Stovebolt.com
Posted By: Kip Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Sep 19 2004 03:51 PM
What were they thinking?
Adios, Kip
Posted By: Hotrod Lincoln Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Sep 19 2004 04:33 PM
That's the way the Model T did it, and Louis Chevrolet just copied Henry!

The concept of a torque tube puts the driving thrust near the center of the vehicle, instead of pushing the car/truck along with the rear springs. it's a complicated, and really unnecessary way to get the driving thrust to the frame. However, lots of manufacturers used the process, as late as the mid-60's American Motors cars. Furd quit using the design in 1948, and Chevrolet hung on until the early 50's.
Jerry
Posted By: Tony M Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Sep 19 2004 04:55 PM
Were there open drivelines out already? I could see how a torque tube would be easier to make if you didn't have U joints that could hold up for any length of time.
Posted By: Hotrod Lincoln Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Sep 19 2004 05:04 PM
Most of the torque tube systems got by with one u-joint, and it was enclosed where it could get better lubrication. Some of the really old stuff I've worked on had an open driveline, with some really oddball u-joint designs. Of course, most of the pre-1920 cars and trucks used a chain drive, even the original Mack trucks! Solid-rubber tires on that one, too!
Jerry
Posted By: Fatfenders Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Sep 19 2004 06:07 PM
And, it stops tall grasses from wrapping around the driveshaft when you travel from field to field.
Posted By: patrick66 Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Sep 19 2004 06:27 PM
The last US car to use torque tubes were the 1967 AMC Marlins. When Hudson and Nash merged in 1954, their combined 1955 lines reflected Nash enclosed drivelines (Hudson always had open driveshafts from the '20's on). Very functional, but a maintenance headache when it was needed.
Posted By: bznhafdzn Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Sep 19 2004 08:08 PM
Kip--

Wadda ya say--poor enginneerin---the 3/4 tons werent too bad; but Hotchkiss be much better.
Posted By: Cletis Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Sep 19 2004 08:33 PM
Little known fact: Louis Chevrolet had nothing to do with the car Billy Durant marketed as a Chevrolet. He designed a much more elaborate and expensive car. Durant wanted something to compete with Henry. He put Chevrolet's famous name, which he already owned, on a competitively priced auto. Chevrolet's car was never produced. He ended his association with Durant and tried to go into auto manufaturing on his own but failed. Durant retained rights to he name.
Posted By: tclederman Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Sep 20 2004 01:11 AM
What were they thinking? Maybe, "It works - reliably."


From ChevyTrucks.org

And, from Jim Carter's wbsite:

Closed Driveshafts Forever

Occasionally we hear owners condemning the closed drive shaft system used in the 1/2 ton trucks prior to 1955. After questioning the negative comment, we almost always discover the real criticism is the low gearing of the ring and pinion in the differential. Yes, this lower gear ratio was created more for slower roads of year gone by, but it is by far not a poorly designed system. In fact, it is questioned if there has ever been drive shaft and u-joint combinations that exceed the durability of this GM quality engineered closed unit.

Over 50% of the surviving older 1/2 ton pickups continue to use their original closed systems. Of these, the majority have had little or no servicing other than keeping lubrications in the transmission and differential.

Consider this when you realize the last GM closed drive shaft system was produced in 1954. Many others have been in irregular service prior to the 1920s. Also remember that many 1/2 ton pickups were often given abuse far in excess of the manufacturers recommendations.

What modern open drive shaft system has been able to compare with this unsurpassed record? None!! Sure, the newer open u-joints are easier to change. They better be. They require attention or replacement so much more frequently!

Another Example of GM Quality!!!



We recently received the following comment from John Berkeley Ball. He also confirms the quality of the General Motor's 1/2 ton closed drive shaft and differential.

Dear Jim Carter

Thanks for your excellent articles. One very pertinent point I feel that you should mention about closed drive shafts is their absolute impervability to rear spring wind up. Used on the farm over soft ground with heavy loads, you could not afford to send your rear end into drive breaking pulsations every time you lost traction, whether the shocks were worn out or not (some were single action any way). What a huge advantage over the Hotchkiss rear end! this is an often unknown design attribute that Chevy engineers were unfoundedly maligned for - at least by today's city slickers...

