I did it but I don't think I have any digital pics. I'l look though. It's not a problem unless the car is severly lowered. If the car is too low, then the long drive shaft tends to want to interface with the top of the tunnel in the x-frame towards the rear that the drive shaft travels through. I suppose you would have the opposite issue if the car was raised in the rear.
I have a 61 impala 2 door post that is a long term project that I am planning to do a one piece drive shaft on. I'v done a bit of figurin' on it and as I see it I am going to have to do a fair bit of cutting to the frame. I think that the top of the x is going to need to be raised to clear the drive shaft being as the car is going to end up about 4 inches lower the stock. The plate on the top of the frame will need to be raised about 1 1/2" in the rear but it should be able to taper back down at the front as the drive shaft doesn't move at the transmission. I have also considered keeping the two peice but using one built by Inland Empire Driveline with their super duty carrier bearing. The only reason I have concidered the two peice is because they tend to be smoother then a long one peice the biggest problem though is getting a carrier bearing to last with any big horsepower. Good luck.
Seems the 1 piece will be smoother, especially when lowering 4 inches as you plan. With the short rear shaft, the change in u-joint angle's more severe than a longer 1 piece shaft. ALL the angle occurs to the rear shorter shaft due to the front shaft stays stationary from center bearing forward. I lowered my 60 Pontiac, big angle change, and small vibration results. 57 Pontiac (1 piece shaft), same lowering, smooth
Get the driveshaft and carrier bearing from Inland Empire and you will not be dissapointed. The heavy duty carrier bearing, properly phased U-joints and telescoping rear shaft will give you smoothness like an elevator. www.iedls.com
The key is what El polacko said, the telescoping rear shaft. Have a slip yoke installed in the rear shaft, like a four wheel drive front shaft has. This minimizes the flexing back and forth of the carrier bearing as the suspension moves.
Sorry no pics, but had seen a non-lowered '60 El Camino with a one piece shaft from a 70's GM pick up, (forgot the year). The owner said it fit perfect. The bottom of the tunnel was cut out and rails added along the sides to connect the front and rear of the X to make up for the tunnel cut. For those wanting to get a telescoping rear shaft, Drive Line Service of Whittier, (Calif) did a great job on mine and was cheaper than Inland Empire's quote. No need for a heavy duty carrier now.
Hey Groucho, you are living up to your name. It does have to do with your request as I understood you were looking at ways to eliminate the troublesome carrier bearing. I have my 59 El Camino and a 60 El Camino before that, the reason most carrier bearings fail is the front-to-back movement, the rubber breaks down. By reducing the front-to-back flex of the carrier bearing, it does not break down. But to answer your SPECIFIC question, I do not have any pics of a 1-piece driveshaft conversion. On my Chevy frames the tunnel is pretty small and I agree you would need to cut out a lot for clearance as several persons have suggested. If I had the tunnel bottom cut out and extended, it would s****e that on everything with a lowered car.
My interests were many. Twisting the splines on the "slip" with mega power is one, and more recent was my 60 Pontiac that was very low in the rear. THIS makes for a severe u-joint angle on the 2 piece shaft because when you lower the rear, ALL the angle is changed in the "short" rear piece of the 2 piece shaft. The front half is stationary from the center joint to the trans tail. Make sense? If it's a 1 piece driveshaft, the angle change is slight no matter how low you go. Living up to my nickname? That would have to have been grouchy, not groucho. It's all too often when i statrt a thread here that soon it gets too far off point and i need to start over again
Go to 348-409.com They have had this discussion before. I have run a one piece drive shaft in my "58. You really have to watch the height of the car. Mine rode at stock height and it will rub in the tunnel.
Here is my 58- one peice shaft no mods to X member at all....BUT I am limited to this stance as any lower will rub on top of X member....no pics sorry.....
Ok, to start off with the splines in the Inland Empire slip shaft are comparable to the output shaft size of a PG/350/700R4 transmission and are rated for the abuse of a drive line on a 4X4! If you are producing more horsepower and torque than the output shaft of the aforementioned transmissions then you most certainly don't need to be screwing around with the stock rear axle and suspension. Yup, that is why I mentioned using the system. These guys have been dealing with Lowriders for some time now. The 60 Impala I did was lowered A LOT! the frame rails were a mere 3" off the ground. I had the folks at RCD Suspension build me a couple of custom Bilstien shocks. Next I rooted through my spring book to find a new coil that raised the spring rate to about 300 lb/in and lower the car. I had also replaced the stock rubber bushings with Energy Suspension polyurethane and reset the pinion angle to work with the new lower ride height. Even with the 30 series tires on 20" wheel, this car rode better than his late model Mercedes. Read: very smooth and controled. Absolutley, problem is when you go that low not only do you have clearance issues with the X frame but floor tunnel clearance becomes an issue. This is why I choose to keep the two piece driveline and reset the pinion angle to work with the new ride height.
Post starting this thread: "Chevy X-frame to 1 piece drivshaft? TOO many OFF-POINT posts, so I've started another thread." What exactly is(are) your Question(s)? It's not really clear from what you've posted here in this thread. I have the Inland Empire set up in my '63 Impala and I'm quite happy with it. However, I will use a one piece set up in my '59 Biscayne beacause it's simpler, cheaper and it should work well for my application (*** up rake). I can let you know how that works out. Now please bite my head off for not answering "the question" that you really haven't asked.
The Jalopy Journal
