if I'm not mistaking.. the front right half axle was a ball.. rolling axle? and the front left an sfj(?) the point is they are two different kinds, is this good?

I'm too embarassed to talk about it much. I made a blanket statement recently about a certain type of joint being used. I was wrong; it was "some " use them and others don't 1994-98. i'm gonna shutup. They LOOKED like that type from the outside. I would normally think that the two would be the same for any vehicle.

this is what I thought... but I don't know, one does seem older... anyone else have any ideas? 96 impreza... if I have to get a new one I need to before I have to put a new transmission in..

I can only imagine they should be of the same type on each side of the car. Meaning, a new vehicle would not have one type of axle on say the left side and a different type on the right or vise versa.

Front vs Rear may have different joint types because the rear wheels do not turn.

 

Obviously at that age there has been ample time for the boots on the original axles to split. People tend to replace the entire axle when that happens since it is easier. So it's no stretch of the imagination to think at least one if not more axles have been replaced by now.

Edited February 28, 201115 yr by Fairtax4me

left and right axles will be the same on any subaru

Joint type doesn't matter. Some use the Rzeppa ball-type plunge joints (OEM are typically built this way), and some use the Tripod-type plunge joints - EMPI uses these on some of their aftermarket EA series axles for example. They all work just fine and most people never even realize that internally they are different types of joints.

 

GD

it's awd.. the rear wheels do turn o.O

 

anndd so even though they're different, still in good condition I can just reboot/clean/grease them and put them on anyway? won't make much of a difference one is bearing like and the other the tripod like..?

I guess not. These folks know. The different are apparently made to interact well enough to Exceed any one worn-out one. Inherently, i would prefer 2 of the same type unless there is clear knowlege that one is superior. The tri-ball is a somewhat older design used extensively in Europe. Interestingly they would use double-cardans for higher hp vehicles. That is a double-U joint and then again coupled to another u-joint at the transaxle. The sequence of the inividual workings of a 4 point yoke could cause serious trouble if not cancelled out properly. These are still the basis of serious $X$ 4X4 axles last I looked yet are not as driver friendly for regular folks. Enter the CV multiballed type.

Both the tri-ball and multi are properly referred to as Constant Velocity for they don't exhibit the rotational variance of basic u-joint at an an angle. That is why so much attention is paid to driveline alignment in raised vehicles.

There is a Reason why typical u-joint is used there which goes back.

Are we done yet:horse: sorry folks . So the tri-ball is sorta a blend of the two as is the other and you can rebuild a tri ball or our other but not the case it rides in. U-joints can be rebuilt all the time but rely on sliding splines for reach. Then the splines wear. So we got it pretty good

Edited February 28, 201115 yr by Fuzpile

this confused meee a lot.. just curious if I can use one different type on each side.. considering that's how it came and I don't have much extra money to replace it if I don't have to..

Yes - it will be fine. Drive on soldier.

 

GD

Awesome, Thanks GD