John Ball

You may relate comments to this web site or Mr. Ball direct at john_ball@telus.net.

(sorry about cut/paste from JC site, he does not make linking to his site very useful)

Tim
Posted By: bznhafdzn Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Sep 20 2004 02:05 AM
Interesting piece Tim--Ive read that Patrick Dykes is a proponent of torque tubes as well--I've always preferred open drivelines--but hey I'm no enginneer. I sometimes wonder if purist tendicies don't influence this debate/ :p
Posted By: Splashoil Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Sep 20 2004 04:16 AM
Waz on this job one time where an electrician took the jumbo size tie wraps and put a whole bunch on this loudmouth's driveshaft. Job lets us out into downtown rush hour traffic, but just several crawling blocks until the interstate. Poor bloke thought all hell was breaking loose on his jacked up import 4x once he stepped on it.
With a torque tube, things would have been nice and quiet! grin
Posted By: GMCpanel Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Sep 20 2004 04:19 AM
Aren't there some late-model foreign cars that still have torque-tube driveshafts? It seems like Jaguar might have been messing with them a few years ago... :confused:
Posted By: Barry Weeks Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Sep 20 2004 04:59 AM
If you've ever seen a 800hp sprint car run lately, you've seen a modern torque tube in action.
Posted By: chiphead Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Tue Sep 21 2004 08:55 PM
The TT in my '54 sedan has been fairly trouble free, except for the u-joint nuts backing out. The only problem I've had out of the rear end was one axle shaft twisted in half at the spider gear. But I do notice that the car handles slightly different than other RWD cars, maybe due to how the TT applies motive force to the frame.
Posted By: Doc.Hall Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Fri May 22 2020 08:48 PM
What Fatfenders said; In the old days we preferred the closed drive shaft in Florida grass lands. I used my 54-3100 for that after it's first restoration in 1977. We had to survey our tobacco field and it was full of wire grass. My brother in law had a new Silverado it was all wrapped up. It took a few minutes and a sharp knife to undo but, the rear u-joint lost a cap. Taped it up with wire and drove slow to the bunk house. Drove the 54 to NAPA. Does not happen often but here a skid guard is still a necessity around Okeechobee. Doc
Posted By: Tony292 Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Fri May 22 2020 11:41 PM
I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s a dependable and reliable system. That isn’t it’s weakness today. Today’s issues with torque tubes are that they often leak, and parts are extremely difficult to find. Add to that the extremely limited gear ratios available now that it has been out of production for over 50 years.... the durability isn’t the issue. The issue is your stuck with it exactly as it is right now, leaking and nearly impossible to find parts/gears for.





Originally Posted by tclederman
What were they thinking? Maybe, "It works - reliably."


From ChevyTrucks.org [chevytrucks.org]

And, from Jim Carter's wbsite:

Closed Driveshafts Forever

Occasionally we hear owners condemning the closed drive shaft system used in the 1/2 ton trucks prior to 1955. After questioning the negative comment, we almost always discover the real criticism is the low gearing of the ring and pinion in the differential. Yes, this lower gear ratio was created more for slower roads of year gone by, but it is by far not a poorly designed system. In fact, it is questioned if there has ever been drive shaft and u-joint combinations that exceed the durability of this GM quality engineered closed unit.

Over 50% of the surviving older 1/2 ton pickups continue to use their original closed systems. Of these, the majority have had little or no servicing other than keeping lubrications in the transmission and differential.

Consider this when you realize the last GM closed drive shaft system was produced in 1954. Many others have been in irregular service prior to the 1920�s. Also remember that many 1/2 ton pickups were often given abuse far in excess of the manufacturer�s recommendations.

What modern open drive shaft system has been able to compare with this unsurpassed record? None!! Sure, the newer open u-joints are easier to change. They better be. They require attention or replacement so much more frequently!

Another Example of GM Quality!!!



We recently received the following comment from John Berkeley Ball. He also confirms the quality of the General Motor's 1/2 ton closed drive shaft and differential.

Dear Jim Carter

Thanks for your excellent articles. One very pertinent point I feel that you should mention about closed drive shafts is their absolute impervability to rear spring wind up. Used on the farm over soft ground with heavy loads, you could not afford to send your rear end into drive breaking pulsations every time you lost traction, whether the shocks were worn out or not (some were single action any way). What a huge advantage over the Hotchkiss rear end! this is an often unknown design attribute that Chevy engineers were unfoundedly maligned for - at least by today's city slickers...

John Ball

You may relate comments to this web site or Mr. Ball direct at john_ball@telus.net.

(sorry about cut/paste from JC site, he does not make linking to his site very useful)

Tim
Originally Posted by tclederman
What were they thinking? Maybe, "It works - reliably."



From ChevyTrucks.org [chevytrucks.org]

And, from Jim Carter's wbsite:

Closed Driveshafts Forever

Occasionally we hear owners condemning the closed drive shaft system used in the 1/2 ton trucks prior to 1955. After questioning the negative comment, we almost always discover the real criticism is the low gearing of the ring and pinion in the differential. Yes, this lower gear ratio was created more for slower roads of year gone by, but it is by far not a poorly designed system. In fact, it is questioned if there has ever been drive shaft and u-joint combinations that exceed the durability of this GM quality engineered closed unit.

Over 50% of the surviving older 1/2 ton pickups continue to use their original closed systems. Of these, the majority have had little or no servicing other than keeping lubrications in the transmission and differential.

Consider this when you realize the last GM closed drive shaft system was produced in 1954. Many others have been in irregular service prior to the 1920�s. Also remember that many 1/2 ton pickups were often given abuse far in excess of the manufacturer�s recommendations.

What modern open drive shaft system has been able to compare with this unsurpassed record? None!! Sure, the newer open u-joints are easier to change. They better be. They require attention or replacement so much more frequently!

Another Example of GM Quality!!!



We recently received the following comment from John Berkeley Ball. He also confirms the quality of the General Motor's 1/2 ton closed drive shaft and differential.

Dear Jim Carter

Thanks for your excellent articles. One very pertinent point I feel that you should mention about closed drive shafts is their absolute impervability to rear spring wind up. Used on the farm over soft ground with heavy loads, you could not afford to send your rear end into drive breaking pulsations every time you lost traction, whether the shocks were worn out or not (some were single action any way). What a huge advantage over the Hotchkiss rear end! this is an often unknown design attribute that Chevy engineers were unfoundedly maligned for - at least by today's city slickers...

John Ball

You may relate comments to this web site or Mr. Ball direct at john_ball@telus.net.

(sorry about cut/paste from JC site, he does not make linking to his site very useful)

Tim
Posted By: Mike B Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sat May 23 2020 05:45 AM
Pulled a 16 year old thread out of mothballs...lol

Mike B smile
Posted By: tclederman Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sat May 23 2020 11:22 AM
Originally Posted by Tony292
I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s a dependable and reliable system. That isn’t it’s weakness today. Today’s issues with torque tubes are that they often leak, and parts are extremely difficult to find. Add to that the extremely limited gear ratios available now that it has been out of production for over 50 years.... the durability isn’t the issue. The issue is your stuck with it exactly as it is right now, leaking and nearly impossible to find parts/gears for.

- What parts are hard to find?
- 3.55 and 4.11 final drive ratio R&P are readily available
- no leaks, if you are careful

If you want more/faster: yes, you (or, your local/reliable/knowledgeable truck shop) would need to replace a lot of parts (at what cost?). frown
Posted By: Tony292 Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sat May 23 2020 11:38 PM
Mine is a 1.5 ton Eaton H110 with 6.17 gears and Leaking torque tube. I can’t find any parts for mine, thus why I’m switching the pumpkin out for a 5.43 open driveline pumpkin. Smaller trucks may have more parts available.
Posted By: bartamos Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sat May 23 2020 11:45 PM
Originally Posted by Mike B
Pulled a 16 year old thread out of mothballs...lol

Mike B smile


Last post by Splashoil was 11 years ago. Don't think he cares about torque tube anymore. This is what sequester has done to us.
Posted By: Hotrod Lincoln Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun May 24 2020 12:28 AM
Carmakers converted their production to open drivelines because of the "baby chicken" concept- - - - - -open drivelines are "CHEEP- - - - -CHEEP- - - - -CHEEP" to manufacture. They're nowhere near as reliable or durable as a well-designed torque tube, but they cost a lot less to make. Today's cars and trucks aren't made to last much beyond the warranty period, so open drivelines and multiple universal joints work well when they're expected to last "the life of the vehicle"- - - -which is engineered to be six months past the warranty coverage!
Jerry
Posted By: tclederman Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun May 24 2020 02:23 AM
Here are a few examples of vehicles that used the torque-tube after after 1954 [google.com] (the last year that GM used them).

Yes, GM light-trucks made a change to the cheaper (but, no better) open-driveshaft drive-line in 1955. However, a few performance vehicles used torque-tubes after 1954.
Posted By: Hookalatch Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun May 24 2020 02:51 AM
A little off topic but Corvette started using torque tubes from 1997 to at least 2019. Not sure if the 2020 model still uses them with the relocated engine.
Posted By: Hotrod Lincoln Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun May 24 2020 03:26 AM
3rd.-generation Camaro and Firebird used an oddball setup with an open driveline and a long torque-reaction arm that was bolted to the rear axle housing and was anchored to a pivot point near the rear of the transmission. It served much of the same purpose as a torque tube without needing the precision machining involved in manufacturing a completely enclosed driveshaft. Ford used a torque tube rear axle on cars and light duty trucks from the 1920's Model T to 1948.
Jerry
Posted By: rfs56trk Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon May 25 2020 03:36 PM
How about the infamous 61-63 Pontiac Tempest. It used a torque tube with the torque converter hanging off the rear. Not a great car.
They got it right in 64 however.
Fred
Posted By: Hotrod Lincoln Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon May 25 2020 03:51 PM
Somewhere at General Motors headquarters there's a rubber room with a raving lunatic engineer locked up inside. Every now and then, he escapes and designs a vehicle. He's probably the guy responsible for such epic failures as the Corvair, the Tempest, the Vega, and a few other colossal flops from GM! The Tempest was a particularly stinky one- - - - -half a Pontiac V8, with a timing chain that would stretch so badly that it wore holes in the timing cover, and enough of a vibration problem that it unscrewed properly-torqued bolts, plus a curved solid driveshaft running under the floorboard at engine speed to the rear-mounted transaxle. That one had to be the bat-crap crazy engineer's crowning achievement! Running cast iron plated pistons in contact with aluminum cylinder walls in the Vega was a pretty close second, however!
Jerry
Posted By: klhansen Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon May 25 2020 04:54 PM
You forgot about the GM 6.2L diesel, Jerry. That same engineer decided he could convert a gasser to a diesel engine which resulted in a POS.
Posted By: Hotrod Lincoln Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon May 25 2020 08:17 PM
There were some killer drag race alcohol/nitro engines built on the 6.2 Diesel block, however. It was beefed up in places that kept it together better than the gas version with lots of blower boost. The GM Toro-Flow was an attempt to convert the GMC gasoline V6 to Diesel- - - -it was a colossal flop. When it finally hit the market, the only parts that interchanged with the gas engine were the oil pan and valve covers!
Jerry
Posted By: BC59 Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Tue May 26 2020 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by klhansen
You forgot about the GM 6.2L diesel, Jerry. That same engineer decided he could convert a gasser to a diesel engine which resulted in a POS.

The 6.2 wasn't a converted gas engine, you are thinking of the 5.7N olds 350. Made lots of money on those beasts, probably seen more of those scatter than anything else in almost 40 years now at dealership.


