what junk yard parts do you need to set up rear disc brakes on dana 44??

If you have front disks they provide 80% of the stopping power to the Jeep. Changing the back drums to disks is costly and adds NOTHING to the stopping power.. Newer Jeeps do not stop in less distance than older Jeeps with drums.. So unless you have money to BURN leave the drums on there.
Big JIm <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

I agree with BJ. I thought about getting rear discs a few years after I switch to 35's. But I wasn't impressed with those of friends' Jeeps. So, instead I converted my manual brakes to power brakes. Much improvement!

I strongly disagree, Disc brakes adds a 2 factors of stopping power that you completely lose with drums.
Wet, come on guys, just the wet stopping power alone should speak volumes. zero with drums..

Next is the one that the hardcore guys figured out, backing down extreme obstacles, like potato salad hill MOAB. Rear disc brakes don't loose any stopping power in reverse.
Drums do, they have a primary/secondary shoe system that is designed to work going forward, the way they work going backwards is greatly reduced.

I run rear discs on my grocery getter XJ because they simply work better. I'm using the Ford SVO discs (like explorer) but the kit comes with a spacer to preload the axle shaft bearings. If you just install the explorer brakes, they are C clip style and don't use a spacer for preload. W/out the spacer the bearing will come unglued.

SD

Supe... Isn't the reason for the smaller shoe to keep the back end from swapping around in just such extreme situations?

All I know is that when modern vehicles switch over to rear discs the stopping distance doesn't decrease..
Big JIm <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Drum brakes are just about as ancient as leafsprings and dinosaurs, and where put in museums around the year 1658. Most of the western civiliced world stoped using them around that time and moved on to better things, this has the exception of the occasional colony like India and parts of Africa. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

There is a reason all respectable car manufacturers use rear disks today and that is BETTER BRAKING all of the time not just the first two times. So if you have the time and money go do it, you won't regret it when it's time to service them. You can also trust them after crossing rivers and most wet stuff.

Now there I said it so you drumheads can flame me all you want. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

Howdy PT I'm not gonna flame you. But maybe give you the advantage of my age.
Over the past years I have seen all auto manufactors go thru there fleet advertising one vehicle at a time, about one a year, until their entire fleet had front disks. NOT ONCE did the stopping distance get shortened. Then for a while rear disks were optional on many vehicles. Then finally most went to standard rear brakes. NEVER was a shorter stopping distance advertised!
It appears to me that disks cost the manufactorer less money to purchase, install and warranty than the older style. I have wondered many times many times why all vehicles didn't change over in the same year.. Must be the power of the advertising part of the companys involved.
If the disks WERE better at stopping the manufactorers would be liable for huge amounts of liability for upgrading so slowly...
Actually the weak link in stopping is either the hydrolic pressure or the tires grip on the surface..one of the two.
The disks on my Chevy get just as wet as the old drums did. In really wet weather I can feel the water on the brakes just as if nothing has changed.
Big JIm <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for the flame retardant reply Jim. I expected the gates of hell to open upon me when I mentioned leafs in the same sentance as museum objects more than the fear of drumbrake enthusiast gathering upon me. But the keyword to all of this brake nonsense is Reliability and easy servicing. The thing with drum brakes is that they have the habit of not getting all the crap out but easyly getting it in. Everytime I think of servicing a drumbrake setup I buy everything you can buy for it because you need to replace so many springs and pins and crap. They never work that good you notice them and after years and years of use and abuse they are so f****d up beyond recognicion you need to replace almost everything except the backing plate.
I'm not saying they are totaly useless, they where great in the 50's, but hey the 50's were great, ask Elvis. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

There is a reason high performance vehicles do not run drums. Disc brakes dissipate heat WAY BETTER than drums. And as Party Truck said there are less parts, which means less to go wrong. Sure, drums have more surface area to stop a tire, which I'm sure is why big rigs still use them.

You will have to face it one day BJ...discs are superior to drums.

Arlington there is not a doubt in my mind about NASCAR needing discs to slam on every 1/4 mile for 500 miles at 190 mph.
The question here is "does a Wrangler need discs installed at a cost of $800/1,000. to get rid of the rear drums"? My answer to that is, there is little if any gain!
But, as a general rule, are discs on the family grocery getter better than drums? Sure! As I have stated my wifes Suburban now has nearly 170K on it's brakes. And it still stops fine. So repair and upkeep CAN be better with disks.
So "superior" in some ways is POSSIBLE, but in ALL WAYS, and worth the extra money to change from drums to discs on the rear?
Big JIm <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />