Well, it isn't engineering documentation, but I have seen references to this as why they went with the setup that we have.


And it was from an engineer. It is in a well-known book.








Remember this was all designed around 1959 and things changed rapidly in that period. I'm sure that sliding splines would have worked but they would have had to be maintained the way a tractor is maintained on a tractor-trailer combo. How often do most people lube their inner u-joints? The sliding sections would have needed to be lubed frequently and I doubt that would have happened.

 

I bought that book when it came out way back when. In a box somewhere, glad you posted it.
Despite being an engineer and a little more insight and even passing interviews with the corvette team back then, it's a writers embellished rendition of his reverse engineering assessment. Just like the opinions here.
It's a shame someone didn't have a sit down with Duntov for the concept variable and specific design/test calcs while he was still around.

I'm in the camp for nothing more than cost/space decisions. No room for a proper upper and lower control arm configuration while maintaining interior/storage space and the halfshafts (even considering yoke machining) was still a much cheaper option. I doubt anyone at GM would ever publicly admit they had to go with a less than desirable design. They needed paychecks too.

A Pantera has huge oem tubular upper and lower control arms and of course uses sliding shafts. Lower arms are almost 2ft long at the mounts. They take up a huge amount of space and can't see that design fit in a C3, mid engine design no problem.
Can't see greasing being a problem, high torque apps would most certainly be well cared for and dd use wouldn't be an issue. I've driven old farm trucks that have't had the slider greased in 20 years and they still slide well dry. It is a very good app for molyd lube though.

 

I'm still skeptical as that being the real reason the engineers did it. The torque through truck slip joints is not only in the range of 2000 lb ft of engine torque, it is multiplied numerous times through a deep reduction transmission and is not divided through two wheels. Slip joints running in sealed bellows were frequently used in these types of applications. Large truck lube frequencies are considerably longer than passenger vehicles. It just doesn't seem probable. The 63 corvette, in it's finest form wouldn't have a fraction of that kind of force on the rear axles.

The slip joints may have been the excuse some would like the buying public to believe, but my money is still on the cost savings. The book also makes it sound like GM pioneered this technology when Jag had already had it in use for a year or two when the Corvettes came out with it.

Are we certain the people writing that book are doing so from a totally objective viewpoint?

Steve g

 

One doesn't have to be AX'ing or RR'ing to find themselves approaching the limits of their car's handling capabilities due to some unexpected situation encountered on the road. It doesn't matter who you are, what, when, where or why you drive, it can happen anywhere, anytime, and to anybody.

So, I suggest those who think those clips are inconsequential to ask themselves if you knew someone was going to pull out in front of you the next time you went for a drive in your C2/C3, and that the only way to save yourself (and possibly others) from certain death was to make a sudden and heroic turn out of harms way, would you be willing to bet your life on it? Seriously, in such an instance any one handling fault could mean the difference.

I may not be an engineer, but, as one who has learnt a thing or two from actually spending the better part of my life and fortune setting up, tuning and/or racing various types of cars (including professionally), I'd like to think there's just possibly a little more behind the opinion I've developed on this than speculation based on something I read somewhere; sheepskin or no.