thanks for the video heiny , gotta admit , that was the first time for me seeing the pinion angle work in action , would it move as much with the three link in a tracker ? i've got to say , i'm very impressed with the technical help that i'm getting here , great job guys ! with the 3" + 3" calmini lift , is there any chance of the rear drive shaft sliding out ?i've been told a s.y.e. would eliminate almost all chance of it  , but i've had no problems thus far and haven't heard of any problems with this kit doing that'

The Trackers 3 link does not move as much.  There is a slight (very slight) compression of the rubber bushings in the link mounts, the rest of motion is in an arc from raising and lowering the suspension.  The link to the top of the differential, and the links to the bottom of the spring mounts are fixed lengths, and the differential has to move withing the limits of the different lengths of those mounting arms..  If the differential rotates something is broken.
Interesting video.  Seems the noise is louder when the shaft is straight.  It is hard to tell, is the universal lined up with the CV as in your drawing?

For the record, the vid I posted was just to help clarify the previous statements and give an illustration of a leaf setup. There are countless youtube videos on the subject of axle wrap.... It is not my vehicle, which should be apparent by the non-suzuki rear end. ;P

As far as this thread is concerned though, I was hoping you realized that there is no issue with "axle wrap" with a linked suspension.....if you see axle wrap on a link setup then something is broken like BRD said. Therefore you will NOT have a problem with a ujoint breaking or wearing prematurely when you rotate your pinion up on the rear of a tracker. Matter of fact you will actually increase the life of the rear ujoint....


Of coarse this all has been covered in the link below, that I'm sure was the idea behind the OP.

http://www.zukiworld.com/month_100102/feature_hagans_rearrotate.htm

Look  defending a poor decision by posting someone elses defence of a poor decision doesn't rectify the problem. It just proves that someone else out there has done the same thing you did.....
 U joints are cheap . $16 or so bucks . That's why I carry 3 or 4 spairs into the woods. Axles are expensive . And hard to carry into the woods.
 Not to rehash all of the other aforementioned reasons why not to rotate your axle. If you do, your pinion bearings will starve for lubrication. If you overfill it will eather get blown out the vent or it will eventually take out the axle seals and spray goo all over the brakes . either of these issues will cause premature axle and possibly brake failier.
 While I'm on the brake issue : Rotating the axle housing without relocating the axle tubes causes a loss of rear breaking potential . And may cause your rear brake adjusters to cease working............Neither of these are good. The factory settings and engineering on the axle angles are there for many more reasons than convenience. Cause and effect . I'll choose not to sacrifice the life expectancy of my axle and breaks to POSSIBLY take the load off of my $16 ujoint.........Boxcar...
PS: If you have to much angle at your u joint because of a large lift the propper fix is a high pinion diff. At the stock pinion angle.....Yes more expensive ... Doing things the right way usually is.......

Hmmm, 3 or 4 spare u joints. Well it never hurts to be prepared I guess. But without a press on the side of the trail it would be pretty hard to get one in straight. That being said, I've been running an over rotated rear axle on my rig for 5 years now, 60,000 miles of everything from multi thousand mile road trips to bashing it over rocks and pretty much everything in between. Properly done, the up sides are two fold: Gets the u joints and pinion flange up out of the way of stuff that can damage them, and as a secondary benefit moves the center point of the rear axle back into the center of the wheel well on a Trackick that's been lifted, allowing larger tires without cutting sheet metal.  As you lift the Trackick rear suspension with longer coils, spacers or what ever, without doing this mod it pulls your axle forward, closer to the front of the wheel well.

As long as the angle at the pinion and the angle at the transfer case are the SAME, it works great. You can't point the pinion directly at the t case output when you do this. You actually over rotate it a bit so the pinion is actually pointed slightly above the tcase output. Then the angle of the u joint coming out of the tcase is pointed down slightly while the angle of the pinion u joint is pointed up slightly, both both angles being exactly the same. One more benefit is it keeps more of the drive shaft in the t case.                         
                                                                                                                                       ___
This required making a new mount for the upper third member that is staggered, like a step. ___l      Something like this. It also requires re locating lower coil mounts and shock mounts and either longer coils or spacers.
As far as oiling goes, I overfill mine by pouring through the Anti lock sending unit plug. Never had an issue. No blown seals, puking oil or brake problems.  The over rotation works if you do everything correctly.

While I'm on the brake issue : Rotating the axle housing without relocating the axle tubes causes a loss of rear breaking potential . And may cause your rear brake adjusters to cease working............Neither of these are good. The factory settings and engineering on the axle angles are there for many more reasons than convenience.

Care to explain this a little more?  I can understand a bleeding issue if you rotate far enough - but anything other than that I don't see how it's possible.

