SYE for NP207
#16
CF Veteran
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,473
Likes: 9
From: Paso Robles Ca
Year: 1991
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
I did. Opened up a few factory service manuals. And I've only serviced several dozen in the last few years. It's not even a slip fit for that bushing.
*edit* In fact .. the NP231 AND NP207 part number is J813 4490
My mind is quite open ... you just need to have the last word and even when I give it to you ... you want to keep going.
Joe
*edit* In fact .. the NP231 AND NP207 part number is J813 4490
My mind is quite open ... you just need to have the last word and even when I give it to you ... you want to keep going.
Joe
if the ones you worked one were loose then you should have replaced them
the one I replaced on mine fit very nicely
#17
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 750
Likes: 3
From: Blakeslee, PA
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.7
Beats the hell out of me what it does. I've replaced them with no change/decrease in slop. So then I changed the yoke ... and still no difference.
I do notice they are grooved and I think it's more of a "restrictor" for the ATF. That is .... lube the shaft but not let fluid gush through where it is likely to leak right out the tail cone seal (rubber degradation from exposure). That line of thinking is supported by several local transmission shops I maintain contact with.
Let's use your line of thinking for a second. With that babbit material being as thin as it is .... it will not support a load/weight like that for very long. by itself. It would only there take up any slop that might be there from a wearing yoke or output shaft.
And yes ... even with the right tools ... that bushing is a pain in the azz to change sometimes.
Joe
#18
CF Veteran
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,473
Likes: 9
From: Paso Robles Ca
Year: 1991
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
well the ones I have used and its been a few years but the have three groves and are made of the same stuff as rod berings
also jeep magazine did an article on the difference of the 231 with and without the tail cone
they said and I don't remember exactly but they said the new design did not support the yoke like the old tail cone style did
also jeep magazine did an article on the difference of the 231 with and without the tail cone
they said and I don't remember exactly but they said the new design did not support the yoke like the old tail cone style did
#19
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 750
Likes: 3
From: Blakeslee, PA
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.7
well the ones I have used and its been a few years but the have three groves and are made of the same stuff as rod berings
also jeep magazine did an article on the difference of the 231 with and without the tail cone
they said and I don't remember exactly but they said the new design did not support the yoke like the old tail cone style did
also jeep magazine did an article on the difference of the 231 with and without the tail cone
they said and I don't remember exactly but they said the new design did not support the yoke like the old tail cone style did
I know the material is similar to an engine bearing, but it's not being designed to support an oil wedge under pressure. The pump only circulates the oil around so it can be flung (splash lube). Therefore, more susceptible to contact wear.
No idea what to tell you on that article as I didn't see it. Nor do I have a new style T-case handy (customer was here with one earlier today).
Joe
#21
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 750
Likes: 3
From: Blakeslee, PA
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.7
I wasn't doubting what he read, shep. I just haven't seen any article of that nature for comparison sake.
At best ... I would call that a secondary support when the side load gets really off kilter.
Thankfully ... most of the t-cases I rebuild now ask for an SYE install as well.
Joe
#23
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 750
Likes: 3
From: Blakeslee, PA
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.7
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)