When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Anyone use C4 suspension on a C1 chassis without offsetting engine? I have not found any data to endorse this. In my searching, I have found only one statement from Drivelines Northwest, Inc. "the limitation of a driveline is the fact that they will only operate through angles in one plane. A compound angle (or an angle in two planes) will cause a vibration, and lead to premature failure and possible damage." They go on to say that a 'constant velocity' U-joint is used for cases of compound angles.
Has anyone facts or experience in not offsetting the engine? What, if any problems and how they were corrected?
Thanks Don
Operating angles in a driveshaft are the angles between the pinion, driveshaft and transmission centerlines. The optimal angle for any driveshaft to run at is 0 degrees, where many vibrational and frictional problems are non-existent. In order to minimize power loss and vibration in an offset configuration, the pinion centerline and the transmission centerline need to be parallel. In general, the largest angle for racing applications should 2 degrees and the centerlines should be parallel within 1/2 degree. With suspension movement the operating angle will increase, but should not exceed 15 degrees. If the centerlines are off too far, the u-joints travel at uneven operating velocities, causing vibration (this is the same problem induced by poorly phased end yokes). This vibration is hard to distinguish from an unbalanced driveshaft.
Incidentally, if your planning on retrofitting C4 front suspension componentry (A-arms, springs, spindles) onto the original C1 front crossmember, I'm sure there are at least a few people on here that would be interested in hearing the details.
Firstgear. thanks for your imput. If you lable your sketch as the 'horizontal plane' and then use the same sketch but lable it 'vertical plane' (looking down from above) you will see the center line of trans and engine would be in center of car and the rear pinion would be offset to the right. This is what I ment by two planes, one being horizontal and the other being vertical. The horizontal can be 'adjusted' for correct angle by shimming as you state, but the vertical plane is fixed by pinion location either in center of rear end or off set to the right of centerline. C4's are offset to passenger side of centerline by1 inch and C1's are on the centerline. Using original C1 engine location and C4 IRS there is a 1 inch offset. Is this problematic as indicated by Drivelines NW?
Firstgear. thanks for your imput. If you lable your sketch as the 'horizontal plane' and then use the same sketch but lable it 'vertical plane' (looking down from above) you will see the center line of trans and engine would be in center of car and the rear pinion would be offset to the right. This is what I ment by two planes, one being horizontal and the other being vertical. The horizontal can be 'adjusted' for correct angle by shimming as you state, but the vertical plane is fixed by pinion location either in center of rear end or off set to the right of centerline. C4's are offset to passenger side of centerline by1 inch and C1's are on the centerline. Using original C1 engine location and C4 IRS there is a 1 inch offset. Is this problematic as indicated by Drivelines NW?
As long as the centerline of the trans and the centerline of the pinion are parallel, there is only one plane of operation and that plane would be defined by the two centerlines. If the trans and pinion are parallel and at the same height but the pinion is slightly offset to the right or left, then the angle of operation is wholly in a horizontal plane. If the offset is 1" horizontally and 1" vertically, the angle of operation would be 45 deg. from vertical (or horizontal).
The optimal angle for any driveshaft to run at is 0 degrees, where many vibrational and frictional problems are non-existent.
That's not entirely true. If a U-joint runs at 0 degrees, it will brinell the needles, caps and trunnions; U-joints require at least some angular offset so there's constant movement between those parts.
That's why, in the plan view, Corvette half-shafts are angled slightly forward (spindle centerlines designed slightly forward of the diff yoke centerlines) so the U-joints always run at a slight angle even if they're perfectly horizontal in the rear view.
From: Lincoln NE Riding and Driving Corvettes since 1967.
Originally Posted by JohnZ
That's not entirely true. If a U-joint runs at 0 degrees, it will brinell the needles, caps and trunnions; U-joints require at least some angular offset so there's constant movement between those parts.
John - THANK YOU for clarifying that incorrect statement.
That's not entirely true. If a U-joint runs at 0 degrees, it will brinell the needles, caps and trunnions; U-joints require at least some angular offset so there's constant movement between those parts.
That's why, in the plan view, Corvette half-shafts are angled slightly forward (spindle centerlines designed slightly forward of the diff yoke centerlines) so the U-joints always run at a slight angle even if they're perfectly horizontal in the rear view.
correct. I believe what the author was saying that in a perfect world, emphasis on perfect, that with a zero angle set up there is no chance of vibration. Reality is you can't get to a zero angle set up because the rear suspension moves up and down, constantly changing the angle. Because of the constantly changing angle you need the u-joints......
Reality is you can't get to a zero angle set up because the rear suspension moves up and down, constantly changing the angle. Because of the constantly changing angle you need the u-joints......
Even on a fixed driveline (like '63-up Corvettes) where the diff doesn't move, the design requires angles for both front and rear driveshaft U-joints.