The next thing you're going want me to believe is that if I drive up a hill (thus putting the brake back plate at effectively the same angle with respect to the horizontal as it is with the axle rotated) is that my brakes will fail - or the adjusters stop working.

(QUOTE) "Hmmm, 3 or 4 spare u joints. Well it never hurts to be prepared I guess. But without a press on the side of the trail it would be pretty hard to get one in straight. That being said, I've been running an over rotated rear axle on my rig for 5 years now, 60,000 miles of everything from multi thousand mile road trips to bashing it over rocks and pretty much everything in between. Properly done, the up sides are two fold: Gets the u joints and pinion flange up out of the way of stuff that can damage them, and as a secondary benefit moves the center point of the rear axle back into the center of the wheel well on a Trackick that's been lifted, allowing larger tires without cutting sheet metal.  As you lift the Trackick rear suspension with longer coils, spacers or what ever, without doing this mod it pulls your axle forward, closer to the front of the wheel well."

 I've got 450,000 Miles on my lifted 1973 Wagoneer with stock pinion angle and have never lost a bearing in the stock 44. I have had it apart twice for service and maintenance though. After all ---450,000 miles.
 So whats your point?

I don't see that rotating the axle moves it back unless you are changing the mounts entirely.
 And yes I do occasionally change u joints in the field ( without my shop press) Did 6 at Moab last year (thankfully other than my own rig) without the need of a press.  Never had a problem with it. I suppose one could allways use there high lift if they needed a press.

(Quote) "As long as the angle at the pinion and the angle at the transfer case are the SAME, it works great. You can't point the pinion directly at the t case output when you do this."

Exactly. Unless you use a drop T case mount to change the angle at the T case. BUT THIS WILLL SCREW UP YOUR FRONT PINION ANGLE, which is another problem all together.

 As to the brake issue: Yes. If all you ever do is drive up hill your brakes will wear prematurely and your adjusters may not operate properly.
 You ever wonder why it is that all manufacturers orient there drum brakes the same way? Front and rear, As opposed to top and bottom.
 It has allot to do with  braking potential.
 While different manufacturers have different ideas on adjusters and shoe size (front & rear) The shoe orientation stays the same...
 This isn't a coincidence....
It has allot to do with how they develop enough horsepower to stop the vehicle properly, how they wear, and how reliable they are  under wet and dry hot and cold conditions.
 Look, you guys can do what ever makes you happy on your own rigs.
 The PO asked for advice on the BEST way to set up HIS rig.
 After 35 years in this business I have probably made or seen every bad mistake out there.
I think I have pretty much covered all the angles on why rotating the rear or front housings  isn't such a cut and dry great idea.
 If you need a longer drive line, get one.
If you need to soften the angle , get a cv driveline
 If the angle is still to extreme, get a high pinion housing .
 BUT DON'T SCREW UP THE PINION ANGLE by taking a short cut and rotating the housing.....Boxcar...
 
  
                        
                                                                                                                              

As to the brake issue: Yes. If all you ever do is drive up hill your brakes will wear prematurely and your adjusters may not operate properly.
 You ever wonder why it is that all manufacturers orient there drum brakes the same way? Front and rear, As opposed to top and bottom.
 It has allot to do with  braking potential.
 While different manufacturers have different ideas on adjusters and shoe size (front & rear) The shoe orientation stays the same...
 This isn't a coincidence....
It has allot to do with how they develop enough horsepower to stop the vehicle properly, how they wear, and how reliable they are  under wet and dry hot and cold conditions.

Oh?  All manufacturers orient their shoes front & back??

I guess you've never worked on a classic Mini - they were originally fitted with single leading shoe drums front & rear, and then the fronts were upgraded to twin leading shoe to get more braking power.

Both the single leading shoe & twin leading shoe systems had the shoes mounted top & bottom.



This is an exploded view from a parts catalogue and what you see in that view is the exact orientation that they would be in on the vehicle.  Look closely at the wheel cylinders, and you can see the bleed nipples face upwards - I don't think I need to explain why this is important.

The exact same wheel cylinders from the twin leading shoe drums were also used on Ford Transit vans so this is not limited to small inexpensive saloon cars.

These two examples are off the top of my head - I'm pretty certain I can go search and find more - maybe even a few american ones.

Now - do you want to try again with the explanation??  Because that one doesn't hold water.

By the way -  if all I ever do is drive uphill, my brakes will never wear out, because all I have to do to stop is lift off the throttle and let gravity do the work, and as for the adjusters, they usually need you to back up once in a while for them to do their thing.

