Another Driveshaft angle question

Hey, guys... I've researched for about the last two days, how to solve my situation with my build. I may have screwed myself, but that's the way things go sometimes.

I mounted an '85 S-10 front clip into my frame configuration, and Zee'ed it about 3-1/2" to lower the frame. I installed a Jag rear end and mounted it, as recommended, with a 2 degree down position.

Here's the hickey... I lowered the engine mount as low as it would go on the block without major surgery, and the way it sits now is as follows:

Engine/transmission/output shaft is sloped down at 7 degrees when the center point of the tranny and pinion shaft are both at the same level. With the Jag pinion at minus 2 degrees, I'm looking at a total of 9 degrees which is unacceptable for proper driveshaft configuration.

I have looked at some manufacturer's constant velocity (double universals) and Cornay and even studied two piece driveshafts (I'm 60" face to face).

Any opinions?

Thanks guys
Here are some pics of the last few days..(you can navigate to the frame/jag install sub album, or the main album, too)
http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c...art Mid May 2011/Prepping for Engine Install/

 

I pic would be good, I bet you could run a c/v possibly on both ends if nessary


Posted from the TJJ App for iPhone & iPad

 

What angle do you have if you raise the back of the trans 1-2"?
7 degrees is a lot to tip an engine and trans.

 

I know.. here's a picture with the rear crossmember just "sitting there" and about as high as seems reasonable. OF course, I could modify the mount and/or the crossmember to raise it further, but that just makes the angles go more crazy... or not.......

http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c...ine Install/?action=view&current=DSC01483.jpg

 

Well duh.... who recommended the Jag rear be 2* down?
Trans output down = rear pinion up.
Couple degrees each would be fine.

 

Engine and transmission angle is down, differential pinion angle is up. Optimum angle is 3 degrees for longevity. 7 degrees is way too much IMHO, think about carbie float levels. CV's could be an option however I'll leave it up to others to contribute further.

 

You need the same amount on both ends, in the opposite direction. 2-5 degrees

 

Yes, I know that ideally, the centerlines should be parallel and no more than 3 degrees . OF course I could raise the rear mount for another 2-1/2" height and then tilt the center section up by (-2 plus 3 = 5 degrees) but that screws up the caster/camber of the rear end. It's funny, if the "normal" mount angle of the rear end is down 2 to 3 degrees, how many transmission output shafts are mounted pointed UP ??? None.......

 

We all agree on the angles.........I just am not looking forward to a tunnel that's 6" high under the front seat.....ahahah

 

Anybody use Cornays or two piece driveshafts?

 

Trans are normally mounted pointing down. Rearends are normally pointing up. 2-5 degrees. That negitive/positive may be confusing some of us. Put a level on the carb mounting surface, then match the angle of the tranny at the rearend.

 

-2 + 3 =1

 

CV joints are expensive! Why not get the angle right? You need around 3 degrees. 7 degrees is way too much
Jay

 

BTW in one of your pics you are using a plastic angle finder. They are junk. Get a digital one. Ask me how I figured that out
Jay

 

How did you figure that out?

 

Run a CV driveshaft.

 

I set mine up 3 degrees, seems to be the norm, no problems yet.

 

Thanks for all you guy's help, but I believe I just found my solution :

http://members.boardhost.com/IRS/msg/1276106025.html

 

I have never heard of such a critter......are they feasible?

 

CV's aren't worth a crap for high torque/high RPM, and have LOTS of friction at angles other than zero degrees. The Double Cardan joint is a better deal.. Still researching.

 

I hope this may be of help to you. It has always been in my files in case I need a reminder.
Normbc9

 

Oddly, image #4 is how many Range Rovers are built, from the factory, and they work, oddly enough:

 

Double Cardon was the C/V I was referring to


Posted from the TJJ App for iPhone & iPad

 

Yup, me too.

 

If you are referring to a GKN style C/V then I don't know if that's true. They came in one of the more recient generation mustangs and worked quite well. They were heavy and unserviceable but vibe free.

 

Try and find a Rover SDI [ Vitesse ] drive shaft .
CV's will handle this easily . The angles are fixed in your scenario.
They take a lot of abuse as an axle [ + the torque is multiplied by the final drive ratio ]

The biggest handicap with CV's is driveshaft diameter.
Another area to look is axle CV's off a 4x4 with IFS [ Mitsy Montero, or Toyota Hilux ]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant-velocity_joint#Thompson_coupling

 

SD1s are a bit thin on the ground in the USA. They exhibit that strange behaviour where the same car that just won't die in Yorkshire spontaneously self-destructs in Ohio.

I believe a lot of 4x4 front outer CVs are double-Cardan/Hooke rather than Rzeppa/ball type - including ones found at the ends of live front axles.

 

Not true at all. Had four on the rear of a long-tail 935, twin-turbo @ 710hp, running steady-state 200mph runs, and on tight road race courses. Never an issue. Go ahead and Google the 917/30, and tell me what puts that 1,100hp to the wheels.