| |
Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | |
7 members (Lightholder's Dad, Otto Skorzeny, KEVINSKI, lumbersawyer, BC59, tclederman, 1 invisible),
67
guests, and
1
robot. | | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | | Forums66 Topics128,154 Posts1,056,853 Members48,456 | | Most Online14,466
Apr 26th, 2026 | | AD Chevy Trucks  Over 6,000 pictures Brad Allen has an awesome collection of Chevrolet factory pictures that he has set up from film strips. Check them out!
Lots of work on Brad's part ... pure enjoyment (and references) for you!
| | THANKS!
For helping keep this great
old truck web site
on the Internet for over 30 years! and not clogged down
with Ads!  Again, thanks!
| | | | Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,152 Cruising in the Passing Lane | | Cruising in the Passing Lane Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,152 | This issue has been raised a few times here when the discussion is around long drive shafts though I don't recall seeing it in an OD versus rear ratio discussion.
In general the modifications talked about here reduce drive shaft RPM at any give road speed and therefore most of us are not in any real danger of turning the drive shaft too fast.
When someone suggests replacing a two piece shaft with a long single drive shaft I think it becomes a very important concern.
Standard practice for OEM drive shafts has long been to design them with a larger margin of safety. I don't recall the number, but I can see the engineering text with those numbers from where I am sitting...
A related discussion that I have not seen here is the parasitic power consumption of an OD versus a direct drive and the impact that has on performance and economy. My own feeling is that most of us would never be able to measure the difference.
1955 1st GMC Suburban | 1954 GMC 250 trailer puller project | 1954 GMC 250 Hydra-Matic | 1954 Chevy 3100 . 1947 Chevy COE | and more...
It's true. I really don't do anything but browse the Internet looking for trouble... | | |
|
|
| |
