DB>My point about the truck design, is that there are rear
DB>ends made for pickups that are not as heavy as 2 ton, but
DB>do have floating axles, and if what you are doing is put
DB>a muscle machine on the road, you might consider loosing
DB>axles now and again with all that moxie under the hood.
I built and raced just about every flavor of muscle car in the '60s and
still build engines for them today. Yes, you would occasionally break
an axle, but very rarely and almost always at launch, very low speed.
More often, with GM stuff, you would break a ring gear or spider. Some
guys tried 3/4 ton full floater rear ends, but they just weren't needed.
An Olds rear end worked good for most any '50s GM car, and a 12-bolt
handled all the '60s and '70s stuff. A Ford 9" would handle almost
anything. A floater was just worrying about a problem that didn't exist
to any real extent, cost money and added weight ....
DB>tried lifting coil rear ends.  But, while the U joint can
DB>*handle* 7 degrees or whatever, whatever angle you do have
DB>on the rear end, you better have the same angle on the
DB>tranny yoke.  I barely understand the geometry myself, but
DB>believe me Jack, it is a fact of life of U-joints, which
DB>aren't constant anglular velocity devices, that if one end
DB>is trying to accellerate differently from the other, which
DB>is a function of the angle, things get real interesting.
I think I've seen/tried just about every combination of U-joints
(especially when I worked for 4-Wheel & Off-Road) and as long as you
stayed under about 7 degrees, you would be OK. The equal-angle deal is
way over rated (and yes, I know the manufacturer's tech literature
insists it's necessary). The tires (especially radials) provide plenty
of damping so vibration due to unequal angles is not a big deal. In
fact, we used to intentionally reduce the rear U-joint angle to zero
(directly inline with the drive shaft) in order to reduce friction
(which I think was also worrying about nothing .... )
DB>I did not mean a whole 2 ton rear end, just the larger
DB>drum from one, and as you suggest, it does depend on just
Putting 2-ton brakes on a passenger car rear end is a LOT of work, and
weight, for what? If you're really worried about more braking,
just go to disks. I agree, Blazers with 40" tires can use more brakes,
but 2-ton drums, etc. ain't the way to go....
DB>Back in the 60's power brakes were still an option, and a
DB>lot of cars still had dual brake cylindars on the front
DB>backing plates.  By having the slave cylindars pushing on
Which ones? Not Ford or Chevy, and not Mopars from at least the mid-
'60s. I think Chrysler had them on the 300D's in the '50s, but nothing
used them in the '60s that I can recall ....
DB>the leading end of *both* shoes, the necessary brake pedal
DB>pressure was gonzo easier to do.  When did Chevy quit em?
Yes, I understand the principle ....
Chevy? Never had them that I recall, certainly not from the mid-'50's
on....
Jackson
---
 * SLMR 2.1 * Speed costs money - How fast can you afford to go?
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------