Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: HemiStan]
#315094
05/11/09 06:13 PM
05/11/09 06:13 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,506 Az
Crizila
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,506
Az
|
I run one in my 9 1/4. No problems so far. Third season with it.
Fastest 300
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: Crizila]
#315095
05/11/09 07:02 PM
05/11/09 07:02 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,095 Valencia, España
NachoRT74
master
|
master
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,095
Valencia, España
|
Maybe not that bad, but after all these years of use or abuse, they could it be some damaged, so not a guarantee of good working conditions.
Being the clutch kind are easier and cheaper rebuildable, kist are everywhere, and able to make it at home, thats an advantage. Cone kind will need to me machined as stated, not too cheap to make that.
With a Charger born in Chrysler assembly plant in Valencia, Venezuela
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: NachoRT74]
#315096
05/11/09 07:14 PM
05/11/09 07:14 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,884 Michigan
MNobody
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,884
Michigan
|
Quote:
Maybe not that bad, but after all these years of use or abuse, they could it be some damaged, so not a guarantee of good working conditions.
Being the clutch kind are easier and cheaper rebuildable, kist are everywhere, and able to make it at home, thats an advantage. Cone kind will need to me machined as stated, not too cheap to make that.
Not sure what it cost to rebuild the clutch style but gringing off a couple gears and adding washers can't be that expensive.
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: HemiStan]
#315098
05/11/09 07:16 PM
05/11/09 07:16 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,359 Buzzard County, FL
IronWolf
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,359
Buzzard County, FL
|
Quote:
I like to burn rubber. Alot. As in 100 ft or more through several gears. Out of all of the Sure-Grips I have had, only one was a cone style and it seemed to "fishtail". Maybe it was worn out. I swapped it for a clutch style with the same ratio and now it burns rubber straight as an arrow. That's all I know.
Stan
Yes, on the street where there is good traction, (versus the test n' tune track, where they really don't give a flying flip whether you get good traction, and the kidz dump their A/C fluids) , my "sure grip " fishtails , too. Good luck finding a clutch unit, though. Limited availibility, no ?
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: NachoRT74]
#315099
05/11/09 07:36 PM
05/11/09 07:36 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,506 Az
Crizila
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,506
Az
|
Quote:
Maybe not that bad, but after all these years of use or abuse, they could it be some damaged, so not a guarantee of good working conditions.
Being the clutch kind are easier and cheaper rebuildable, kist are everywhere, and able to make it at home, thats an advantage. Cone kind will need to me machined as stated, not too cheap to make that.
Actually, I would have gone to a clutch type ( for the rebuildability thing ), but they are not available for the 9 1/4 diff. Per Auburn gear, the check to see if your cone unit is still serviceable is easy ( applies to a 9 1/4 - don't know about others): Jack one tire off the ground. Put a torque wrench on a lug nut on that wheel ( radially out from the wheel center ). Break-away torque for a new unit should be 70 lbs or better. They claim the unit is serviceable down to 20 lbs. Below that, replace. They also suggest 80-90 gear oil only. No synthetic. An additive os ok if you have bad chatter on turns.
Fastest 300
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: IronWolf]
#315100
05/11/09 07:37 PM
05/11/09 07:37 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424 Florida STAYcation
dOc !
The village idiot's idiot
|
The village idiot's idiot
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,424
Florida STAYcation
|
I have had VERY good luck with them. The 741 2.76 SG I have in my 62 Belvedere right now came out of a 74 Monaco with 170k miles on it. It has been in there since the middle '90's, has run as quick as 12.30 and as fast as 5200 in high gear ! It is as tight as a drum !! ..
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: Crizila]
#315105
05/11/09 09:23 PM
05/11/09 09:23 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 15,487 Florida
scratchnfotraction
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 15,487
Florida
|
they ar ok..just not good on longevity as the cone wears it eats into the case and puts metal shving in the oil most I have seen used have not had very good service on the oil change and the bearing are pitted up but when in good working order they are just as good as a clutch one IMO just wont last as long with out preventive maintanace and oil changes look it over good so it not 700$ after the 300+ $ used I have had one redone,its tight as a ..... well it chatters the tire on turns so its a grabin good lets say runwhatyabrung
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: Crizila]
#315106
05/11/09 10:15 PM
05/11/09 10:15 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345 Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
|
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe not that bad, but after all these years of use or abuse, they could it be some damaged, so not a guarantee of good working conditions.
Being the clutch kind are easier and cheaper rebuildable, kist are everywhere, and able to make it at home, thats an advantage. Cone kind will need to me machined as stated, not too cheap to make that.
