Register free!

The Green Industry's Resource Center



Reply
 
Thread Tools   Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-06-2001, 06:56 PM
MTCK MTCK is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Idaho
Posts: 254
I was under my truck today, looking at the starter, and noticed that my front drive line has a bit of slop in it. it has a constant velocity joint (2 u-joints together) at the transfer case end, a regular U joint at the front axel, and a slip yoke in the middle. I can get about a half inch of deflection at the slip yoke. Should I get ready to buy another one of these damn things? I've put 3 of them on my truck in the past 5 years. This is the first time it's been the slip yoke that has been questionable though. Always the CV joint before. Oh, by the way, it's a 83 1/2 ton with about 3" lift. Thanks guys.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-13-2001, 06:04 PM
75's Avatar
75 75 is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Orillia On (Canada)
Posts: 992
I'm not much of a "four by" expert by any means, but 1/2" of deflection in the slip yoke sounds like quite a bit. Replacing it sounds like a good idea - I'm wondering if the 3" of lift is causing driveline parts to wear faster than usual?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-13-2001, 06:23 PM
MTCK MTCK is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Idaho
Posts: 254
Yeah, I think the lift deffinetly contributes to the wearing of the parts, as well as the big tires. The angle of the driveline is more extreme since the truck is lifted. I've thought about having a driveline made with straight U-joints on both ends and a slip yoke in the middle instead of the CV at one end, since I keep blowing that part up. I've read that CV joints are better for a steep angle though. Another idea is dropping the transfer case an inch or so. Input?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-13-2001, 07:00 PM
75's Avatar
75 75 is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Orillia On (Canada)
Posts: 992
I don't know how feasible dropping the transfer case will be, since engine/transmission/transfer case are bolted together as a unit. I think it would be a l-o-t of work!

Another option is tilting your axles slightly to help reduce the angle the U-joints are on. I've heard of this being done, but am not sure of the procedure.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-22-2001, 12:51 AM
STUMP JUMPER STUMP JUMPER is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 18
I just had my front end angled to solve that very wear problem. All they do is put a tapered shim under the springs, kind of like a tapered lift block in the rear, but it doesn't affect the height or handling. So far so good

STUMPJUMPER
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-25-2001, 09:16 AM
Alan Alan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NW Vermont (Milton)
Posts: 1,185
Quote:
Originally posted by STUMP JUMPER
I just had my front end angled to solve that very wear problem. All they do is put a tapered shim under the springs, kind of like a tapered lift block in the rear, but it doesn't affect the height or handling. So far so good

STUMPJUMPER
But it sure does affect the angles on your steering goemetry. Did you have caster and camber checked after the shims were installed? Both will be affected by changing the angle of the housing.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-25-2001, 08:00 PM
STUMP JUMPER STUMP JUMPER is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 18
Yes I did Alan, it was all part of the job it ran me about $100 for the job and alignment. Drives great now.

Thanks for the concern,
STUMPJUMPER
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:21 PM.

Page generated in 0.07889 seconds with 7 queries