The 5.7 was available in 1/2 t 2wd pickups thru '81, had a 500 lb payload. The also made a V6 4.3 based on the V8, had more head bolts but still ---
The 6.2 diesel was bore out to 6.5L & went to the biggest pos EFI system, the DS series Standyne pump in '94.
Thankfully, Isuzu came to the rescue in '2001 with the 6.6 duramax.
Posted By: woof359 Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Jun 14 2020 02:20 PM
high school 1972, we put a new clutch in my friends Rambler Ambassador SS, it had an enclosed drive shaft, we had to drop the whole rear end and slide it back, what a pain
Posted By: John Milliman Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Jun 14 2020 04:27 PM
We actually found a Toroflow diesel during one of our ODSS Junkyard Tours (At Frankie's). None of us knew much of anything about them, but we got excited when we saw that it was a GM diesel .... and then after 30 minutes of standing there while Prof. Grigg (III) educated us, we all understood why it was there in the junkyard. But we amazed that it was *still* in the junkyard and had not been converted to back into a steel ingot ... A lot of iron to move around, but it could have been had for scrap price and would have completed anyone's engine collection -- it could sit next to the gas V-12 engine in the "What were they thinking?" department.

Jerry ... What was so bad about the Corvair? Other than it was an over-baked copy of a very fine German car?? I'm still holding out for a Hebmüller or a Schwimmwagen smile And when I find one ... You all can bid me auf Wiedersehen. The funny thing is, I'll probably find one long before Ron ever pulls the trigger on a Plymouth ...

nanner

Ja
Posted By: klhansen Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Sun Jun 14 2020 07:40 PM
The Corvair, with it's independent rear suspension was the impetus for the "Unsafe at Any Speed" book by Ralph Nader. In a too high speed corner, the outboard rear wheel tended to tuck under, causing a rollover.

I don't know who designed the Army's M151 Jeep, but it had the same issues. To get a licence endorsement to drive one, you had to sit thru a class where they drummed into your head that you couldn't take ANY corner at more than 25 MPH.
Posted By: John Milliman Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 01:17 AM
Hmmmm ... Not according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In a July, 1972 report of its two-year investigation of the 1960-1963 Corvair, it found that "The handling and stability performance of the 1960-1963 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles, both foreign and domestic."

Read the original report here [corvair.org].

All Ralph Nader proved was that given enough lateral acceleration beyond the moment arm, you can make any car roll.
Posted By: tclederman Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 01:28 AM
Thanks for posting that information, John

I was reluctant to post that link and others.

If the tire PSIs were correct, the "problem" was not significant.
The front and rear tire PSIs were significantly different.

"The Corvair relied on an unusually high front to rear pressure differential (15psi front, 26psi rear, when cold; 18 psi and 30psi hot), and if one inflated the tires equally, as was standard practice for all other cars at the time, the result was a dangerous oversteer"
Posted By: EdPruss Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 01:39 AM
If one knows how to drive, no problems. I had a '64 wagon, liked it.

Ed
Posted By: tclederman Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 01:52 AM
Ed, was that 1964 Corvair wagon:
the Corvair Station Wagon - car [hemmings.com]
or
the 1954 Corvair Van - truck? [corvair.org]
Posted By: EdPruss Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 02:58 AM
Sta. Wagon, not a van.

