Reminds me of an experiment my grade school teacher did. See wrote a plain sentence on a piece of paper and started it with one student to read and whisper it to the next and so on, by the time it got through 30 kids the last one stated it out loud, it was not to be even close to the starting one.
Oh, be fair! Show us where the engine/crank/trans will sit up front and the approximate length of the driveshaft (20 feet in a firetruck or 2 feet in a Bangkok delivery?) then maybe an answer to the question can be attempted.
A guy who has set up a few drive lines over the years or a guy sets up 10 a year or a guy who sets up 10 a week is going to have a different outlook than a guy who’s doing his first one. I had one come through here and the engine was in at 11° down hill. Whoever put it together did a decent job of fitting the engine and transmission into the available space. The problem is it didn’t work out so good for the drive line. That available space wasn’t enough or in the wrong place. The floor got moved, the front suspension got moved, the engine mounts got moved, the trans mount got redesigned. Now it all fits right, and works right.
I ran mine for a few races with 8 degrees uphill at the pinion. The diff had slipped on the spring pads which were worn out. I have since repaired it and gave it 4 degrees downhill as per Caltracs suggestions. Funny thing is the car didnt pick up any e.t. whatsoever. Drove it for a few hundred miles and never noticed one bit of difference between either 8 degrees up or 4 degrees down either.
Just K.I.S.S. it. Keep engine, drive shaft and rear on the "same plain". Know just look at the whole thing as a single unit from a plan view. Now just tip the whole thing so it fit's correctly in either one of the two examples given. Rear end offset (as shown in over view) will take care of the rest. That Simple Stupid. This can't be right. The engine is pointed down in front. But it works.
Can't compare 50's and 60's and even the 70's trucks to build a hot rod/cruiser etc. Go mimic your drive line setup off a 50's/60's/70's car. It's not a hard concept to understand...trucks were trucks...they were used as trucks. Load a ton in the back of that '50 F-1, then tell be about the differences in angles.
Kinda' comparing Apple's to oranges, aren't we? In no way does a splined coupler compare to a U-Joint
He’s got only short straw left to grasp at. Let him have his fun as long as posts some more cool pictures
MY FIRST GRADE TEACHER SPELLED MY NAME LAWERENCE - got into a lot of shit over it - was a Larry with the two other Larry trouble makers....lucky my buddies still remember the shit.......and remind me of it often !!!
What I'm saying on a mild build 48 Ford pickup it isn't as critical as some people make it out to be. 2,3,4 degrees up or down wont make much if any difference in daily driver. If you want to critique bad pinion angles you should take a look at my 1966 Bronco that still has the original u-joints in it.
Yes it is. It appears to be located below the center line of the axle, so when the pinion rises it will pull on that rear mount. Is this just to resist the pinion nose rising?
Back in about 1964, I had a Chevy II with a 327 and 4sp. No traction. A guy had a similar car and problems and he ran rods like that truck. It prevented the spring shackles from moving as the rods held the rear in position. The car ended up with a big stretch's in the quarter panels. The whole back of the car was bent back. It was a new car.
^^^^^ I've heard of this set up and mentioned it some years ago here on the HAMB. Of coarse I was full of B.S. and told it doesn't work. The advantage I see in it is that won't raise the whole vehicle near the center line but rather pull the whole vehicles weight to the back of the vehicle planting the tires even harder. But I'm going into traction control more than pinion angle so I'll shut up with the B.S.
The Jalopy Journal
