me put it this way. The breakaway torque specs for them in new to good condition is in the 150 LB FT to 300 LB FT range. There's no way those little preload springs can give that much. That torque comes from cones or clutches ramping up when the torque tool is applied to measure the breakaway torque. I have tested probably over 200 units working at different dealerships through the years. Both cone and clutch type. They are both indeed torque sensing.
Click to expand...
Well, I do enjoy a good argument from time to time. So using your thought process, if the breakaway spec is 150-300 FT LBS, how do you check that? Think about it..... You CANT test it while having engine torque applied to it, so what exactly provides this torque resistance your measuring?????? the SPRING pack!!!!
 
............I have had many cone type with seized spiders on the pin and they spun in the case ruining it..........I have also had a few the worked excellent for many years......all I have now is the clutch type.....I have worked on a couple of hundred also and yes both style are torque sensing.......the cones are not bottomed out in the case till they are rotating.....kim......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top