Subject: Double cardan joints Date sent: Thu, 27 Jan 00 20:45:42 -0700 From: bruce lawson To: Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org I dug through the archives but I've still got a question. Why do the US 60 series have a double cardan joint on the front driveshaft? Is it because the shaft is very short? Or is it more related to the angles of the Tcase and the diff? I saw a comment in a thread saying that the single joint at the diff should be nearly straight and the double joint makes up the angle needed to mate with the Tcase. This makes sense in that an odd number of U joints can't have a constant output velocity unless one of them is straight. My 82FJ60 has OME springs on it and I needed 1.5 Deg caster shims to get the caster into spec. I'm guessing that my front U joint at the diff is no longer straight. The recent extended discussion about leaving hubs locked all winter didn't get into this issue. Anyhow my hubs are always unlocked whenever I go over 30mph due to front driveline growl and a rather worn slip joint. I always figured it was worn diff gears making the growl. TIA Bruce Boulder CO TLCA4889 82FJ60 From: "Washburn" To: Subject: Re: Double cardan joints Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:10:22 -0600 Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org > I dug through the archives but I've still got a question. Why do the US > 60 series have a double cardan joint on the front driveshaft? Not all 60s in the US have double cardan joints. Mine doesn't. Paul Washburn, lpwcruzr@pernet.net Nederland, Texas TLCA 3614 '86 FJ60, TBI350/4L60E, OME '79 FJ40 Big and beats me to death '65 M416 Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:11:43 -0700 To: landcruisers@tlca.org From: Cruiserman Subject: Re: double cardan joints Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org At 10:56 AM 1/28/00 -0800, you wrote: > > > I dug through the archives but I've still got a question. Why do the US > > > 60 series have a double cardan joint on the front driveshaft? > > > > Not all 60s in the US have double cardan joints. Mine doesn't. > >Are you sure? Look up near the t-case. >Rob Blumel This is for early 60's, I believe. Later model 60's don't have them for some reason. Eric Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:56:59 -0800 From: "Henry J. Cubillan" Organization: Thunderbird MIM Program To: landcruisers@tlca.org Subject: Re: Double cardan joints Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org Robert Blumel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Washburn" > > > > > I dug through the archives but I've still got a question. Why do the US > > > 60 series have a double cardan joint on the front driveshaft? > > > > Not all 60s in the US have double cardan joints. Mine doesn't. > > Are you sure? Look up near the t-case. Rob, he's right, not all US-spec FJ60's had a double-cardan front driveshaft. I'm not sure, but I think that 8/85 and NEWER(?) trucks don't have them???? Henry C. -- Henry Cubillan TLCA #4080; AZLCA; CLCC Glendale, Arizona, USA Contributing Editor, Toyota Trails Formerly Caracas, Venezuela "Ad astra per aspera" 1991 FJ62 "The Princess" (A rough road leads to the stars) 1967 M416 "Junior" cubillan@earthlink.net Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 13:32:05 -0800 From: Mark Whatley To: landcruisers@tlca.org Subject: Re: Double cardan joints Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org Jim Madden wrote: > > Hi henry how's the princes? > I have a question for you. Will the 60 double cardan joint flange fit a > 77'fj 40 front axel and rear of shaft flange fit the t-case flange ? > thanks in advace! I once replaced a missing FJ60 double carden front shaft with the front shaft from a '55, so I would have to say that the answer to your question is yes. Mark... -- Mark Whatley Owner, Cruisers Only, Wasilla Alaska Mailto:cruiser@mtaonline.net Technical Editor, Toyota Trails, TLCA Mailto:techexchange@tlca.org From: "Jim Van de Ven" To: landcruisers@tlca.org Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:48:55 -0700 Subject: Re: Double cardan joints Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org > I have a question for you. Will the 60 double cardan joint flange fit a > 77'fj 40 front axel and rear of shaft flange fit the t-case flange ? > thanks in advace! Yes, it will. This is what I am doing for the rear of my project vehicle. Same bolt pattern. Later, Jim Van de Ven '68 FJ40 (NOC NOC) '84 V8J60 '67 FJ40 Rapid City, SD (school) Long Lake, MN (home) avandeve@tc.umn.edu Dakota Terr. Cruisers TLCA #3511 http://www.csom.umn.edu/vandeven/jim/mainpage.htm From: "J.O. Boltrek" To: Subject: Re: Double cardan joints Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:09:24 -0800 Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Whatley Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 1:32 PM > Jim Madden wrote: > > > > Hi henry how's the princes? > > I have a question for you. Will the 60 double cardan joint flange fit a > > 77'fj 40 front axel and rear of shaft flange fit the t-case flange ? > > thanks in advace! > > > I once replaced a missing FJ60 double carden front shaft with the > front shaft from a '55, so I would have to say that the answer to your > question is yes. Negative. The holes on the 60 series flange are 3mm farther apart than those on the 40 series. You can either replace the flanges on bothe the third member and the transfer case (a pain, but a good excuse to put in new seals) or you can press the flanges off of the U joints onto the ends of the shafts. Joshua Boltrek TLCA#2344 83 FJ40 84 HJ47 From: Lcruiseguy@aol.com Date sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 00:31:36 EST Subject: Re: Double cardan joints To: landcruisers@tlca.org Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org In a message dated 00-01-29 00:25:17 EST, you write: << Negative. The holes on the 60 series flange are 3mm farther apart than those on the 40 series. >> Maybe you are thinking of the older FJ40 driveshaft with smaller u-joints here? The flange and bolt pattern are the same on the large u-joint shafts (40,60, and 70 series). Ive interchanged them all. Chris From: "Mark Whatley" To: Subject: Re: Double cardan joints Date sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 00:39:54 -0900 Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org -----Original Message----- From: J.O. Boltrek To: landcruisers@tlca.org Date: Friday, January 28, 2000 8:24 PM Subject: Re: Double cardan joints --- Original Message ----- >From: Mark Whatley >To: >Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 1:32 PM >Subject: Re: Double cardan joints > > >> Jim Madden wrote: >> > >> > Hi henry how's the princes? >> > I have a question for you. Will the 60 double cardan joint flange fit a >> > 77'fj 40 front axel and rear of shaft flange fit the t-case flange ? >> > thanks in advace! >> >> >> I once replaced a missing FJ60 double carden front shaft with the >> front shaft from a '55, so I would have to say that the answer to your >> question is yes. >> >> >> Mark... > >Negative. The holes on the 60 series flange are 3mm farther apart than those >on the 40 series. You can either replace the flanges on bothe the third >member and the transfer case (a pain, but a good excuse to put in new seals) >or you can press the flanges off of the U joints onto the ends of the >shafts. >Joshua Boltrek>-- Well Josh, I'm looking a the rig right now, and I'm not imagining anything. It's an '82 FJ60 and it has the driveshaft out of a '78 FJ55 under it. The holes ARE NOT different. Now the later rigs (FJ62s and proably some of the late model '60s as well, but I don't have any books handy right here) DID use a different bolt pattern. But since they didn't use a double carden joint it doesn't figure into this question. The difference has nothing to do with the model of the rig thsat the shaft came out of, only the vintage. The double carden driveshaft shares the same bolt pattern as thje shafts from the earlier (four speed equipped) rigs. Mark... Mark Whatley Owner, Cruisers Only, Wasilla Alaska Mailto:cruiser@mtaonline.net Technical Editor, Toyota Trails, TLCA Mailto:techexchange@tlca.org From: "J.O. Boltrek" To: Subject: Re: Double cardan joints Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:09:49 -0800 Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org My 1984 HJ47 came with a DC joint on the front shaft. I have since disposed of it, and replaced it with a lengthened front shaft from a 76 FL40. Works brilliently, and I m rid of that complex piece of KaKa. The very bad thing about these DC joints is that it needs to be replaced if it goes bad, as it is not repairable. Joshua Boltrek TLCA#2344 83 FJ40 84 HJ47 Date sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:17:05 -0800 To: landcruisers@tlca.org From: Rob Mullen Subject: Re: Double cardan joints Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org At 06:09 PM 1/28/00 -0800, J.O. Boltrek wrote: >The very bad thing bout these DC joints is that it needs to be replaced if it >goes bad, as it s not repairable. They are 100% repairable. The rebuild parts aren't available from Toyota, but they're out there. -- Rob Mullen RAMullen@wimsey.com North Vancouver, B.C., Canada TLC FAQ & TT Story Editor TLCA #3036, Coastal Cruisers '80 Toyota BJ40/2 Land Cruiser Why walk?...When you can CRAWL! Date sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:43:52 +0000 Subject: Re: Double cardan joints, Flanges again double cardens From: "Rick D." To: landcruisers@tlca.org Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org >From: "J.O. Boltrek" > >I do not know which flanges fit and which don't. Here is my experience: I >placed a 3rd member from a, 86 FJ60 into the front end of my 84 HJ47, and >the flange definately did not fit. I replaced the flange with the one from my >old 40 3rd member, and then it fit fine. I know that the 3 spd and the 4 spd >flanges are different, but I do not think that the 4 speed/ 5 speed 40 series >changed through its life. Am I wrong? I do not think that any of the 60 series >flanges were the same as 40 series, but that is only my experience. > >Joshua Boltrek TLCA#2344 83 FJ40 84 HJ47 Josh et al. The flanges pre 8/84 (or to 4/85-the round flange) are the same from '74 up. Diff's post 4/85 have crush sleeves for preload, pre have older set up. Double cardens were used on the 'short' style split tranny-transfer case set up for I believe Toyota though the lenght from front axle to front flange on t-case was short. 4/85 up the spacer exists in the tranny (ala 5 speed) and the double carden becomes extinct. Rick Subject: Driveline angles and double cardan joints Date sent: Sat, 29 Jan 00 08:42:12 -0700 From: bruce lawson To: Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org Let me rephrase my question. The front driveshaft on my 82 FJ60 has a rather worn slipjoint and I'm interested in replacing or rebuilding it. Can it be rebuilt? If I replace it, do I look for a standard shaft with 1 U joint at each each end, or the fancy double cardon arrangement that is on there now? The truck is lifted with OME springs. The front axle has 1.5 deg shims to adjust the caster. The front joint at the diff has a definite angle as does the double joint at the transfer case. This combo of three joints all bent at slight angles seems to be a bad setup for a constant output speed. I would guess that a standard 2 joint shaft is a better setup. Does anyone out there know why Toyota chose the double cardan joint in the first place? Is the joint at the diff supposed to be straight? TIA Bruce Boulder CO TLCA 4889 82 FJ60 From: "wayne" To: Subject: Re: Driveline angles and double cardan joints Date sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 09:07:22 -0700 Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org -----Original Message----- From: bruce lawson :Let me rephrase my question. The front driveshaft on my 82 FJ60 has a :rather worn slipjoint and I'm interested in replacing or rebuilding it. :Can it be rebuilt? If I replace it, do I look for a standard shaft with 1 :U joint at each each end, or the fancy double cardon arrangement that is :on there now? The truck is lifted with OME springs. The front axle has :1.5 deg shims to adjust the caster. The front joint at the diff has a :definite angle as does the double joint at the transfer case. This combo :of three joints all bent at slight angles seems to be a bad setup for a :constant output speed. I would guess that a standard 2 joint shaft is a :better setup. Does anyone out there know why Toyota chose the double :cardan joint in the first place? Is the joint at the diff supposed to be :straight? my understanding is that Toyota switched to the c/v joint in the front to reduce vibration coming from the front end. if that is the case, i find no more vibration from a regular shaft vs. the c/v shaft. not all 60 series have the c/v joint. i noticed that all 5 spd trannies have the c/v joint and i thought it was just to clear the cross member at first. correct me if I'm wrong. later. wayne@crushersrule.com www.crushersrule.com ( last update----jan. 20 / 00 ) Crusher's Rule...Calgary, Alberta, Canada Have you laughed :-) ) at a jeep lately?? From: RVergillo@aol.com Date sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:40:07 EST Subject: Re: Double cardan joints To: landcruisers@tlca.org Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org I think it changed when they went to the Four speed with the H55f 5spd faux spacer. My 8/85 is non-CV on the front driveshaft. HTH Dean Vergillo '85 FJ60 From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Date sent: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 14:15:23 +0100 Subject: [80] Front drive shaft angles (was: why reverse cut? Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com On 6 Mar 00 at 9:56, George Couyant wrote: > > > Why did toyota go with a reverse cut set up in the front diff of > > > fj and fzj80's? > > > > To clear the tie-rod....it runs below the pinion. > > The real reason was to decrease the prop shaft angle. On the 80 Series, > the length of the front prop shaft is quite small and any change in the > height of the pinion produces a significant change in prop angles. Being > a full time 4WD, sharp angles lead to driveline vibrations. So in an > effort to keep the vibrations under control, Toyota raised the height of > the pinion (rather than dropping the transfer end). On the TLC and DTLC list, we have been discussing a vibration issue on the front of OME-heavy lifted 60'series, with crucial input from Norm[*]. One of the details mentioned is that cardan joints require a matched set of angles on both ends, but the direction of angle is irrelevant....the end result can be 'parallel' (compensating angles), or 'around the corner' (additional angles). What's surprising here is the fact that while most rear drive shafts are 'parallel', the front of my 80 follows the 'around the corner' concept. Now, taking a more extreme lift (my rear bump stop height is about 13cm btw, can't measure front, no (hard) bump stops), and possibly the caster correction kit, this makes the front angles shift from 'around the corner' to 'shaft-inline-with-diff' to perhaps even 'parallel' (mmm....don't think that can be achieved without a wicked amount of caster, and very ugly angles on both sides). What's left is the question how on earth all this can be done without inducing vibrations.... [*] it appears that Ozzie 60's have had a Double-Cardan/Constant-Velocity joint on the T-case side with every model/year/gearbox, while European 60's only got a single cardan with the later 5sp (4sp had DC/CV)....hence the vibrations with significant lifts (OME heavy/heavy, front bump stop height is 11cm, rear 14cm)....the front diff of my 60 is almost in line with the driveshaft, leaving only the T-case cardan at a significant angle....bad omen....I am pretty sure not even ARB/OME knows about this global inconsistency....8-)) (if you still have good contacts with these blokes, you might tell them to add a note about this in their documentation....same *might* hold true for 70-series (Rob M. mentioned the necessity of DC/CV-joints on those after being OME'd). -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Norm Needham" To: <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> Subject: Re: [80] Front drive shaft angles (was: why reverse cut? Date sent: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:27:45 +1100 Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com From: Willem-Jan Markerink > > On the TLC and DTLC list, we have been discussing a vibration issue > on the front of OME-heavy lifted 60'series, with crucial input from > Norm[*]. One of the details mentioned is that cardan joints require > a matched set of angles on both ends, but the direction of angle is > irrelevant....the end result can be 'parallel' (compensating angles), > or 'around the corner' (additional angles). You are confusing the issue WJ. Please do NOT call a universal joint a Cardan joint. > [*] it appears that Ozzie 60's have had a > Double-Cardan/Constant-Velocity joint on the T-case side with every > model/year/gearbox, while European 60's only got a single cardan > with the later 5sp (4sp had DC/CV There you go again. There is no such thing as a "single" Cardan joint; it's a universal joint. Also, as I noted before, the Cardan joint was used at the transfer end on 5 speed FJ60. FJ62 (and HJ after same year) had transmission rotated to lower transfer output and used universal joint. > rear 14cm)....the front diff of my 60 is almost in line with the > driveshaft, leaving only the T-case cardan at a significant > angle That's the way it should be, viz. all the angle is taken by the Cardan joint. The Cardan joint takes out the uneven rotational movement, and the uni joint at the diff has no significant angle to re-introduce same. > (if you still have good contacts with these blokes, you might tell > them to add a note about this in their documentation....same > *might* hold true for 70-series (Rob M. mentioned the necessity of > DC/CV-joints on those after being OME'd). Yes, this may be necessary when trying to get both caster, AND universal joint angles correct. Cheers * Norm Needham * * Traction4 / ARB Northside * Sydney, Australia * Trac4@bigpond.com Trac4@telstra.