Depends on the application.   I've ran .002" multiple times........

     Well yeah, intentionally sure, "in certain applications" or even just rationalized for reasons that have nothing to do with the mechanics of it!  But in general, and consider the similarities, and the dissimilarities, and think about it.  Why are we "wanting" to have .002" clearance? 

     It's just a question.   

     Scott.

Is it a good or bad idea to swap a used cam from one motor to another.

     A bit of a "crap-shoot"!   

     Scott.

In your scenario a Detroit Locker would stay locked because of the torque applied from the engine, as it works to move the vehicle, will keep the locker locked.
The differential action of a Detroit Locker only happens when the torque forces are low, otherwise that differential will remain locked due to its ratcheting style design.
A Detroit Locker is locked the vast majority of the time by design because it remains locked until the correct low torque conditions allow it to unlock.

. . . . . . .you do not fully understand the way a Detroit Locker works in a vehicle.... which is pretty common, so you are in a normal place.

     I believe you may fall into the same "normal place".   

     Yes, it 'is' of a geared "ratchet" design, and though it does 'transfer' torque as produced from the engine through to the axle shafts, it isn't "torque" sensing in it's operation, rather it is simply "speed" sensing, maybe add "position" sensitive.  Remember it's just a "ratchet" system, where as the ring gear turns the differential housing it's bolted to, the internal gearing doesn't allow either output side gear, and therefore axle, from not turning at least at this speed; but the ratchet feature allows either to turn faster.  So, when traversing a turn, as there is distance differential to be covered, the inside wheel will not be allowed to turn slower in the pivoting maneuver, so it will be the outer wheel in the turn that will "unlock" or "ratchet" forward and accelerate, as being pushed, in order to traverse this greater distance within the same period of time.  After the vehicle straightens out, then as soon as the gear sets realign, the disengaged axle re-locks-up, due simply to the side-springs who's pressure which was overcome to allow the ratcheting effect push things back into this position. 

      One may garner the impression of "torque" sensing because in an instance where the unit is unlocked, when enough torque from the engine is applied to cause the one engaged tire to begin to slip, the unit will catch the slower in motion tire (sometimes with an announcement!  ) in lockup.  But this action was not based on torque, other than that which caused one tire to turn at a faster rate than the other, rather solely by the fact that as the one tire lost traction the ring gear (an associated componentry) sped up and the planted tire resisted, at least momentarily.

      Now once the two tires are spinning, trowing dirt & mud, the unit generally remains locked to both axles, but again this is solely because neither is allowed to be turning at a rate anything less than that of the ring gear, even if this is faster than the overall vehicle's movement; and though torque is what is causing the tires to spin, the unit doesn't care about torque, it's about speed differentials and positioning relationships.   

      Scott.

      As I recall, the "Truetrac" product hit it's stride along with the 4 X 4 craze in the late '70's.  Back then "posi", "limited-slip", "trac/tion-loc, etc. (whatever!), was available from the O.E.M. for the rears, but other than for the Bronco, not for the front axles.  Then the tires got bigger, and soon something other than the clutch type differentials were necessary if one actually expected both tires to be turning, particularly in the mud!   

      For the rear Detroit Lockers were for the well-healed, for the less so, "Lincoln-Lockers" (welded) became popular; but what for the fronts?  Either of these, though truly "positive locking" and ensured that all four (4 X 4) were going to be turning in the mud, how could one ask for more.  But particularly as with the front axle, if all of the tires are "locked" together, turning exactly the same revolutions at all times, surprisingly when off-road on a lose surface, you can turn the front wheels to the left or right, but the vehicle doesn't readily change direction!   Been there dun that!   

      So here comes the Truetrac, with that "seamless" differential action that allows the tires to differential when the wheels turn left & right and it works great; but the observant operator realizes that although this product is truly superior to the otherwise "open" unit, it isn't as positive as the "locked" assemblies as it surrenders to the external environmental factors acting upon it's function.  But for the front axle this was an acceptable compromise for greater civility and was in that frame of mind that it was initially marketed.   

      Later, as the engine torque outputs have increased, and the public finds new ways to test their vehicles, you'll note that some of these worm-gear guys are now coupling "clutch-packs" to their units.  The purpose here is to provide a certain sum of "preload" to the gear-sets to aid in their functionality; something akin to the idea of applying the parking brake as mentioned previously.  Note that these are "torque bias" in operation, in other words, if one wheel is off the ground, there's a minimal torque application involved to make it turn, and therefore not so great a value being applied to the opposite side either.   

      And hence, I would think would be a 'very' poor choice for something particularly like "rock-climbing"!     

      Scott.



 

    Though the photo doesn't really provide adequate detail, but I don't see the tooling marks typical of "machined" steel locks.   

    Scott.

     On the subject of excessively worn componentry, it seems these units suffer from failures in the sense that the carrier bearings have a habit of turning, both on the inner race to differential snout, but more concerning, of the outer race in the axle housing under the caps; so be sure to inspect for this.   

     Scott.

     Yes, the "E" 'was' better, but then the "G" example is better again and is definitely the one you want!   

     Scott.