What's new
By:
Filters

CV Joints - ALL Tech and Specs

AgitatedPancake said:
Pharr - thanks for the link to that stub, So now I'm a little more intrigued, I thought the ultimates might have been 99-04 super duty equivalents but doesn't seem to be the case (at least that specific stub shifting the CV pivot outward a bit). I knew Spidertrax had their super shorty setup, but that seems to be yet another solution
Click to expand...
They used to be 99-04 based.
Then they changed the design.

Pro-Series are 05+ based with a special stub.
 
AgitatedPancake said:
arse - around how many miles have you put on them? I saw a few videos that seemed to be early failures, but I don't actually know what failed, just that people swapped them back out for traditional shafts with tripod joints. But that could have been user error, I want to believe haha.
Click to expand...
Over 50k on the left and over 25k on the right at a minimum. Could be close to double that at this point IDK. I do 25k/yr in that car and one joint has been there at least a year and the other joint was there more than a year before that.

The one car that doesn't really need one but got one anyway has like 5k on it because I rarely drive it.
 
Another topic: heat. Jason Scherer made his geometry as flat as possible at ridge height to keep the temperatures down. He said they were killing them in the desert if they weren't running in the middle of their range.
 
Bebop said:
They used to be 99-04 based.
Then they changed the design.

Pro-Series are 05+ based with a special stub.
Click to expand...

How do they bolt that in? Bolt in the unit bearing without the CV stub then put the stub in from the back side? The CV cup is larger than the unit bearing mounting register......

Sounds gay......
 
Pharr said:
Another topic: heat. Jason Scherer made his geometry as flat as possible at ridge height to keep the temperatures down. He said they were killing them in the desert if they weren't running in the middle of their range.
Click to expand...
I wonder if portals taking some of the torque off would help.

CVs seem to have no problem going 100+mph all day long on jacked up Chevy trucks. Way higher RPM but way less torque than desert sand.
 
They hurt the heat. The gear reduction increases shaft speed and heat. The portals are also different for Jason and Loren. I think it's like 1.3:1 abd 1.48:1 or something like that
 
Pharr said:
They hurt the heat. The gear reduction increases shaft speed and heat. The portals are also different for Jason and Loren. I think it's like 1.3:1 abd 1.48:1 or something like that
Click to expand...
I get that the heat is the killer what I'm wondering is whether increasing speed and reducing torque could reduce overall heat.
 
arse_sidewards said:
I get that the heat is the killer what I'm wondering is whether increasing speed and reducing torque could reduce overall heat.
Click to expand...
Not really, spin them to fast,to long and all the grease migrates to the boot. Angle is the real killer on plunging joints. Non plunging create way less heat at a given angle.
 
bdkw1 said:
Not really, spin them to fast,to long and all the grease migrates to the boot.
Click to expand...
So how do cars with 25" tires do it? Sure they're not dealing with the same operating angles but wouldn't the whole grease migrating to boots thing still apply?


bdkw1 said:
Non plunging create way less heat at a given angle.
Click to expand...
Why? Shouldn't the travel distance of the ball be the same regardless of plunging vs non-plunging.
 
arse_sidewards said:
Why? Shouldn't the travel distance of the ball be the same regardless of plunging vs non-plunging.
Click to expand...
less load on the balls and races, less heat
plunging joints of the six-ball style are in pretty much continuous bind when they're at any load and angle

due to the race angles, three of the balls are pushing "out" and the other three are pushing "in" on the star
 
[486] said:
plunging joints of the six-ball style are in pretty much continuous bind when they're at any load and angle

due to the race angles, three of the balls are pushing "out" and the other three are pushing "in" on the star
Click to expand...
Ah, that makes sense.

I was thinking of it in terms of contact patch and working the grease (like how an engine with fucktons of bearing area will put more heat into the oil).
 
It's also a combination of high speed and big angle. It's the whoops.
 
[486] said:
less load on the balls and races, less heat
plunging joints of the six-ball style are in pretty much continuous bind when they're at any load and angle

due to the race angles, three of the balls are pushing "out" and the other three are pushing "in" on the star
Click to expand...
I can try and put all my CV joint pics in here.

The OE Subaru rear inboards are of the 6-ball plunge type. I wanted to get rid of them for the reasons you stated because I am running higher articulation.

Trakmotive is listed as the marketing brand for Wohn Industries - an axle manufacturer in China. They do offer a number of "heavy duty" CV axles with plunging shaft splines. Their CV joints on these axles for Subaru run 8 balls, inboard and outboard. The available angle is nuts (45*+). The downside being, as I've shown, is that their units show that they seem to cut corner or lack serious QC. Also, I've pointed out a a few times that many of the box store versions of these "heavy duty" axles are in fact rebranded Trakmotives. They will have the same part number on the shaft.

