New style axles
#41
The ORIGINAL and bestest
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto Ontario
Posts: 10,009
Received 234 Likes
on
143 Posts
Toronto Events Coordinator
This is awesome! So, how exactly do you know this?!?! I can assure you most certainly that you are wrong, these are close personal friends of mine, the guys that I hang around with!!!! The only changes are installing DTE rear end girdles, and the C5 guys change the output shafts to C6 ZO6 units. Stock CV joints and half shafts.
This is really going nowhere fast, isn't it?!?
Last edited by 7t2vette; 01-28-2012 at 10:04 AM.
#42
Then we agree to disagree, because I don't buy it, no matter what you say. For every auto manufacturer in the world that makes IRS rear wheel driven cars to universally use CV joints in the half shafts, there has to be an advantage to them over u-joints. I do not believe that modern automotive technology goes backwards, it moves ahead, like everything else. Nothing you can say will make me think otherwise. Maybe you should email all the automotive companies that produce IRS rear wheel driven cars with CV joints to tell them that they are doing it all wrong then!!!
This is awesome! So, how exactly do you know this?!?! I can assure you most certainly that you are wrong, these are close personal friends of mine, the guys that I hang around with!!!! The only changes are installing DTE rear end girdles, and the C5 guys change the output shafts to C6 ZO6 units. Stock CV joints and half shafts.
You do know what "stock" means, right?
I have been in the room for many dyno pulls, I know first hand how small the drivetrain losses are for modern Corvettes compared to C3's. Every part of the drivetrain in those cars is obviously more efficient than our cars, a stack of better tolerances adds up to smaller losses, and those CV joints are in that stack.
This is really going nowhere fast, isn't it?!?
#43
Winner winner! chicken dinner!
That point has actually been raised. I don't think a traditional CV joint could be modified to handle the axial loading. I could be wrong, but having assembled many a CV joint it's clear to me that they're designed not to resist axial movement. And when you do load them axially, they fail real fast.
The solution is to modify the rear suspension such that you have an actual upper strut rod and the half shaft no longer performs a double duty.
Another point I don't think has been mentioned: how well can a CV joint withstand axial loads.
We know the U-joints can as our half-shafts are under constant compression in the normal state.
We know the U-joints can as our half-shafts are under constant compression in the normal state.
The solution is to modify the rear suspension such that you have an actual upper strut rod and the half shaft no longer performs a double duty.
Last edited by wcsinx; 01-28-2012 at 06:51 PM.
#44
Instructor
Member Since: Jul 2008
Location: Wertheim Baden-Württemberg Germany
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still doesn't give a reason why GM, and most others I believe, use them. We are talking about this application in a Corvette, so your off-road example is also non sequitur because I don't think too many vettes go off road intentionally!
So, if they are so inferior to u-joints, then why are they pretty much universally used by every auto manufacturer in modern cars?
So, if they are so inferior to u-joints, then why are they pretty much universally used by every auto manufacturer in modern cars?
European rear wheel drive cars use central mounted diff with CV axles.Opel, BMW, Jaguar,Mercedes Benz....on and on and on.Axial movement is taken out by using a strut type suspension just like in the front drive junk.Or double wishbone as the case with the older jags.
Have been messing with cars my whole life and I have never seen anything like the C3 rear setup.Even the German engineers at my inspection station dropped there jaws when I explained to them why I didn't "need" an upper control arm.
Last edited by Ravoll; 01-28-2012 at 03:51 PM.
#45
The ORIGINAL and bestest
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto Ontario
Posts: 10,009
Received 234 Likes
on
143 Posts
Toronto Events Coordinator
Here are some pics I took at last year's ALMS race at Mid-Ohio of one of the factory C6.R Corvette's getting a rear end change in the paddock. Even these cars use the CV joints, but I guess they wouldn't be considered an "extreme" use example though!!
Last edited by 7t2vette; 01-28-2012 at 05:27 PM.
#46
Drifting
European rear wheel drive cars use central mounted diff with CV axles.Opel, BMW, Jaguar,Mercedes Benz....on and on and on.Axial movement is taken out by using a strut type suspension just like in the front drive junk.Or double wishbone as the case with the older jags.
Have been messing with cars my whole life and I have never seen anything like the C3 rear setup.Even the German engineers at my inspection station dropped there jaws when I explained to them why I didn't "need" an upper control arm.
Have been messing with cars my whole life and I have never seen anything like the C3 rear setup.Even the German engineers at my inspection station dropped there jaws when I explained to them why I didn't "need" an upper control arm.
Ya used to see a lot of 'em (Jag rears) all chromed up under the back end of hot rods like T-buckets, high-boys and so on.
Pete
#47
The ORIGINAL and bestest
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto Ontario
Posts: 10,009
Received 234 Likes
on
143 Posts
Toronto Events Coordinator
Name one modern production vehicle that uses u-joints on the half shafts in an IRS rear wheel driven configuration, or even a 4 wheel drive vehicle with an IRS. I'll wait.
WTF are you talking about? How did I contradict myself? Who is the one that isn't paying attention here? The subject of this thread is CV joints, which I clearly stated are stock on the cars I mentioned that my friends own, along with the halfshafts. They did mods to other parts, but not the CV joints or halfshafts. The mods they did have nothing to do with the CV joints or half shafts.
Go on, scroll back to my previous post and re-read it again.
So, yes, I do know what stock means, in relation to CV joints and halfshafts.
And exactly how does your being in the room for a dyno pull equate to this intrinsic knowledge you think you have of driveline losses? Are you telekinetic now too? And btw we're talking about CV v/s u-joints here, so stop trying to backpeddle with your "stack" Multiple people in this thread have now tried to explain to you that with a u-joint axle pointed straight, there is no more loss than a live axle or CV joint. The miniscule difference, if it was even measureable, would be due to the inertial moment of the shaft (as Skunkworks mentioned earlier) and not the design of the joint.
As for being telekinetic, I never said I could move things with my mind, so WTF are you talking about?
No one knows everything, and I am always willing to learn, but other than trying to shove your opinions down my throat, what exactly are you trying to teach me? What exactly is your point anyways? That u-joints are superior to CV joints?
My only point, which I have clearly stated several times already, is once again simply this, and this time I will type it slowly so you can understand it easier:
For the entire auto industry to universally, across the board, accept the use of CV jointed halfshafts in modern production IRS 2 or 4 wheel drive cars, the advantages of using them must outweigh any advantages that u-jointed halfshafts have. This is true for the cheapest to the most expensive cars produced. Progress means moving forward, not back.
I still think you should contact all the world's auto manufacturers and tell them they are doing it all wrong using CV jointed halfshafts!
Last edited by 7t2vette; 01-28-2012 at 09:45 PM.
#48
Name one modern production vehicle that uses u-joints on the half shafts in an IRS rear wheel driven configuration, or even a 4 wheel drive vehicle with an IRS. I'll wait.
Yes, that is exactly what I sound like. WTF are you talking about? How did I contradict myself?
these are close personal friends of mine, the guys that I hang around with!!!! The only changes are installing DTE rear end girdles, and the C5 guys change the output shafts to C6 ZO6 units. Stock CV joints and half shafts.
No backpedalling here. The chassis dyno numbers show the losses between flywheel hp and rear wheel hp. It is easy to extrapolate the % of losses incurred when you already know the flywheel hp.
It's not rocket science, but you seem confused by it.
I guess you are now going to tell me that the u-joints or the CV joints are not part of the drivetrain, or that they contribute nothing to drivetrain losses?
what exactly are you trying to teach me? What exactly is your point anyways? That u-joints are superior to CV joints?
My only point, which I have clearly stated several times already, is once again simply this, and this time I will type it slowly so you can understand it easier:
For the entire auto industry to universally, across the board, accept the use of CV jointed halfshafts in modern production IRS 2 or 4 wheel drive cars, the advantages of using them must outweigh any advantages that u-jointed halfshafts have. This is true for the cheapest to the most expensive cars produced. Progress means moving forward, not back.
crystal clear yet?
Last edited by wcsinx; 01-28-2012 at 10:31 PM.
#50
#51
Burning Brakes
buddy, they want you back at the Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob hillbillybutf*ckr 4-wheel drive Alabama mud bog U-JOINT forums ,where you belong
#52
remember the increase in weight of a larger dia. object increases in direct proportion to inertia , u-joint drive shafts are Larger diameter compared to a more compact and smoother running cv joint & shaft.
buddy, they want you back at the Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob hillbillybutf*ckr 4-wheel drive Alabama mud bog U-JOINT forums ,where you belong
buddy, they want you back at the Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob hillbillybutf*ckr 4-wheel drive Alabama mud bog U-JOINT forums ,where you belong
#53
Burning Brakes
#54
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 18,363
Received 771 Likes
on
553 Posts
remember the increase in weight of a larger dia. object increases in direct proportion to inertia , u-joint drive shafts are Larger diameter compared to a more compact and smoother running cv joint & shaft.
buddy, they want you back at the Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob hillbillybutf*ckr 4-wheel drive Alabama mud bog U-JOINT forums ,where you belong
buddy, they want you back at the Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob hillbillybutf*ckr 4-wheel drive Alabama mud bog U-JOINT forums ,where you belong
I would say that inertia generally increases as weight increases, but I would not say that weight necessarily increases with inertia.
#55
Annnnnd this has been covered as well.
#57
Rather ironic that he accused me of being the idiot redneck in that same post wouldn't you say?
#58
Melting Slicks
We should probably thank the OP for starting an interesting discussion. BTW - is there an ignore filter on this forum? I mean just in case someone turns into a total a-hole!
#59
Le Mans Master
Raphiki, individual members can put others on their own private ignore list, and I've taken advantage of that feature on a number of occasions myself. With the attitude the OP had, I can't find it within myself to say thanks, but IMHO the topic of CV's is overdue being brought back up. Sadly, if you've been paying attention, you see where we are now.
Anyone who would like to abandon this epic fail and resume actual discussion on the possibilities of doing CV's without arguing over their merit, feel free to assemble here...
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-t...post1579862153
Anyone who would like to abandon this epic fail and resume actual discussion on the possibilities of doing CV's without arguing over their merit, feel free to assemble here...
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-t...post1579862153