'56 Propeller Shaft Working Angles
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

'56 Propeller Shaft Working Angles



As outlined in this post, Gary has done a great job on this. He has been 
rewarded with the results that we all hope for. Congratulations on a job well 
done! 

I paid Goodfellow Chrysler-Plymouth in Seattle to do this for my '56 Imperial 
back in 1972. They did it right also. Since then, if I try to discuss this with 
anyone they don't know what I am talking about. Luckily, none of my Imperials 
are in need of this type of work right now. If they were, I'd have to do it 
myself.

Paul

In a message dated 9/10/2004 6:11:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
GKitterma@xxxxxxx writes:

>My recently purchased '56 C-73 was missing the left bracket (welded to the 
>axle housing) to which the 3-01-33 hanger is bolted. The hanger secures the 
>aft 
>end of the 3-01-25 control strut, while the front attaches to a bracket 
>mounted to the under side of the body. This is pictured on page 341 of the '56 
>FSM.
>
>An IML reader was kind enough to remove this bracket from his '56 parts car, 
>along with the strut, hanger, and bushings for use on "Babe". Having read the 
>accounts of others with missing and broken control struts I consider it a 
>minor miracle to have found good useable parts.
>
>In an earlier posting I asked for opinions as to proper the ride height for 
>the rear of the car, reason being that I intended to remove the rear springs, 
>clean, rebush, and replace the interleaf rubbing blocks, and I wanted to 
>determine if they should also be re-arched. Concessus seemed to be that the 
>car 
>should set level with respect to the distance from the bottom of the rocker 
>panels 
>front and back. 
>
>Have patience...this really is going somewhere.
>
>We removed the axle and welded on the bracket. The springs were serviced 
>locally and new rubbing blocks installed. The new blocks (8 in each spring) 
>were 
>1/4" thick. We estimated that the originals might have been 1/16" to 1/8". 
>This 
>had the effect of giving the springs slightly more arch. We did not re-arch 
>the leaves.
>
>After reassembly we found the car 1/4" higher @ the rear compared to the 
>front. We reassembled the control struts using what we thought was enough 
>shims to 
>eliminate any push or pull on the struts. This was measured with the full 
>weight of the car on the ground.
>
>The test drive produced a slight driveline shudder between 20 and 45 mph. 
>Back up on the lift. With bubble protractor (see Propeller Shaft and Universal 
>Joint Service Reference Book 115) we found the front companion flange to be 2 
>1/2 degrees (pointing down), and the front propeller shaft angle to be 1 1/2 
>degrees sloping down from transmission to carrier bearing. The rear shaft 
>measured 4 1/2 degrees down from carrier bearing to rear U joint (full weight 
>of the 
>car on the ground, car resting on 6 x 6's). The front flange of the rear U 
>joint companion flange was 1 degree positive (3rd member tilted up).
>
>>From this it can be seen that the working angle of the front U joint was 1 
>degree, the center U joint 3 degrees, and rear U joint 3 1/2 degrees. 
>
>Rechecking the shims between the bracket and hanger we found that there were 
>too few to position the assembly @ zero tension. We added 1/4" of shim to both 
>brackets and measured rear shaft angle of 3 1/2 degrees (raising the nose of 
>the 3rd member decreased the rear shaft angle) and rear U joint companion 
>flange angle was 2 1/2 degrees.
>
>Now the center U joint working angle was 2 degrees, and rear U joint angle 
>was 1 degree. With a 200 lb load on the rear bumper the angle increased to 
>about 
>1 1/2 degrees. The car had 3/4 tank of fuel.
>
>The specification for working angles is from 1 to 3 degrees. All U joints 
>were now within that range. 
>
>The car drove beautifully! No shudder. 
>
>One of the reasons this is soooo long is to try to help Phillipe Courant sort 
>out some of his drive line trouble. I believe his car is a '57 but, with the 
>exception of how to tilt the 3rd member, the issues are the same. I'll make it 
>shorter next time.
>
>Gary Kitterman
>'56 C-73 "Babe"
>


-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm



Home Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network


Copyright © The Forward Look Network. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
This site contains affiliate links for which we may be compensated.