One piece drive shaft - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

jcab · 10-23-2003, 05:22 PM

I have read in a few places about the one piece drive shaft modification. What they don't say, is what the benefit of doing this is.

I am assuming that the benefits are, less things to break/wear, and possibly a slight improvement to HP at the wheels, as I think there would be less parasitic loss because there is less u joints.

Is this correct, or am I way off on this?

*rickspickuppart* · 10-23-2003, 05:36 PM

the main advantage of it, is just getting rid of the carrier bearing and less problems/maintenance. As far as HP I guess it might make a difference, but it would probably be so small you would never notice it.

Shawn

jcab · 10-23-2003, 06:04 PM

thats pretty much what I thought, but wanted to verify.

Thanks!

cableguy0 · 10-23-2003, 06:07 PM

the only real reason to do it is to get rid of the god d@mned f!@#ing carrier bearing that never will stay in one piece

lukecp · 10-23-2003, 06:18 PM

In theory, a 2pc shaft would have more of a load exerted on the 2 U-joints due to the slightly higher angle they have to run at, so they would need to be replaced more often. But it takes like twice as long to replace 2 U joints as 3 so it all evens out

I haven't had too much of a problem with carrier bearings....but i go by the KIS principle (keep it simple), and the more moving parts in the driveshaft, the more that greater the chance something will go wrong.

Woah...my 2 statements just contradicted each other.....

bad 71 chevy · 10-23-2003, 06:36 PM

i got 5 hp and 10fbls of torqe out of my 1 pice

10-23-2003, 05:22 PM	#1
jcab I need more money.... Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 145	One piece drive shaft I have read in a few places about the one piece drive shaft modification. What they don't say, is what the benefit of doing this is. I am assuming that the benefits are, less things to break/wear, and possibly a slight improvement to HP at the wheels, as I think there would be less parasitic loss because there is less u joints. Is this correct, or am I way off on this? __________________ Jay. '68 LWB C10 '74 Duster ("It's not Rusted out, it's been modified for weight reduction") '91 Civic '97 Saturn '88 Celica AWD turbo (R.I.P.) 273 hp Mustang Killer

10-23-2003, 06:04 PM	#3
jcab I need more money.... Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 145	thats pretty much what I thought, but wanted to verify. Thanks! __________________ Jay. '68 LWB C10 '74 Duster ("It's not Rusted out, it's been modified for weight reduction") '91 Civic '97 Saturn '88 Celica AWD turbo (R.I.P.) 273 hp Mustang Killer

10-23-2003, 06:07 PM	#4
cableguy0 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Delta,Pa Posts: 14,950	the only real reason to do it is to get rid of the god d@mned f!@#ing carrier bearing that never will stay in one piece __________________ Owner of North Point Car Care in Dundalk Md. We specialize in custom exhaust on both modern and classic vehicles. We are a full service auto shop from classics to modern vehicles. Feel free to contact me with questions. I will give a 10% discount to any board member.

10-23-2003, 06:18 PM	#5
lukecp Formerly yellow72custom Join Date: May 2001 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 7,531	In theory, a 2pc shaft would have more of a load exerted on the 2 U-joints due to the slightly higher angle they have to run at, so they would need to be replaced more often. But it takes like twice as long to replace 2 U joints as 3 so it all evens out I haven't had too much of a problem with carrier bearings....but i go by the KIS principle (keep it simple), and the more moving parts in the driveshaft, the more that greater the chance something will go wrong. Woah...my 2 statements just contradicted each other..... __________________ '72 Chevy C10 Mild 350/TH350/3.07. Ochre/White. Old high school ride. '70 GMC C2500 '62 327 4bbl/SM465/4.56-geared Dana 60. White/White. Project or parts truck. '97 Saturn SL DD. 1.9/5-speed. 40+ highway mpg

10-23-2003, 06:36 PM	#6
bad 71 chevy Registered User Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Omaha NE 68122 Posts: 637	i got 5 hp and 10fbls of torqe out of my 1 pice __________________ 71 Chevy C/10 lwb 350 5 speed nv3500 3.73 rear end 2.5" Front Drop and 4" in the back Edelbrock perfomer rpm manifold Edelbrock 600 cfm carb Headmen headers

10-23-2003, 05:36 PM	#2
rickspickuppart Account Suspended Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,284	the main advantage of it, is just getting rid of the carrier bearing and less problems/maintenance. As far as HP I guess it might make a difference, but it would probably be so small you would never notice it. Shawn



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.