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Date sent: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:50:50 +0100 Subject: Re: [80] Front drive shaft angles (was: why reverse cut? Copies to: dtlc@helios.net Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com On 7 Mar 00 at 12:27, Norm Needham wrote: > From: Willem-Jan Markerink > > > > On the TLC and DTLC list, we have been discussing a vibration issue > > on the front of OME-heavy lifted 60'series, with crucial input from > > Norm[*]. One of the details mentioned is that cardan joints require > > a matched set of angles on both ends, but the direction of angle is > > irrelevant....the end result can be 'parallel' (compensating angles), > > or 'around the corner' (additional angles). > > You are confusing the issue WJ. Please do NOT call a universal joint a > Cardan joint. In that case a double-cardan can't exist either, that would be 4 universal joints....either both are wrong, or none....8-)) Mmm....this might be an English idiosyncrasy too....the original 'cardanic suspension', as invented by Geronimus Cardanus (Italy, 1501-1576, medicus, philosoph, astronomicus, mathematician), equals a single joint, not a double one. Also, in drivetrain terminology, a single joint is called 'kardankoppeling' in Dutch, 'joint the cardan' in French, 'kreuzgelenk' in German, and 'universal (Hooka's) joint' in English (while both 'kreuz' and 'hooka' seem to refer to the 'cross' shape internal of a single joint, in Dutch distinguised as 'kruiskoppeling' (an official cardan uses a ring, instead of a cross, like the original from Geronimus). So, Italian being closer to French than English, and given the origin of the concept, I am afraid that the English translation is unnecessary confusing here....;-)) (btw, the differential was invented by another Italian bloke (damn, forgot his name), also centuries ago....lotsa nice automotive things invented there....;-))) {editor: that man was Leonardo DaVinci of course....;-))....} > > [*] it appears that Ozzie 60's have had a > > Double-Cardan/Constant-Velocity joint on the T-case side with every > > model/year/gearbox, while European 60's only got a single cardan > > with the later 5sp (4sp had DC/CV > > There you go again. There is no such thing as a "single" Cardan joint; > it's a universal joint. But why the word 'double-cardan' then? Can't believe I invented that one myself....8-)) > Also, as I noted before, the Cardan joint was used at the transfer end > on 5 speed FJ60. FJ62 (and HJ after same year) had transmission rotated > to lower transfer output and used universal joint. Oops, yes....:-)) > > rear 14cm)....the front diff of my 60 is almost in line with the > > driveshaft, leaving only the T-case cardan at a significant > > angle > > That's the way it should be, viz. all the angle is taken by the Cardan > joint. The Cardan joint takes out the uneven rotational movement, and > the uni joint at the diff has no significant angle to re-introduce same. Okay, once more Harikiri for the blokes in Japan, skipping that crucial part on European 5sp 60's....8-)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Norm Needham" To: <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> Subject: Re: [80] Front drive shaft angles (was: why reverse cut? (chat) Date sent: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:26:35 +1100 Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com From: Willem-Jan Markerink > On 7 Mar 00 at 12:27, Norm Needham wrote: > >> >> You are confusing the issue WJ. Please do NOT call a universal joint a >> Cardan joint. > > In that case a double-cardan can't exist either, that would be 4 > universal joints....either both are wrong, or none....8-)) > > > Mmm....this might be an English idiosyncrasy too....the original OK, OK; but I wont give up! ;-) I agree that the English language has to be the most idiosyncratic, but that's beside the point. We ARE talking English! So let's use the common/current meanings of this crazy language. In English, a universal joint is that cross thingy we all know and love; a Cardan or double Cardan joint is a complication of same that contains two (2) cross thingys. If we stick with these definitions, then we all know what we are talking about. Mumble, mumble, crasy Dutchmen, mumble. ;-) Cheers * Norm Needham * * Traction 4 / ARB Northside * Sydney, Australia * Trac4@bigpond.com Trac4@telstra.com From: "Norm Needham" To: "Jon Pace" Copies to: "80s COOL" <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> Subject: [80] Universal joint/flange angles (long) Date sent: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:57:07 +1000 Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com From: Jon Pace >Norm, > > I couldn't get an asnwer on the list, so I'm begging you personally. >When you look at an unlifted 80 series (you do still have some of those >down under, don't you?), are the flanges on the front pinion and the >transfer case parallel? From my math (and I'm no Kee) mine aren't >even going to be close after I correct my caster with the bushings. > > My transfer case is now at +3 degrees and my front pinion flange >is at -10 degrees. Correcting my 4 degrees of caster still puts it >at -6 degrees. Is that normal, or what could be screwed up in my >truck? > >Thanks mate, >Jon Jon, Sorry, I must have missed your question on the list. This is a relevant subject for all, so I hope you don't mind that I have copied back to 80sCOOL. BTW.....begging is unnecessary....bowing and groveling will suffice. ;-) It is important that uni joints on any given shaft be in phase, and that the angles through which they work be as near as possible the same. A uni joint, when working through an angle, does not transmit power with constant velocity. Placing the two unis in phase, and with the same angle, helps them "cancel out" this effect. The purpose of this configuration is to minimise vibration. The angle of each uni does NOT have to be in the same direction. That is, the top of the transfer flange might lean back at say 3 degrees, while the top of the diff pinion flange might lean forward at a similar angle. This is pretty much what happens in the front of an 80 series. Now....having said all that, we find that the front shaft of an un-lifted 80 generally has a little more angle at the diff than at the transfer. The unis (from the factory) are also out of phase by 90 degrees. Why out of phase? I don't know. Why the different angles? Compromise, to allow for suspension compression under heavy loads and/or in rough conditions. The diff "rolls" back and forth as suspension is compressed and extended, thus changing angles. Lifting an 80 series will lead to more angle being introduced to both unis, but more so at the diff flange (it gets the effect of the lift AND the axle rolling caster change). Jon; if you have measured correctly, and the diff uni angle is as you state 10 degrees, then you probably will suffer some vibration. I may be reading wrong here. Are you measuring flanges and comparing to vertical (hence your - and + figures), or actual uni joint angles? I suspect the former. The caster correction you are planning will alleviate your problem to some degree, and get the uni angles a bit closer to each other (at least close enough to work). With substantial lifts, it is often necessary to make some compromises and/or sacrifices in the vibration, steering, and handling areas. With extreme lifts, more complicated suspension and driveshaft modifications may be needed; such as re-location of control arms, re-positioning of knuckle balls, and use of double cardan joints. I think in your case Jon, that some caster correction is all you will need. Cheers * Norm Needham * * Traction 4 / ARB Northside * Sydney, Australia * Trac4@bigpond.com Trac4@telstra.com Date sent: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:22:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Jon Pace Subject: Re: [80] Universal joint/flange angles (long) To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com > > It is important that uni joints on any given shaft be in phase, and > that the angles through which they work be as near as possible the > same. > > I may be reading wrong here. Are you measuring flanges and comparing > to vertical (hence your - and + figures), or actual uni joint angles? > I suspect the former. > Having just read a good online article about uni joint angles, I can say I was NOT providing joint angles. I was providing angle from vertical, and worrying that they weren't the same. > > Lifting an 80 series will lead to more angle being introduced to both > unis, but more so at the diff flange (it gets the effect of the lift > AND the axle rolling caster change). > Actually, when I had 851's on the front I really didn't have a problem with vibration or steering. Now that I have the 850's, but don't yet have the winch or second battery, I do. I am happy to hear the joint angles don't have to be in the same direction. With my x'fer at 3 degrees (from vertical) and my front flange moved back to -6 degrees, the actual joint angles should be very close. Of course, they will look like /-\ instead of /-/. But that's okay, right? The caster correction bushings are on the way. If that isn't enough, I'll reposition the front mounting bolt on the axle. Arrgghh, life was much simpler in an unlifter 80..... Thanks Norm'y, Jon From: "Norm Needham" To: <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> Subject: Re: [80] Universal joint/flange angles (long) Date sent: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:10:06 +1000 Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com From: Jon Pace (snip) > I am happy to hear the joint angles don't have to be in the same >direction. With my x'fer at 3 degrees (from vertical) and my front >flange moved back to -6 degrees, the actual joint angles should be >very close. Of course, they will look like /-\ instead of /-/. But >that's okay, right? > (snip) > >Thanks Norm'y, >Jon > That's OK Jon'y ;-) /-\ and /-/ is a much better explanation than what I said. Why didn't I think of that? Yes. that's OK. Cheers * Norm Needham * * Traction 4 / ARB Northside * Sydney, Australia * Trac4@bigpond.com Trac4@telstra.