Dedicated to the Promotion and Preservation of American Muscle Cars, Dealer built Supercars and COPO cars. |
|
|||||||
| Register | Album Gallery | Thread Gallery | FAQ | Community | Calendar | Become a Paid Member | Today's Posts | Search |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
03-06-2013, 08:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
U joints recommendations
69 Camaro.
Don't car about originality on these. Mostly don't want breakage. Will be driven hard. Won't side step the clutch, but will dump it from time to time with drag radials. U joint recommendations? Moog non-greasable 269? Thanks for any help.
__________________
Don't believe everything you read on the internet ... Ben Franklin 
|
|
#2
03-06-2013, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U joints recommendations
Non greasable would be the strongest. I had no problems using NAPA's u-joint with my 470 bb. And i don't baby it [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/haha.gif[/img]
|
|
#3
03-06-2013, 12:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: U joints recommendations
I use these <span style="font-weight: bold">Lakewood</span> U joints on my BB Nova. Haven't broke them yet with Quick-times and a 4 speed, and I'm not easy at <span style="font-weight: bold">all</span> with it....
__________________
WOT
|
|
#5
03-06-2013, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U joints recommendations
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kurt S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is not a weak link. I agree with non-greasable to be stronger. </div></div>
Good point. So... what is your opinion regarding what is likely to break first. For sake of discussion: Modified small block about 425 to 450 horse, about 400 torque factory z clutch set up (flywheel pp and disc all factory type) unmodified m21 trans factory drive shaft factory eaton 4 series posi carrier richmond 4.10 gears drag radials
__________________
Don't believe everything you read on the internet ... Ben Franklin
|
|
#6
03-06-2013, 09:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: U joints recommendations
The trans definitely if it doesn't have a 12 bolt. Even a steel bearing center plate would make a difference.....
__________________
WOT
|
|
#7
03-06-2013, 09:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: U joints recommendations
Those 12-bolt spider gears don't like sticky tires either.
__________________
1962 Biscayne O-21669 MKIV/M-22 1962 Bel Air Sport Coupe 409/1,000
|
|
#8
03-06-2013, 09:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: U joints recommendations
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: speed</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Non greasable would be the strongest. I had no problems using NAPA's u-joint with my 470 bb. And i don't baby it [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/haha.gif[/img] </div></div>
x2. I have been running the NAPA Precision Super Strength U joints for years in my cars, and mine don't get babied either on the track or on the street. I have never had a failure.
__________________
Tom Rightler Vice President, Maryland Chevelle Club MCC Newsletter Editor  1970 SS 454 1970 SS 454 Convertible 1969 Malibu
|
|
#9
03-06-2013, 10:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: U joints recommendations
Where would throwing a rod fall under??? [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/
 [/img] [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/laugh.gif[/img]
__________________
I currently own a 1969 Camaro SS350. Although the original drivetrain is long gone, this 4/speed car has a March '69 HC coded block with #041 heads. The transmission is an M20 Muncie #660 case and the rearend is a BS coded 12 bolt posi. Built in Van Nuys.
|
|
#10
03-07-2013, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U joints recommendations
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Igosplut</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The trans definitely </div></div>
Agreed. There's a reason all these Muncies are MIA. The aluminum case allows the gear to spread, moving the tooth contact area into areas that cannot handle the load. It will probably handle non-race usage, but it's being pushed.
__________________
Kurt S - CRG
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
