"Uphill" Torque Tubes in Z'ed Hot Rods.

I believe Muttley was talking about the green roadster I had pictured in the OP. But I'm pretty sure I'll be playing with raising the drivetrain a little as I plan to run hoodsides. This is an interesting challenge I decided to tackle.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. This is helping me out quite a bit!

 

That place in Texas is Bruce's rod shop in Spring Texas

 

It really has nothing to do with z-ing the chassis, or channelling the body.

Bottom line....

If you run a tall tire/wheel combo, and mount the engine low, you will have this problem.

I've been running the Tardel baffle for 15K miles, seems to work fine.

 

sorry muttley, i guess i was wrong, i remembered seeing pictures of this car before it was finished and could have sworn i saw the torque tube running "uphill". i apologize for spreading any false info based soley on my own fading memory.

just the stance of that car alone makes me wonder how he managed to keep the tube running downhill towards the rear though.

 

Yeah, a friend of mine built that Roadster for a guy that lives in/near Turlock. I'm not sure if the owner is a HAMBer or not.

 

Bruce, Hotrodpro on here sells the seal.
$100
A better Idea than Vern Tradels soloution, i think.

 

My wife's '48 Ford has a vintage Halibrand QC on the V-8 banjo rear that runs a torque tube. Currently it is mated to a Ford column shift 3spd behind an Offy adapted Chevy 283. She hates it! Can't shift it as well as she likes. So is after me to change it out to an open drive so she can run a modern full synchro five speed. She has vetoed the proposed change out to a top loader 1/2 ton case I have using her internals from the side loaded case. Anyone want to trade?

BTW - Putting a Halibrand under a fat fender Ford is a waste. Can't be seen, only heard. Belongs in a highboy roadster...

 

You could find a 47 ford pickup banjo center cheap and go with a driveshaft. That seems like a better, period correct idea.

 

MY DAD IS THE ONE THAT BUILT THE SECOND GREEN ROADSTER AT THE TOP OF YOUR POST his name is john taylor of fresno ca i was there with him when he did it i will ask him when he gets home and ill give you some info if i can

 

there is nothing fancy in that car the frame is z in the front just in front of the firewall then all you have to do is shoten the shaft and tube

 

If you look into the front end of the torque tube you'll find a seal just like the two out by the wheels in the rear end, with the proper rear axle fluid it should be sufficient. I allways buy three of those when doing a rear end.

 

Yes but your rearend will be still empty and the oil in the Torque Tube...

 

He did a real good job with that roadster from the pictures. I love everything about it.

I'll have to check that out!

I also dug the seal that Speedy Canuck recommended on the last page. I think that one would work the best but I'll ask Bruce about his and see if anyone else has anything good to say about Vern's baffle.

Thanks everyone.

 

The only difference between the two is that the Texas one has a flange housing for the seal, and the seal rides on the driveshaft coupler. The one Speedy Canuck posted, you replace the pinion lock nut and the seal rides on the edge of the new nut. I am curious which one would be better??

 

Me too. Looks like we'll have to have a product comparison. I think the only con with Seabright's is it has to be machined to fit your torque tube and differential individually. I wonder how Bruce approached that situation.


iPhone - TJJ app

 

Yeah. I actually thought long and hard about that aspect of my build. I realize that the T-10 came out in '57 until GM went with Muncie in '63 but I want to stick with the 3-speed and closed drive because that's a set up that I would like to gain some experience and knowledge in. I really would like to get more familiar with the early Ford parts and how they work. There's only one other hot rod that runs a closed drive behind an early Chevy and '39 Ford here in Amarillo which is that Deuce I made a thread about quite a while aback. Anything else with a closed driveshaft is pretty much a restoration.


iPhone - TJJ app

 

That's us. We've built these seals for a number of customers. While the Vern Tardel device steps down in diameter around the driveshaft, it doesn't seal against it. It needs to be welded into the torque tube bell. Our pinion seal is machined and positively sealed. Here's a cross section:







There's more info at the link listed above:

http://www.seabrighthotrods.com/?p=522

Dave

 

I think I need to throw in a tech Q about the u-joint that's at the rear of the transmission.
With all of the concern about oil leaking down toward the transmission end.....Does the u-joint in the bell at the rear of the tranny get abused by too much angle or too little angle?
My lack of knowledge, how does it receive lubrication inside that torque tube?
I've been curious for a while.

 

I've been using one of Bruce's Rod Shop seals since 2008 and it seals up tight, rear axle fluid does not run into the torque tube. Bruce's seal is a flange plate that mounts between the banjo flange and the torque tube. Simple and works.

 

Sweet. I didn't know you were a HAMBer on here. Good to know.

I was going to ask about that as well.. I read that the Mike Longley roadster used a Lincoln V12 U-joint instead of the Ford U-joint for the added strength. I know that doesn't answer your question but I think that's something that I'll be looking into as well.

So it's down to either the Seabright seal or Bruce's seal. I PM'ed hot rod pro to see if he would chime in on this thread. Fogger, do you have any pictures of the seal itself before you installed it? I'm going to go check and see if there's any on here or Bruce's website.

 

There's pictures on Bruce's web site of his product. Looks pretty simple to me.



I do have to admit, Dave's product does look to be more thought out and well-designed so which of the two products do you guys think is more effective?

 

Here's a consideration -- the "flange-style" seals like this add the thickness of the flange to the overall length of the torque tube. It doesn't seem like much, 1/4 inch or maybe 5/16's, but it affects the fore-aft location of your rear wheels (important if you're running fenders), throws off the mounting of your wishbones and, depending on the design of your rear suspension, can put it in bind. It's not much, but it's also a quarter of an inch less grab on the coupler around your drive shaft. These are all reasons we designed ours the way we did.

 

I had thought about that as well. How much do you charge for your product?How long does it take to get it machined to fit my banjo? I'm not really sure of what year my banjo and torque tube is but it seems to be from the late '40's based on spring location and what I believe to be a spot for the panhard bard on the back.

 

I was a little concerned about the added thickness, since I already built the car last year. Am I right in thinking that with Seabright's product, I just have to get my torque tube machined to accept the housing and change my pinion nut. This is a simple task for my local machine shop I assume?

 

The shape of the bell in Ford's torque tubes differs from year to year. The '36 bell is nearly round, and just requires a little cleaning up with a hand drum sander to accept our insert:



On the other hand, a '40 bell (below) is far from round and must be machined to accept the bell. Yes, it's something that's easy for any competent machine shop.



We provide a new pinion nut/coupler in our kit:

 

PM sent....

Dave

 

Got it. Thanks. I'm interested in this.. Just have to wait until I'm at that fork in the road. I'm still not 100% on whether I'll be using this specific banjo or not.

I'll let you know.


iPhone - TJJ app

 

I used this and it worked perfectly. Highly recommended.