Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Drive\s+shaft\s+U\-joints\s+$formerly\,\s+CV\s+U\-Joint$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Drive\s+shaft\s+U\-joints\s+$formerly\,\s+CV\s+U\-Joint$\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. Drive shaft U-joints (formerly, CV U-Joint) (score: 1): Author: "3 liter" <saltfever@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:57:39 -0700; Well what do you know...I'm going to learnt sumptin from this thread. Long before FWD popularized Mr. Rzeppa's joint, I used to call the "double cardan" joints (like those found on fine vehicles like; /html/land-speed/2006-10/msg00215.html (8,882 bytes)
2. RE: Drive shaft U-joints (formerly, CV U-Joint) (score: 1): Author: "3 liter" <saltfever@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:24:44 -0700; My focus is on the drive shaft so I am not sure I am following your train of thought. I'm not interested in FWD. Are you saying the rzeppa joint is also used on drive shafts? It appears to be superi; /html/land-speed/2006-10/msg00322.html (7,861 bytes)
3. RE: Drive shaft U-joints (formerly, CV U-Joint) (score: 1): Author: "Albaugh, Neil" <albaugh_neil@ti.com>; Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:42:55 -0500; I guess it depends on what we're calling a "drive shaft". I was referring to the drive axles used in front wheel drive cars and in ones using a transaxle- not the drive shaft from the tranny of a re; /html/land-speed/2006-10/msg00323.html (8,586 bytes)
4. RE: Drive shaft U-joints (formerly, CV U-Joint) (score: 1): Author: "3 liter" <saltfever@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:28:30 -0700; Geeze, semantics! I call those things "half-shafts" (well they are, aren't they?). Every IRS set-up I have seen, calls them half-shafts. If the Rzeppa joint was more efficient, than a double-Cardin,; /html/land-speed/2006-10/msg00326.html (8,088 bytes)
5. Re: Drive shaft U-joints (formerly, CV U-Joint) (score: 1): Author: "Tom Bryant" <saltracer@awwwsome.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:59:44 -0700; On the normal u-joint driveshaft, the angle at the rear end and at the transmission should be the same for good operation. (upward at the rear and downward at the front) The primary reason for the d; /html/land-speed/2006-10/msg00329.html (7,703 bytes)
6. RE: Drive shaft U-joints (formerly, CV U-Joint) (score: 1): Author: "Albaugh, Neil" <albaugh_neil@ti.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:24:24 -0500; I used to call those "half shafts" too but in the past few years the term "drive shafts" seems to have crept in; I agree-- that term should be reserved for RWD cars. Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ Geeze,; /html/land-speed/2006-10/msg00330.html (8,581 bytes)
7. Re: Drive shaft U-joints (formerly, CV U-Joint) (score: 1): Author: "Benn" <karhu@california.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:33:26 -0700; As I recall, one can run the driveshaft angles (with regular U-joints) either up or down at either end as long as the angles (or absolute value of same) are similar. This presumably will make any vel; /html/land-speed/2006-10/msg00331.html (8,238 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]