Do I need a high angle front driveshaft?

[Ol'Blue]

Checking front travel with 4.5" lift. Axle to frame at rest is about 11.5". At about 15" axle to frame the joint closest to the Tcase starts to bind when turning by hand.

I thought turning the c's may help but thought a high angle front shaft would be the easier route.

Thanks

 

[broncoman1972]

If this is the front shaft and it has a single joint you can replace it with a Tom Woods Super-Flex joint. I have one in the front and have no binding where a single normal joint binds bad.

 

[Broncobowsher]

This is a time when a high pinion front axle comes in handy.

 

[bmc69]

If this is the front shaft and it has a single joint you can replace it with a Tom Woods Super-Flex joint. I have one in the front and have no binding where a single normal joint binds bad.

All EBs have the single joint at the dif. They all have the double-cardan at the t-case too, of course, but I digress. I had great luck with that Tom Woods u-joint that you linked to on my '69 trail rig; definitely cured a binding problem that was causing u-joints to break at the dif end.

There are "high-angle" solutions for the double-cardan end too.

 

[Ol'Blue]

If this is the front shaft and it has a single joint you can replace it with a Tom Woods Super-Flex joint. I have one in the front and have no binding where a single normal joint binds bad.

I was looking at those. Do you have any issues with vibration and what lift are you running?

 

[broncoman1972]

All EBs have the single joint at the dif. They all have the double-cardan at the t-case too, of course, but I digress.

No problem. I should have specified a single at the t-case. This is how my '74 was set up when I got it and the PO said it was that way as well. When I had to get my drivelines redone after the 4r swap I tried a single normal joint to see what it would do and it bound up bad. I debated staying with the super-flex or going to a double cardan. The super-flex won.

 

[broncoman1972]

I was looking at those. Do you have any issues with vibration and what lift are you running?

Well, I haven't run at speed with the hubs locked since I redid the driveshafts, but I don't suspect there will be a problem. I did before my swap (still had the super-flex) and had no troubles. Strength seems good. I'm running 3 1/2" Duff monster lift with long arms, Dana 60 and 40's. I even aired out the frontend at the bottom of Four Fingers at Superlift and had no problems.

 

[Ol'Blue]

I spoke to Tom Woods and the super flex wont work on the CV end where I have the binding. Said the best thing to do is to correct the pinion angle by rotating the outer Cs.

The HP front axle would be good, but I just sunk a bunch of money into new R and P and Duragrip into this one.

Sheesh, there has got to be another solution.

 

[bmc69]

No problem. I should have specified a single at the t-case. This is how my '74 was set up when I got it and the PO said it was that way as well.

100% of the EBs (and later fullsize Broncos) came with the DC joints on both driveshafts. Along the way, some were "converted" to a single at the TC by people that didn't understand their purpose and how they work. On the front....you can "get away with that" because who runs highway speeds with the 4x4 engaged all the time, right? In the rear, however, the mismatched operating angles resulting from the deletion of the DC joint result in rapid u-joint failure.

 

[Whoaa]

I spoke to Tom Woods and the super flex wont work on the CV end where I have the binding. Said the best thing to do is to correct the pinion angle by rotating the outer Cs.

The HP front axle would be good, but I just sunk a bunch of money into new R and P and Duragrip into this one.

Sheesh, there has got to be another solution.

Cuttting and rotating the C structure is the *best* option. Its not easy or simple, but by far the best option.

Cut and turn the C structure's about 10 degree's and this will solve the Caster issues also. It doesn't create clearence issues like a high-pinion housing does whe then suspension is at full compression -or require being narrowed, and of course solves all of the U-joint pinion angle problems. Another smallish, by added byproduct is the ability to use less degree C bushings while still maintaning great Caster numbers for excellent driveability.

I also wished there was an easier way. I have fought and fought this issue, I'm even using the sweet Duffy long Radius arms w/ a little built-in Caster, but they still don't solve the problem. The rear is easy, cut the leaf perch's off and then weld on some new ones at the proper angle, or just use shims.

Here's a great video, its a Jeep leaf spring Dana 44, but the concept is the same, the pinion angle and Caster angle fight each other, best solution for Bronco's lift around 5" is cut and turn the knuckles about 10 degrees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHg3s_QZ5P4

 

[68ford]

I don't think cutting the c bushing wedges can be done alone. If you rotate the pinion up by moving c wedges you will reduce caster. Likely needs to rotate the pinion up enough to resolve his issue that the caster will be negative and unsafe. I would try 7 degree bushings in reverse to raise the pinion and then check caster at ride height. Then cut and turn the ball joint end pieces.

 

[Whoaa]

I don't think cutting the c bushing wedges can be done alone. If you rotate the pinion up by moving c wedges you will reduce caster. Likely needs to rotate the pinion up enough to resolve his issue that the caster will be negative and unsafe. I would try 7 degree bushings in reverse to raise the pinion and then check caster at ride height. Then cut and turn the ball joint end pieces.

^...Just different terminolgy to reference the same part.