Ed
Posted By: Hotrod Lincoln Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 04:15 AM
From the viewpoint of a mechanic, not necessarily the driving public, a Corvair was the spawn of Satan! They were notorious for developing hard to fix oil leaks- - - -prone to overheating when run for long distances at highway speed, and the only thing worse than keeping the dual carbs synchronized was attempting to get four carbs on the Spyder version playing nice with each other. Then there was the incredibly hard-shifting 2-speed automatic transmission, or the 4-speed manual model with a shifter that felt like a piece of limp spaghetti. As was mentioned above, just a few pounds of wrong tire pressure turned the things into a death trap. A cross leaf spring called a "camber compensator" usually kept the things from getting up on their tiptoes in a hard turn. Following an non-compensated Corvair into a high speed turn or a slalom was at least as frightening to the guy in the back as it was to the driver. One of the guys in the Okinawa Sports Car Club insisted on campaigning one in the autocrosses we ran, and it was entertaining to watch his elbows flailing as he muscled the thing around some of the traffic cone courses we laid out.
Jerry
Posted By: Tiny Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 11:53 AM
Originally Posted by Hookalatch
A little off topic but Corvette started using torque tubes from 1997 to at least 2019. Not sure if the 2020 model still uses them with the relocated engine.
I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that. When touring the Corvette plant a few years ago I was surprised to see the cars with torque tubes. Not being a Corvette fan I had no clue.
Posted By: Phak1 Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 12:39 PM
My first car that I got on the road was a ‘62 Corvair coupe. Twin carb 6 cylinder 80 HP pancake engine that my best friends father bought for me for $85 in exchange for grafting a ‘65 VW convertibles front sheet metal (unibody) on and painting it so he could flip it. One carb float valve stuck in the closed position and at idle it sounded perfect but as soon as you pressed on the gas it wouldn’t go anywhere. That baffled me for awhile because it wasn’t shaking and ran as smooth as silk (it was only running on one bank of three cylinders). I eventually figured it out when I put my hand over one carb and it didn’t make any difference in how it sounded. It would smoke out the interior when you ran the heat. There were o-rings that sealed tubes that the push rods would run thru. They would dry out, leak on the finned heat/cooling fins (for those that don’t know, it was an air cooled engine). The whole rear pan was rusted out and it was only an 8 year old car. That would be the equivalent of a 2012 car today. I think that they have advanced a bit on the engineering of cars today.

I did a cob job on the rust, painted it light blue with black racing stripes and equipped it with some Thrush mufflers. It was loud in both the paint and sound but it didn’t go.

Now, in defense of the Corvair, it was a fun car to drive. Up until the point that the rear axle would tuck under (I experienced that fright a few times in corners that I took way too fast), it handled like a dream. It would out corner most cars on the road at that time. The turbo charged 150 HP Spider must have been a blast to drive.

Unfortunately, the front shock mount broke due to rust. I didn’t want to fix it so I sold it at a loss. As to an education? PRICELESS!
Posted By: Justhorsenround Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 12:43 PM
Had a turbo charged Spyder engine in a 2 seater rail type dune buggy. Boy would that buggy hall the mail.🛠
Posted By: tclederman Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 12:50 PM
A little more information on the purpose of a torque tube and where it was/is used: Torque Tube - Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org]
Posted By: Doc.Hall Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 03:37 PM
Thanks tclederman, great info. who would have thunk...the Chevette had them. I was blessed by never having to work on one in my college day's. We had two kids that raced it around the country side, I remember telling my brother how come that tin toy took so much abuse. He said it must have been the only good one Chevy built. It had been rolled over not a straight place on it faded paint and very ragged inside. It went on like this for months I have not seen one since 1979. Ed
Posted By: Doc.Hall Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 03:41 PM
Splash oil, way funny. Doc
Posted By: WE b OLD Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 06:30 PM
Years ago I sent a letter to Patric Dykes about changing axle rations and got a searing reply, I stupid can you be to consider doing that. This was snail mail back in the 1980s. But it wasn't but a few years he was offering 3:55 rear gears and other mods. ohwell
Posted By: WE b OLD Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 06:37 PM
My brother in law inherited 23 Corvairs from his father about 10 years ago and got rid of all but one. The one he has is a 1964 convertible and has been nothing but trouble with oil leaks. A blown engine and it was replaced and the new one has a trans leak. Sad, sad sad.
Posted By: tclederman Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Mon Jun 15 2020 07:04 PM
Yes, both of those problems were/are common.

Oil leaks : The rubber seals/rings at the ends of the engine’s “oil return tubes” did not last long.
Posted By: Doc.Hall Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Tue Jun 16 2020 12:39 PM
Kip, If you pull up 54 T-boaned new 1996 Suburban 3600: you will see how my T.T. didn't cause any miss alignment of my motor. Doc
Posted By: Doc.Hall Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Tue Jun 16 2020 01:31 PM
If you pull up in General Truck Talk under 54 T bones new 1996 Suburban 3600: you will see how well a torque tube kept my motor in the same place as prior to the accident, Doc
Posted By: Doc.Hall Re: Ok so why the torque tube? - Thu Jun 18 2020 03:40 PM
Torque tubs forever. The stronger the better. Doc
© The Stovebolt Forums