To all those who have abandoned all hope, I'm still there though little progres, things got kinda complicated for me atm. Anyway here are the pictures of the mock set up outside the car. And no it's not the top secret DARPA workshop in the background, just wanted to spare you the look of abhorrent mess in my garage.
I also think I'll need to rework the rear flange, theres around 0,8mm slack between cvj and the flange. I dunno, give it a go and assemble the unit or have it reworked? Any opinion Mats, guys?
Either I am the dumbest fella viewing this diagram or you cannot explain the problem clear enough because the flange to CV interface doesn't fit anything like you have illustrated so I find it difficult to comment because I do not understand the percieved problem.
From what I think I understand, there is no problem but..
Explain what you think might happen as a result of this so called 0.8mm shortfall, longfall ?
..and oh yeah, clean up that friggin garage it's a pigsty..
Well, if you knew that how can you say "the flange to CV interface doesn't fit anything like you have illustrated"?
The CV joints in propshafts fit exactly like that and it needs a pilot or it will be off center and vibrate like nothing you have ever experienced. The pilot surface on disc-style CVJs are on the OD of the disc, if there is 0.5mm of play it needs to be fixed somehow. Normally there is actually an interference fit present but that can be a bit too annoying if you want to be able to get it off the car without explosives...
Mats Strandberg -Scuderia Rosso- Now burned to the ground... -onemanracing.com- -Strandberg.photography-
GTV 2000 -77 - Died in the fire.
155 V6 Sport -96 - Sold!
1 find a cv joint that has the right outside diameter for the flange.
2 weld and remachine the flange to fit the current cv joint
3 sleeve and remachine the flange to fit as above
4 make a new flange to fit the existing cv joint
The flange should be .0005-.001inch bigger diameter than the cv joint. better would be if the flange had a little taper (half a degree) so that the cv joint is supported radially (like Mats said) when it hits bottom on bolting up.
The fit actually depends on which manufacturer you talk to, at Volvo they use interference fit and at Saab (GM) they use a slight play. When I say slight play I'm talking a lot less then 0.5mm but I can't remember the exact numbers right now.
For the interested, I have one Volvo flange and one GM/Saab spec. flange.
Mats Strandberg -Scuderia Rosso- Now burned to the ground... -onemanracing.com- -Strandberg.photography-
GTV 2000 -77 - Died in the fire.
155 V6 Sport -96 - Sold!
MD wrote:I'm just gonna sit back and watch...I like to watch.
Is that a fetish confession Mike?
Thanks for the tips, (and even to those who could not comprehend my super-duper elaborate schematic )
I'm taking the flange to the shop tommorow, and see what they come up with. And then maybe next week, the grand finale...
I can say why I'm going for a U-joint in the middle: Weight!
Also smaller OD, easier to find joints and no need for a CVJ.
Why not U-joints at the ends you might ask? Well, it's quite easy to make the CVJ flanges actually and the plunge in the CVJs make them very easy to assemble/disassemble.
Mats Strandberg -Scuderia Rosso- Now burned to the ground... -onemanracing.com- -Strandberg.photography-
GTV 2000 -77 - Died in the fire.
155 V6 Sport -96 - Sold!
Can't say I agree with you Mats. Then again its not often that I do. Matters little. Gets debates going that generates interest.
The CVJ has a smoother rotation than a UVJ and being in a critical place like the centre, all the more reason to use one. The weight difference is negligible given that the weight distribution on a CVJ is more accurate to start with.
As I Have said before, you guys will regret not using at least one rubber coupling -especially on a street car. You are in for some fun (not) big time.
Obviuously here any of this sheit will work. It's a matter of degrees and we are simply looking at different priorities.