Poor Little Cone Style

-
I run an Auburn Pro Series, its design is just like an original mopar cone, except the cones are way bigger providing more grip. Yes it works great but if the dana power locks were available back then like they are now I would have gone with on of those because they are easily rebuild able. But make no mistake, the Auburn Pro Series is tough it has been taking a beating by my stroker motor and it still works great. But I suck the gear oil out and refill with new at least once a year. And it always comes out with a silver tint. Cone units are metal to metal every time you go around a corner so I feel frequent fluid changes are key with cone units.
 
Had both. The used Sure Grip never faltered,it got beat on every Saturday night for five years . The Trac -Loc,is currently what I have. No complaints, either way. Have to agree ,the newer Auburn,Eaton updates are nicer than the old big three stuff.
 
Since you have one apart in the other thread, can you show us how the extra force is applied to the cones under load?
 
I posted a link to the operation on the Auburn page earlier in this thread. The argument was that the preload springs applied all of the force and that is incorrect. The preload springs are just that. Preload before torque is applied to hold the cones in place so that they will apply. There is no way in the world those little springs could keep both axles locked under power. They are simply not that strong. The cones are loaded by the same action that causes the pinion gear to try to climb the ring gear and rotate the axle housing in the opposite direction of the axles. That's what causes the cones to screw into the sides of the case and lock down. Once power is applied and the cones lock into place the preload springs have little if nothing to do with it from that point.
 
I understand how they work,in a nutshell the bevel style gears are trying to force each other apart under load because the cone side gears are not counter rotating each other. The gears have no option but to ride up on each other and since the pinion spider gear is already seated against the carrier, then load is applied to the cone gears until they finaly also lock to the carrier. Equal force is then send down each axle. I just thought some pictures may help others see how they work as well.
 
It won't help. The argument was still made in the other thread. The clutch and cone types, while different, work the same way. It's not my job to educate people. If they don't want to understand something, that's their choice.
 
Really, so why bother with these threads in the first place?

I love showing people how to fix stuff. Arguing with them about how it works in the first place is stupid. All of this information is readily available in books and online. It's no secret how this stuff works, yet some people like to argue for argument's sake.
 
...and how about those horrible, weak *** 741 cases???


For the past 7 years I never had an issue running a 741 case behind my 340 4 speed. I abuse the hell out of that car, even with 12 second passes.
 
Someone sent me a link to this thread and asked that I give my 2 cents. First, I agree that if done correctly, the cone type sure grip units can be rebuilt to be as good as or better than new. However, I would say that 20%-30% of the units are damaged beyond repair because a spider gear seized to the cross shaft causing the shaft to spin in the case.

The method discussed here about machining .100 off the bottom of the cone and installing a .100 shim to compensate for the material machined off the cone is not the correct way to do this. The amount you machine off the cone has no connection to the thickness of the shim needed. Think about it, after you take about .005 off the bottom of the cone, it will no longer be bottomed out in the case. After that, it doesn’t matter if you machine .030 or a half inch off the bottom of the cone, the distance that it sits in the case will not change. The correct way to select the shim needed, is to assemble half the unit and put the cross shaft and spider gears into position. You want to select a shim thickness that will allow just a very little bit of backlash between the spider gears. After you get one side set, put the cross shaft and spider gears on the other half and do the same thing. It almost never takes .100 of shim to make this right. If you put too thick of a shim in, what you are doing is wedging the spider gear teeth together which will seriously decrease the life of the unit.

As far as the cones “screwing” into the case to increase preload because they are threaded, that is not how it works. The threaded grooves in the cones are for lubrication, that’s all. If they were there to “screw” the cone into the case, one cone would have to be threaded in the opposite direction and it would matter which side of the case they were installed on. Also, if the cones screwed into the case causing the preload to increase, it would show largely different readings forward and backwards on a breakaway torque test at the end of the axle.
 
Thanks for your input. The shims I use really don't have anything to do with the amount I machine off. Also, .100" were not used here. I use the shims to bring the preload back to the springs. It works. I choose to machine that amount for one reason. So that it will be a long time before the unit needs servicing again.

As far as operation, we can agree to disagree. The grooves are much deeper than just for lubrication. The Auburn site explains it in depth. I don't know if this is the thread or not, but I posted the link to their site and the description is crystal clear.
 
It is a spring preloaded cone type limited slip unit. The only difference between it and a factory unit is pretty much the preload spring pack. Their design is the same. Where do the "side gear separational forces" come from? From torque being applied. It works just like I described.
The preload spring pack holds it all together so that the torque from the drive shaft CAN ramp the cones up against the case. It does not matter whether it is aftermarket or factory. The design is identical.
These don't work like some helical versions where when a wheel slips the outer gears bind on the inner main or sun and cause a bind and then tighten it up by screwing against the outer case.

The spring holds the pressure against the side gears or cones and that creates the bind, if, if there was such torque sensing then the wheel would never lose traction and it would build indefinitely or until the carrier split in half, or like a powr lok they just break at the cross, and they do break.


This is where mistakes are being made

The cones are loaded by the same action that causes the pinion gear to try to climb the ring gear and rotate the axle housing in the opposite direction of the axles.

so that the torque from the drive shaft CAN ramp the cones up against the case
The ONLY diff that has torque biasing by way of driveshaft/pinion input is ZF, and im not even going to begin to explain that since the cone operation is being misunderstood so badly here, the ZF operation would cause total meltdowns.

Back to the 2 types of CLUTCH operation

The Driveshaft is turning the pinion gear that is trying to rip itself out of the housing, climbing the ring gear and forcing the ring to the side and push the carrier out the back of the housing.