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Date sent: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:56:26 +0100 Subject: Re: [80] Universal joint/flange angles (long) Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com On 27 Apr 00 at 14:57, Norm Needham wrote: > From: Jon Pace > > > >Norm, > > > > I couldn't get an asnwer on the list, so I'm begging you > personally. > >When you look at an unlifted 80 series (you do still have some of > those > >down under, don't you?), are the flanges on the front pinion and the > >transfer case parallel? From my math (and I'm no Kee) mine aren't > >even going to be close after I correct my caster with the bushings. > > > > My transfer case is now at +3 degrees and my front pinion flange > >is at -10 degrees. Correcting my 4 degrees of caster still puts it > >at -6 degrees. Is that normal, or what could be screwed up in my > >truck? > > > >Thanks mate, > >Jon > > > Jon, > Sorry, I must have missed your question on the list. This is a relevant > subject for all, so I hope you don't mind that I have copied back to > 80sCOOL. > BTW.....begging is unnecessary....bowing and groveling will suffice. > ;-) > > It is important that uni joints on any given shaft be in phase, and > that the angles through which they work be as near as possible the > same. > A uni joint, when working through an angle, does not transmit power > with constant velocity. Placing the two unis in phase, and with the > same angle, helps them "cancel out" this effect. > The purpose of this configuration is to minimise vibration. > The angle of each uni does NOT have to be in the same direction. That > is, the top of the transfer flange might lean back at say 3 degrees, > while the top of the diff pinion flange might lean forward at a similar > angle. This is pretty much what happens in the front of an 80 series. > Now....having said all that, we find that the front shaft of an > un-lifted 80 generally has a little more angle at the diff than at the > transfer. The unis (from the factory) are also out of phase by 90 > degrees. Why out of phase? I don't know. And why are mine *not* out of phase?....don't know either....8-)) I remembered this old message, and thought I would check....;-)) Anyone ever experienced a difference between in-phase and out-of-phase on their 80? Mine has been off at least once (clutch), possibly twice (previous owner/clutch), but I don't believe any Toy mechanic would remove it without using chalk, and puttting it on exactly the way it came off.... -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Greg Hilder" To: <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> Subject: [80] Front tailshaft question??? Date sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:09:09 +1000 Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Listeners.. During a recent Maintenance day held by local 4x4 club, it was = stated that the yokes of the tailshafts should be in alignment, I check = mine out.....back tailshaft was ok...however the front tailshaft is 90 = deg out of alignment ?????? I mentioned this to a couple mates who also own 80 series, both were = amazed to find their front tailshafts were the same as mine. The rear = was ok. 2 questions.. "Why is it so" ???, as all text books and a few good mechanics say = " it should in alignment" because they are balanced at the factory. Is this purposely done by TOYOTA on 80 series for some good reason = or is it slack workmanship???? Maybe Norm can shed some light on this.... Thanks anyway Greg...96 1HZ White GXL...... From: "Norm Needham" To: <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> Subject: Re: [80] Front tailshaft question??? Date sent: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:51:25 +1000 Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com From: Greg Hilder > "Why is it so" ???, as all text books and a few good mechanics say > " it should in alignment" because they are balanced at the factory. > Is this purposely done by TOYOTA on 80 series for some good reason > or is it slack workmanship???? > >Maybe Norm can shed some light on this.... Yes, the front shaft on 80s is "out of phase" 90 degrees. Obviously, Toyota has good reason to do it that way, but that reason is unknown to me. To check if your shaft has been apart and replaced 180 degrees out, have a look at the grease nipples. ALL nipples should be on the same side. Cheers * Norm Needham * * Traction 4 / ARB Northside * Sydney, Australia * Trac4@bigpond.com Trac4@telstra.com