Actually, I would have gone to a clutch type ( for the rebuildability thing ), but they are not available for the 9 1/4 diff. Per Auburn gear, the check to see if your cone unit is still serviceable is easy ( applies to a 9 1/4 - don't know about others): Jack one tire off the ground. Put a torque wrench on a lug nut on that wheel ( radially out from the wheel center ). Break-away torque for a new unit should be 70 lbs or better. They claim the unit is serviceable down to 20 lbs. Below that, replace. They also suggest 80-90 gear oil only. No synthetic. An additive os ok if you have bad chatter on turns.
Clutch types are available forthe 9.25 all the suregrip truck axles are a clutch type LSD. I know because I took one apart, and sold the empty diff with side gears to a kid who was going to rebuild it and put it in his Dakota--I pulled it out because it needed rebuilt and i wanted to go with a detroit true trac
now, if you're talking about an old 9.25 from a car, I don't know if they make one for that specific application (did the spline count change on them?) if so, you could buy one meant for a truck axle, and just get new axles for your older diff
**Photobucket sucks**
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: 67Satty]
#315107
05/11/09 10:23 PM
05/11/09 10:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,623 Ca Registered: Mar-2001
hemiallen
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,623
Ca Registered: Mar-2001
|
Or you could buy as good clutch 741 pig in the classified, Northern Cal, shipping may not be that bad.
741'S are stonger than your 12 second car needs.....
It's a 3.91 set, looks new and runs like new.
Allen
'05 Quad cab hemi truck- Flame red- magnaflow exhaust
70-440 cuda-
74-360-4v Challenger- new driver car
EX vehicles:
66 charger Drag car- 10.80 at 123 mph
57 imperial 392 Hemi
1960 Sanger V drive- mondello-built 392 hemi
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: 70Cuda383]
#315108
05/12/09 08:20 AM
05/12/09 08:20 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,506 Az
Crizila
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,506
Az
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe not that bad, but after all these years of use or abuse, they could it be some damaged, so not a guarantee of good working conditions.
Being the clutch kind are easier and cheaper rebuildable, kist are everywhere, and able to make it at home, thats an advantage. Cone kind will need to me machined as stated, not too cheap to make that.
Actually, I would have gone to a clutch type ( for the rebuildability thing ), but they are not available for the 9 1/4 diff. Per Auburn gear, the check to see if your cone unit is still serviceable is easy ( applies to a 9 1/4 - don't know about others): Jack one tire off the ground. Put a torque wrench on a lug nut on that wheel ( radially out from the wheel center ). Break-away torque for a new unit should be 70 lbs or better. They claim the unit is serviceable down to 20 lbs. Below that, replace. They also suggest 80-90 gear oil only. No synthetic. An additive os ok if you have bad chatter on turns.
Clutch types are available forthe 9.25 all the suregrip truck axles are a clutch type LSD. I know because I took one apart, and sold the empty diff with side gears to a kid who was going to rebuild it and put it in his Dakota--I pulled it out because it needed rebuilt and i wanted to go with a detroit true trac
now, if you're talking about an old 9.25 from a car, I don't know if they make one for that specific application (did the spline count change on them?) if so, you could buy one meant for a truck axle, and just get new axles for your older diff
Good info - thanks. I didn't know that. The 9 1/4 I have came with the car ( 79 300 - Cordoba ). It was originally open and I added the Auburn center section - cone clutch. I'm not having any problems with it so far. I'll probably stick with it for now.
Fastest 300
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: Crizila]
#315110
05/12/09 09:06 AM
05/12/09 09:06 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123 Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
they suck. I put an auburn in my '96 ram with a 5 speed and 3.21 gears. it was totally dead in about 4 years. I picked up an 8 3/4 and put in my M body 22k miles ago, with a good used OEM cone style...it's dead, too, and I think something broke and is eating up the bearings.
next time I'm either finding a used OEM clutch style (no aftermarket Indian junk for me) or go straight to a detroit true-trac torsen style.
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD 1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!*** 2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T 2017 Grand Cherokee Overland 2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: polkat]
#315111
05/12/09 09:15 AM
05/12/09 09:15 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,962 U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,962
U.S.S.A.
|
Cone types SUCK!!! The reason one has to machine cones and add shims is because the units are GRINDING itself into little pieces. Next time you take one apart look at the bearings AND the gears with a magnifying glass and you'll see tiny pits were the metal particles passed between the cones and the rollers and gear teeth. To answer the question: Are they that bad? ... YES
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: CJK440]
#315112
05/12/09 09:21 AM
05/12/09 09:21 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,962 U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,962
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
i have had bad experience with those ones. I have never torn up the clutch type but have torn out 3 or the cone type. 1.was in a stock 318 barracuda. the pin in the middle came out and tore up the ring and pinion gears. 2.was in a 360 dart same thing happened 3. was in another 318 car.
they were all 4 speeds and so that was hard on them but only the 360 car had very much power, high 12's in quarter. i will never run another one of those units. trashed 3 sets of gears with them. i have never broken the clutch type and i have one behind my 440 dart.