While that destructive force is happening and being controlled the INSIDE of the carrier is either open, or housing one of the 4 forms of limited slip or it has a spool or one of the selectable options.

The Pinion and driveshaft are performing nothing other than turning the carrier in a DIRECTION of which it will propel the car...

Now as the carrier turns it actuates those type internals of that carrier by the force upon it from the opposite force of the axles.

Like what makes a powr lok RAMP isn't the pinion gear, it is the loss of traction of one wheel because the other is stopped and that allows the cross to move up one side of the cases ramp feature because the other side isn't moving and the case is turning because the other side is spinning, that makes it ramp up and apply more pressure to the clutches.

However this isn't a powr lok, but it is a clutch style limited slip and doesn't have that ability.

Notice i said clutch style

A true clutch style limited slip uses REPLACEABLE clutches that wear out
A cone style uses no clutches, instead it wears itself out on the cones (side gears) and the internal area of the case itself.

Remember how i say there are 9 ways to do something but only 1 is right, well you are masturbating when you think machining cones shorter you're doing it right.
There are 2 parts to how it works, the cone wears at the high points, which are what makes contact and acts as the CLUTCH or makes the bind, that wears as does the internal side of the case wear.
The groove or grooves are there for oil to get into so it doesn't become a SPOOL.
Borg Warner shaped them like a thread for EASE of machining, and theory says it kinda pumps fluid in, however that is the Borg Warner design and BW sold that to Auburn and Auburn has been using it ever since, slightly modified, they do use the threaded groove still but they also machine it into block sections.


So here is the BIG DEAL and ONLY difference between the options of SG (powr lok and BW cone)

One you can REBUILD correctly and easily, and the other you can play with yourself and think you did it right, spend more time and money on while the other is done right.

Sorry fellas thats the hard truth right there.

.
 
The amount you machine off the cone has no connection to the thickness of the shim needed. Think about it, after you take about .005 off the bottom of the cone, it will no longer be bottomed out in the case. After that, it doesn’t matter if you machine .030 or a half inch off the bottom of the cone, the distance that it sits in the case will not change.

Obviously I didn't think long enough or hard enough about this subject, because that totally slipped past me.
 
All I can say is, go read the Auburn site. They've made the cone type for decades. They clearly describe it as a torque sensing unit.

I never realized there were so many experts on this. I swear to GOD it makes me want to throw my hands up and scream. All anybody gives a **** about anymore on this site is arguing and trying to be right.

All I know is, when somebody brings me a worn out cone unit, I do what I do to it and it works again.
 
Merry Christmas to you too. I am glad I could entertain.
 
RRR if i could have you along side me you would understand completely, and then let you see how a ZF that really has the ability you think the 2 SG styles have, but they don't have.

Doing the repair to the SG you do is like taking a piston .010 to big and belt sanding it, and sticking it all together and not honing the block at all, it's gonna work, it's not gonna be right, it's gonna work though.

The cone and inner carrier wears together, you're just forcing it to work, it's not gonna get an added 150k miles out of it.
just like i wouldn't expect no belt sanded to size piston to be right
 
If I sold drive train parts for a living, I would not approve of the repair method either. No offense. I have actually grown to like and respect you. I think you are a top notch guy that does great work. Some of us have to make do. I said right from the rip that this was not a boni fide repair in any way shape form or fashion, but it works. Yet even after having said all that, I am bashed to death and made to look like a fool. From here on out, I am not doing another damn write up or contributing anything more. Count on it.
 
They got a bad wrap because they aren't as easily rebuilt as a clutch type of sure grip. A magazine probably wrote something about it years ago and everyone followed what they wrote like good sheeple.

It's just like years ago you couldn't give away a 400 engine. Look how popular they are today. Everyone wants them for a striker motor. 360 used to be the same way. You'll always have old heads that never moved out of the 1970 mindset and those guys influence some of the younger guys that don't know better yet.
 
Well RRR,you are one of the fellers that makes this site in my book for many reasons...right or wrong you still plug away doing what seems right to you and posting what works for you...dont feel beat up by the tech of the re-build you posted or the whys of how it works or not,maybe it shouldnt work but it does in alot of cases,I myself have seen this set-up you have done 6-8 times and they are still working after 6+ yrs and working hard...he has a point and so do you, if it works who gives a frickn turd,results speak for themselves as I see it opinions and different peoples experiences or lack of actual hands on varies all over the board...and it isnt like you are promoting and profiting off something to make money, just showing 'anotherway' of doing something that most people wouldve thrown away but you shown could be salvaged and made into something usable again on the cheap and live for a few more yrs,and work...if people choose not to do it or not is their choice, so keep on plugging away,I dont throw much of anything away til I've exhausted every avenue I can for as to it's usability or not whether it be for it's intended use or something different altogether...thats how things get invented or improved upon or not....takes low techs and hi techs and all the tinkerers and the improvisers...I think I'm a tinkerer..but I dont give a frickn turd..lmao
 
This thread is awesome.:cheers:
But cones or clutches?
I still can't decide.
Guess I'll just go with what ever I can wear.
 

Attachments

  • cone.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 300
  • clutchs.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 300
Oh my..decisions decisions..wonder how much friction those red cones can withstand? lol
 
I really appreciate the write-ups an how to make things work for less. I for one, can't afford to throw out thousands of dollars to buy brand new stuff. Many times, I have made a decision to make something work for less, and it was a lot funner doing it. The vast majority of times, that fix is still going strong.
 
-
Back
Top