Fixed it for youIt’s justexperience.anecdote.
Really? I would say proper suspension geometry is. Are you talking like 18" brodozer lifts?I have spent over $10K on a project getting to happy driveline angles with proper geometry. 80’s are exceptional in this regard, because it’s the single biggest impediment to bigger lifts.
The Spicer joint's supposed "lack of tolerance for being out of phase" could only come from much tighter operating tolerances. Put another way, a loose and sloppy u joint will pack with grease and tolerate misalignment by hydraulically cushioning the oscillations. I doubt you're admitting that Toyota u-joints are better because they're sloppier, so this is just a weird contradiction.The Spicer joints have shown almost no tolerance for being out of phase or even running nicely once you get past a pretty low degree of operating angle. The simple fact that u-joints operating at an angle travel in an elliptical path suggests that tolerances are going to matter, pseudosciency or not.
I'm not running a front 8" R&P. But nor am I running a stock Dana carrier either. At any rate, this appears to be Toyota fanboyism. Hold an open Dana super 60 carrier in your hands and tell me it's inferior to an open 2-pinion toyota carrier. Now I'm not even sure what you're arguing.That’s also why size isn’t everything - if it was, none of us would be running an 8” front R&P. Toyota carrier tolerances are vastly superior to Dana, and it’s flex that blows stuff more than straight shearing. I’d rather have the clearance that comes from better engineering than having to compensate with Dana 60’s.
Anyway, whatever. It doesn't really matter. Toyota DC joints are cool. I think they're well built (except a nightmare to service). I run one in the front. But don't delude yourself into thinking that somehow due to anecdotes on Pirate4x4 that the Toyota joints are going to be beefier than a 1410.