The cone sure-grips only have 2 spider gears and they gall onto the center pin forcing it to break the locating pin and making the cross shaft spin in the case wallowing out the case holes. I'd say this is more of an issue than the "self destructing" complaint.
Chris the self destructing parts is what causes the the spiders to seize on the shaft , once the cones bottom out it turns into a one wheel wonder and the owner doesn't realize , it may still leave 2 black marks , but eventually the spiders seize on the shaft and the dowel breaks .
I opened up an open rear differential when doing a rebuild and it had one of the spiders galled up and was ready to seize on the shaft I had to use a hydraulic press to get it out.
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: hemiallen]
#315113
05/12/09 09:24 AM
05/12/09 09:24 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,962 U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,962
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
Or you could buy as good clutch 741 pig in the classified, Northern Cal, shipping may not be that bad.
741'S are stonger than your 12 second car needs.....
It's a 3.91 set, looks new and runs like new.
Allen
67 Satty , this is the unit I would buy if I were you .
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: burdar]
#315115
05/12/09 12:18 PM
05/12/09 12:18 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,962 U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,962
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
There was an article on how to rebuild one in an issue of High Performance Mopar I think. The interesting thing was that they installed smaller springs inside the origonals to get more apply pressure. I think they used springs from the inside of a 727 trans. I would think that with more pressure, it would slip less and last longer.
I saw that , I couldn't see it helping that much as the only spring in a 727 that would fit is from the front clutch and 4 of them won't add up to much .
Rebuilding is a bandaid for the real ending , REPLACEMENT ...
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: mopars4ever]
#315117
05/12/09 04:05 PM
05/12/09 04:05 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 498 El Dorado Ca
65signet
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 498
El Dorado Ca
|
If you are using street tires that don't bite that hard they work O.K. if you use a street/ strip tire and do burn outs and the track, they will not last long, the last one in a small blk car that ran 12s lasted a year and that's with 7 inch tires.
1965 Plymouth Barracuda 273 M/SA 1970 Plymouth Duster 360/904 10.60s with J heads
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: 67Satty]
#315119
05/12/09 09:28 PM
05/12/09 09:28 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,285 Ohio
64dodge572
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,285
Ohio
|
Quote:
I know you can't rebuild them in the conventional sense. But how does their strength and actual traction capability compare to a clutch-type suregrip?
There is a 489 case, 3.91, cone-type suregrip available locally for $300. If I gamble and it works, it could save me $700 or so over getting a rehabbed center section.
In my opinion the gear-case-yoke is worth close to the asking price. The sure grip is a bonus. Sure its not the better of the 2 but it may hold up along time. I did break the cross pin in one about 7 years ago. 3.55 gear, 28" slicks, 3600# car and 12.50's 1/4 Probably had a couple hundred runs on it b4 it broke
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: 64dodge572]
#315120
05/12/09 10:58 PM
05/12/09 10:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,572 md
mopars4ever
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,572
md
|
Quote:
Neither. Its the sides of the cones that wear. And yes, I have the stainless steel shim kits for rebuilding the 8.75. Is it a replacement for a clutch type? No.... but it is a viable fix for those on a budget.
I have a nos cone sure grip for 2.45 ratio. So I should be able to swap out the cones from it into my 2.76 up case and be good to go. Correct?
|
|
|
Re: Are Cone-type Suregrips That Bad?
[Re: 67Satty]
#315121
05/13/09 09:15 AM
05/13/09 09:15 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,263 Southwestern Ontario Canada
racealittle
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,263
Southwestern Ontario Canada
|
I prefer to use the cone type sure grip in my street cars. I have found that they seem to work much better in wet or snow conditions.
I drive to the track (for over 30 years) and have had 5 different gear and sure grip combinations. The car has been driven in the worst snow conditions with a 4.10 gear and the cone type has worked best for me.
I've seen both units fail for others, I guess I have been lucky. My street 440 makes a broad 500 plus foot pounds of street torque. I have been quite abusive with all of them.
Too many cars, too many parts, too little coin, too little space to work in, too little time left to make it all happen!
Update: down to one ride, still too many parts, a little more jingle in the pocket, gaining space, and it's going to happen this year!
|
|
|
|
|