The outter C structure IS the outter most structure that holds the ball joints. Often refered to as "outter or inner" C structure, because they are C shaped. Not to be confused the wedges where the bushings go...totally different.

7 degree bushings do gain you some better Caster numbers -and so long radius arms, but the big lift and 7 degree bushings also ruin your pinion angle, these two angles fight each other.
Anything around 5" of lift on a Bronco coil-spring Dana 44 and the best method to solve this issues is cut and turn.

And the axle tubes are pess fit into the 3rd member and nearly imposible to cut free w/ any accuracy. There are a couple of rossette welds that look harmless enough, and easy to think "I'll just cut the 3rd member loose", rotate it up a little, or choose to say rotate the axle tubes down a little,....but in reality its nearly imposible to make this work and get it all put back together w/o leaking seals and a screwed up front end that's imposible to align. If this method did work it would really simplify the whole process.

I'm really shocked that someone w/ a nice fab shop, like Duff, hasn't taken on this task and offer exchange front Dana 44 housings for folks w/ 5"+ lift.

 

[garberz]

Whoaa is referring to cutting and turning the ball joint "yokes". Most refer to them as the "knuckles". So all the different terminology will make it confusing. Ol'blue, are you running extended radius arms? Do you currently have 7* "C" bushings in there? The simplest option would be to sacrifice some caster with a less * "C" bushing. I'm running 2* bushings with Duff long arms, that's with 2 1/2" of lift. It's working to help with the same problem you're dealing with. I'll gain another 5* of caster when I put the HP housing in, I'll be able to use the 7* bushings.

Mark

 

[68ford]

I see now, confused C structure for knuckle.
Without cut an turn or sacrificing a lot of caster I don't think anything helps. Longer radius arms make things worse because when suspension droops, the pinion angle changes less. That is good for everything except drive shaft.
The high pinion full width solved all my issues except I had to get custom headers. But it let me run about 2 in lift with 2 degree pinion angle at ride height with 14 degrees caster. When you leave it full width you have no clearance issue when bottomed out. As low as I sit, I still have 6.5 inch up travel from ride height. Axle droops 8.5 in from ride height and the cv joint at trans is angled very little.
Might try lowering the t case. Friend did it to a 72 blazer. He said the added angle sacrifice still made up for and kept the drive shaft from binding and also helped the rear drivline angle. Not sure if sacrificing ground clearance is an option. But for us go fast guys it's not a big deal.

 

[Ol'Blue]

Thanks all for the info. A little more info on my Bronco and results of some conversations with Woods and Duff.

I had Duffs Radius Arm Drop brackets with stock arms set on the highest setting at 4*, 7* C bushing, 4.5" lift and got 5.5* of caster at the alignment shop.
Drove awesome!

I spoke to someone at Tom Woods today and a double cardan (double CV?) wont work since I am binding at the CV/TCase side. The super-flex wont work since that only takes care of the diff side and I dont have an issue on that end.

I dont see why the WH High Angle wouldnt be an option. If I understand it correctly it doesnt have the CVs and uses flanges instead allowing more shaft angle.

http://www.wildhorses4x4.com/product/HighAngleFrontDriveShaftKit

Duffs said the best thing to do for now is wait till I get the long arms in and then check for binding, but I feel I will still have binding since I am trading the drop brackets that gave me 4* with the long arms that will have 4.25* built in.

After the long arms go in, my plan is to change shock mounts and go to 15" travel shocks, so really want to get this figured out so I can maximize travel/drop.

Thanks for all the input and video guys, keep it coming.

 

[68ford]

Are you planing on jumping you bronco and needing full droop with both tires at the same time? If not, you can limit it in the center to keep it from binding, but it will still articulate more. My old 5.5 lift with long arms bound at droop but never close during articulation.

 

[Ol'Blue]

Are you planing on jumping you bronco and needing full droop with both tires at the same time? If not, you can limit it in the center to keep it from binding, but it will still articulate more. My old 5.5 lift with long arms bound at droop but never close during articulation.

Haha, well not on purpose but I do a mix of sand, rock and desert so want want to maximize these arms for mixed use.

 

[68ford]

Haha, well not on purpose but I do a mix of sand, rock and desert so want want to maximize these arms for mixed use.

Just go full width, you'll never look back. High pinion solves everything :-D

 

[Broncobowsher]

Just go full width, you'll never look back.

Because rocks kicked up the tires keep shattering the side view mirror

Full width can be good, but it isn't for everyone and isn't a one size fits all solution.

 

[Ol'Blue]

Well I got the Duff Long Arm installed and the DS wouldn't even reach the pinion which I figured would happen, so I ordered a Tom Woods DS and them clearance it for high angle. I had planned on a new DS anyways as mine was getting loose at the slip joint.

I also dropped down to 4* C bushings in hopes of helping the pinion angle.

Bronco sits at 11.5" with the 4.5" lift and DS starts to bind when I get to about 14.5" from frame to axle, so only getting about 3" of drop.

Should I just go back to 3.5" lift and see if I can get away with 2* bushings?

Im leaving the whole rotating the outer Cs as a last resort.