I'm sincerely hoping that I have the luck that Arse has claimed, though I'm not holding my breath. Recent (last few years) reports have shown this bran to last no more than a couple blocks on stock cars in some instances.
 
I've not yet seen Proformance mentioned in here. They're doing a lot with CV axles with inboard joints set inside of the diffs and outboards set inside knuckels.
 
AgitatedPancake

A few measurements from 99-04 Dana 60 RCV stubs

Bell OD ~ 4 & 3/8 inch
Inner star spline - 35
Number of balls - 6

Angle and ball OD will need to wait until one day when i reassemble these


Don’t mind my crusty shaft and greasy balls :flipoff2:
D0B08671-A3FE-4637-9E38-4588A94D0DB9.jpeg

AFB24A3D-3558-4884-B90B-01A7389B232F.jpeg
 
arse_sidewards said:
Ah, that makes sense.

I was thinking of it in terms of contact patch and working the grease (like how an engine with fucktons of bearing area will put more heat into the oil).
Click to expand...
And the cage is trying to hold all the balls in a line. That's why there are 300M cages for plunging CV's but not for NP"s (except RCV).
 
JNHEscher said:
I've not yet seen Proformance mentioned in here. They're doing a lot with CV axles with inboard joints set inside of the diffs and outboards set inside knuckels.
Click to expand...
The inners have flat grooves in the outer cup like some OEM inners. The balls not on the pivot axis start to loose contact as the angles go up leaving you with only 2 opposing balls in contact at a time. With the angles they are claiming I'm not sure what keeps the balls in place.
 
bdkw1 said:
The inners have flat grooves in the outer cup like some OEM inners. The balls not on the pivot axis start to loose contact as the angles go up leaving you with only 2 opposing balls in contact at a time. With the angles they are claiming I'm not sure what keeps the balls in place.
Click to expand...
I've mulled that one over in my head for quite while. Having cleaned out a bunch of joints and watched their articulation, you can kinda see at what point they would grenade with enough load.
 
JNHEscher said:
I've not yet seen Proformance mentioned in here. They're doing a lot with CV axles with inboard joints set inside of the diffs and outboards set inside knuckels.
Click to expand...
Weismann, Proformance, and others can run back-to back CVs. The thinking is longer shafts for more articulation travel. I could never get the plunge to disappear, but the 2WD tropjy trucks show that they can get good geometry with the bottom a arm pivots centered. In the case of IFS that center woud be under the pumpkin and less ground clearance. I did look at cradeling the pivot in front of and in back of the pumpkin. The axis going thru the pumpkin. But wasn't worth the effort at that time. (SXS's have used that tactic in the rear with the pivots behind the motors/trans, etc. )

All that Proformance travel puts their HUGE diff about a foot under the ground on a G-out. Marketing...Just like many SXS specs. Weismann was not far behind on size. As I remember the bottom of th diff was 8" from CV centerline. There are three 4400 rigs running weismann but not with the back-to-back option. Their diff offsets the driveshaft so it can clear a front motor. I looked at but the $30k tag made me think harder. NArrowing a 9" by 2.5 inches go me in the ball park and Thom has picked up on that for the masses.

Be smart when doing the work. I made more mistakes than good decisions. And I was watching a high end IFS development and learning...but still missed a LOT. It looks so simple when it works. And so hard to diagnose when it doesn't....until the ah-ha!....

Note that the brakes and stopping the drivetrain will/can put much more pressure on CV's than accelerating. Why we don't see inboard brakes much either. PLus the 14" rotors dragging. the dirt.
 
JNHEscher said:
I've mulled that one over in my head for quite while. Having cleaned out a bunch of joints and watched their articulation, you can kinda see at what point they would grenade with enough load.
Click to expand...
I think the racers have backed off some on turning degrees with IFS. The reason is a full buggy skid so they can just take the rocks hard in the center. And winching is a ton faster and easier. One year I focused 100% on KOH winching with video....it was easy to see the difference. WInching at KOH is generally avoided when making the trails. The race is basically ruined for many with a bottleneck. The tough get it in the third Lap when the toughest can survive quick enough to avoid a big bottleneck. Promoter learning. Worked. . .
 
bdkw1 said:
How do they bolt that in? Bolt in the unit bearing without the CV stub then put the stub in from the back side? The CV cup is larger than the unit bearing mounting register......