Look harder,  The Minni tried that system for a while when Austen was still making them. Didn't last long. And if you,v ever owned a Minni you'd know why. Lousy brakes...Brittish car / go figure / Now there's an example of some fine automotive engineering....
 So I will refraise my earlyer statement to " MODERN BRAKING SYSTEMS" Just for you.
 Manufacturers have tried lots of hair brained ideas over the years..Jeep actually tried electrick anti locks on the early 90's Cherokee (life time recall) . Leather break pads were one of them ....Can I sell you some for your Zuke? Etc. None of these examples lasted very long . For very good reasons...Figure it out...
 From a mechanical stand point on uphill driving your wrong ... From a practical stand point though I will have to give you that one.
 But you'd soon have altitude sickness and wouldn't be able to type. So I guess we will never know.....
 

I have never had issues changing ujoints out on the trail unless they are factory joints. A large "C" clamp works wonders if you have already replacxed the factory ones previously and properly prepped the ears when installing the caps.

Look harder,  The Minni tried that system for a while when Austen was still making them. Didn't last long. And if you,v ever owned a Minni you'd know why. Lousy brakes...Brittish car / go figure / Now there's an example of some fine automotive engineering....

Minis used the single leading shoe brakes from the start of production in '59 through to '68, when they switched to twin leading shoes and used those until '85 - so that top and bottom configuration was used for over 25 years - for any design to survive 25 years it had to work reasonably well, and as I mentioned the exact same wheel cylinders were used on much larger vans, V6 diesel powered delivery vans, so the orientation would have been the same - we're now talking using top & bottom mounted shoes to stop several tons of vehicle and contents.

Are you going to defend your theory by casting slurs on the British motor industry or are you going to explain why you feel that the brakes will be affected?  Right now you're coming across as having made a statement that you can't support.

If you have a valid theory, I'm willing to entertain it - but so far I'm not seeing one.

Oh - I've owned several Minis - sedan, moke, pickup, traveller - they're a lot of fun to drive & very easy to maintain - the brakes were more than adequate for the task of stopping them, they didn't even need power assistance.

I owned a 1959 1st edition. 1n 78 and have had several British cars (like 20) raced them for years.
At 1389 lbs (curb weight) Mini / The Moke ( A Miner) was slightly heavier at 1425 lbs. And they had lousy brakes.
 Poor wiring . (PIOSITIVE GROUND) Are you kidding? Lukas the prince of darkness...A thrash box transmition and a very small ford tractor motor in them. And all British car manufacturers, save bmc, have gone broke due, in part, to poor engineering......
Yes you might have guessed it . I am a British car restorer.../ Amongst other things. And I love all my Brits. But not for their brakes....

They went to twin shoes, I believe, at the same time they went to disks in the front. Due to poor brake performance.
 As far as I can tell. No one but Cooper used this brake arrangement due to poor performance.
Your brake arrangement and orientation is front and back for many reasons as I have posted earlyer.
 Research "brake bios, potential and design.
And remember .You one glaring example is HALF THE WEIGHT- FRONTN WHEEL DRIVE- 12" wheeled  and a British car.
 Also think (gravity) . I'm sure the answer will come top you.
 Meanwhile lets stop HIJACKING THIS THREAD . If you'd like to talk further . PM me.....Boxcar....

 

it,s all good guys  , I'm sort of a info junky , so all of the posts matter to me and all the posts get read many times  , i try to gleen as much info as i can from all input to help me make an informed decision ! that  being said , i too love the mini , guess thats why i love my zuk as much as i do , i have never had the pleasure of owning a mini  , but i have gotten to drive one , they are real rare up here in the commy states , rust and chloride takes everthing , i have three trackers and none will pass "legally" inspection . but as far as the information goes , I'll keep listening !

I have twice pointed out, and assume that you have twice chosen to ignore that the same top bottom arrangement was used on the much larger & heavier Ford Transit vans - at this point I'm just going to drop the subject, since it has become apparent through the inclusion of such unrelated topics as positive grounds, "thrash" box transmissions & tractor motors (what do any of those have to do with brakes?) that the only course open to you is to criticise the british motor industry.

The Ford transit van? Which one are you talking about ? The generation 1 was a looser for Ford and was discontinued in the mid 50 s. Partly because it SUFFERD THE SAME PROBLEMS LISTED ABOVE. While it was slightly ( it was a very small van) heavier, it's max speed was around 50mph and was unsafe at that speed. And if memory serves me, it was on 13" tires....
 You're sighting 2 examples of vehicles designed in the 50 s. You know, before CAD and modern engineering.
 Both had break issues, Both abandoned the design. So whats your point?
 Just for fun though. I'd love to se a Mini with 7" of lift and 33" LTB s  try to stop.....
Thanks for being so gracious Rocky..... I hope were done now.......Boxcar...
 PS: Fordem, By all means , ROTATE YOU AXLE . Have fun with it.... I'd rather be the guy NOT replacing broken parts while blocking the trail with my 20 ton shop press..........