Interesting. Share and we can figureout what is going on.
I have interhanged shafts from the 85 to 91 axle with 92 to 97 axles and have not had interchange problems. The housings are the same dimension as well as the shaft lengths. I have also interchanged the spindles. I know the part numbers are different but they share similar dimensions. These domensions are different than the 78/9 axle all the way, with the exception of the knuckles and spindles.
Carriers and bearings and such are the same through all of the years, but these other dimensions for the shafts were only split up because of the change in differential locations.
Due to these differences in differential locations the later shafts are longer on the pass side and shorter on the driver side than the 78/9 axles.
Hope that makes sense.
I was out bending up some steel for new shackles and fabbing up the new hangers for another Bronco build, and my phone kept indicating that there were some responses in this thread, so I thought I would take a break and come inside to see what was up.
Back to work for a bit,,,,,,,opens cold adult beverage...........

 

Cody- Yeah, I wasn't refering to the axle assembly itself. When 75F350 made that comment it was in a paragraph when he was talking of the shafts themselves. The shafts from the kinkpin and balljoint axles from 86-97 are the same part#, length, diameter and spline count. With that being said there are some small differences that might make the Balljoint shafts more/less benificial. The inner shaft has a machined surface for an axle seal that the kingpin does not.

The Kingpin picked back up in 86 and ran till 91.5. 92-97 was when it changed to balljoint. Then changed to the unitbearings after that ( 99 up ) As stated above the newer axles are stronger in stock trim. The older axle is more desirable because the short tube is longer. Making installation much easier

 

75F350- The differences I speak of are posted with pictures in my 89 F250 D60 SAS thread. The c-clip for the stubs was located farther down the splines on the balljoint shaft. This could be fixed with a 35 spline upgrade though. The balljoint inner shaft has that machined area out of the yolk for a seal that the kingpin does not. And the part that concerned me the most was the carrier side of the inners. With the BJ shafts in the kingpin axle the shaft only cleared the crosspin by .006" and the kingpin cleared by more than 1/4".

 

You make some valid points, and I supose my overstatment was based upon aftermarket axles with 35 spline shafts.
It does appear that you have some length differences and I felt as though the dimensions were similar enough to be interchangeable. Since the WMS is the same for the king pin axle (not 78/9) as it is for the ball joint axle, one (I) would assume that as long as the axle tube dimensionwas identical that the internal dimension would be the same. Maybe not.
Ive got some old shafts laying around, and I will have to take some measurements to verify this for you, as well as for my own satisfaction. I made the statement and should find at least some data to support it, even if I find it to be not quite what I had stated in the first place. Not the first time that has happened, and it wont be the last.
I also remember that the outer "C's" were available in different sizes. A small one was available and a larger one was used. This could cause some clearance issues, but should still permit the use of either shaft.
Again, I could be horribly wrong, but I do think there is some merit here. WHo knows, I could be totally barking up the wrong tree.
We shall see. I dont use too many ball joint axles. I try to stay away from them, though I do have some kind of cool arms for them. High steer stuff should be flooding the market for these now that the cat is out of the bag.

 

Man everything I found said same length for the shafts. I researched everything and was sure that it was going to be a simple shaft swap. The BJ inner is 5/16 longer than the kingpin. Oddly enough that is the same amount that nipple on the end sticks past the side gears. Maybe it would just be a matter of machining 1/4" off the end. What I don't understant is why it's different. Maybe the key lies in to C's that you speak of. Did these different size C's move the balljoint axis farther out?

 

The larger inner "C" may have a different domension than the smaller one, and could possibly have moved the knuckle out far enough to create the situation that you describe. However, the WMS for each axle is the same, so this may not be the right direction. I may have to "phone a friend" here and check with someone with more experience than I have got.

 

How is a driveside d60 going to work in a cheb with a pass drop tcase??

And for the gentlemen asking about years of D60, this is correct as far as I know:
78/79 - KP Solid D60
80-85 - NO solid axles, all TTB
86-91 - KP Solid D60 with cast spring perches and center chunk moved more towards driver side leaving less drive side tube for mounting links or c wedges, but can still be done with some extra work (see my Bronco)
92-97 - Ball Joint Solid D60

 

Not all Chevy's have pass drop t-cases. My dads has a drivers side.

So if I ever total my F-350 I can put my axles under his truck and join a new site. (Just kidding. :P )

 

He said he already has a driver's side drop T-case.

 

Sorry man, I was just messing with you, didn't mean to start a Chevy/Ford thing. You're right, they were basically all made by dana, no brand arguing crap there.

 

Oops, didn't see that post the first time.

 

troublemaker!

 

The only thing I believe that chevy did better on the dana 60 was they had a better casting on the knuckles, but aftermarket knuckles are avalivle... because well lets face it.... stock is never good enough!