Sounds gay......
Click to expand...
CVs and shaft first
Then upright
Then UB
 
Isdtbower said:
Weismann, Proformance, and others can run back-to back CVs. The thinking is longer shafts for more articulation travel. I could never get the plunge to disappear, but the 2WD tropjy trucks show that they can get good geometry with the bottom a arm pivots centered. In the case of IFS that center woud be under the pumpkin and less ground clearance. I did look at cradeling the pivot in front of and in back of the pumpkin. The axis going thru the pumpkin. But wasn't worth the effort at that time. (SXS's have used that tactic in the rear with the pivots behind the motors/trans, etc. )

All that Proformance travel puts their HUGE diff about a foot under the ground on a G-out. Marketing...Just like many SXS specs. Weismann was not far behind on size. As I remember the bottom of th diff was 8" from CV centerline. There are three 4400 rigs running weismann but not with the back-to-back option. Their diff offsets the driveshaft so it can clear a front motor. I looked at but the $30k tag made me think harder. NArrowing a 9" by 2.5 inches go me in the ball park and Thom has picked up on that for the masses.

Be smart when doing the work. I made more mistakes than good decisions. And I was watching a high end IFS development and learning...but still missed a LOT. It looks so simple when it works. And so hard to diagnose when it doesn't....until the ah-ha!....

Note that the brakes and stopping the drivetrain will/can put much more pressure on CV's than accelerating. Why we don't see inboard brakes much either. PLus the 14" rotors dragging. the dirt.
Click to expand...
TTB sounds like the perfect answer :flipoff2:
 
Bebop said:
TTB sounds like the perfect answer :flipoff2:
Click to expand...
HollanderMotorsports (Instagram) is making some pretty neat stuff that way. Mostly for Baja Pre-runners. Definitely much simpler but a compromise. I considered it strongly before being forced into learning the "rules that could be broken" in IFS.
 
Isdtbower said:
HollanderMotorsports (Instagram) is copying some pretty neat stuff that way. Mostly for Baja Pre-runners. Definitely much simpler but a compromise. I considered it strongly before being forced into learning the "rules that could be broken" in IFS.
Click to expand...
Fixed for accuracy.
 
bdkw1 said:
It's always the answer.
Click to expand...
Off on a tangent but Jeep worked from 1950 to a 63 Wagoneer on IFS. TTB with a top arm for better Camber control...and minimal articulation. Where I went for awhile ...Doing the work. Back then everything was U-joints...and even up into the 70's.

.https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-review-1963-jeep-wagoneer-jeeps-i-f-s-road-to-nowhere/

On TTB Copying. Almost all FF builds is from stolen/copying/pioneered work from someone else laying the groundwork at least. To bring something to a production mode is an open next level. I love building stuff the first time....which might be a copy, but my way. But not interested in pushing ti further. No issues with others running with a good idea that is helpful for others. 74Weld took a 1950's VW technology, improved it and dominating offroad wants at the moment. "Nothing is new." I hope what Hollander Motorsport is copying is and improvement over what they might be copying. I have no knowledge of any of that...just a point as some still say leaf springs are copies.

Back to CV's: And TTB turning with them can be in that 45*+ range. A point if we missed it.

On moving the bottom A-Arm pivot under the pumpkin. I just saw that 2WD TT's are getting 28" of articulation in their 2WD IFS. SXS's are advertising 24" of 4WD front articulation but letting the droop camber go considerably positive in droop....and why MUTT's and VW's flipped easily. Choices.
 
Last edited:
Isdtbower said:
Off on a tangent but Jeep worked from 1950 to a 63 Wagoneer on IFS. TTB with a top arm for better Camber control...and minimal articulation. Where I went for awhile ...Doing the work. Back then everything was U-joints...and even up into the 70's.

.https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-review-1963-jeep-wagoneer-jeeps-i-f-s-road-to-nowhere/
Click to expand...
I always thought a variant of that would go well in the rear

IIRC Studebaker had some sort of weird-ass "not quite TTB, not quite IRS" going on as well.

Isdtbower said:
On TTB Copying. Almost all FF builds is from stolen/copying/pioneered work from someone else laying the groundwork at least. To bring something to a production mode is an open next level. I love building stuff the first time....which might be a copy, but my way. But not interested in pushing ti further. No issues with others running with a good idea that is helpful for others. 74Weld took a 1950's VW technology, improved it and dominating offroad wants at the moment. "Nothing is new." I hope what Hollander Motorsport is copying is and improvement over what they might be copying. I have no knowledge of any of that...just a point as some still say leaf springs are copies.
Click to expand...
Yup. These sorts of things are almost never uncharted territory. Everything is based on something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh