u-joint pin fix you guys helped me with. The u-joint housing hole did not line up with the u-joint and drive shaft so instead of dismantling it, with the help of a T friend I shaved off a quarter of the pin and peened it in.
With all due respect Robert, I would not have done that.
It looks in your photo like the holes in the driveshaft & U-joint line up. You could have just installed the full pin in the normal manner then slipped the removable ball in place. After that it wouldn't matter that the access holes don't line up.
DUh, good point. This project is way over my head.
Don't say that, that is how you learn! I can't begin to count the number of mistakes that I and my car buddies made when we were younger and playing with musclecars, but we had a good time anyway and learned a lot in the process.
Are you guys sure that the other end of the drive shaft is located properly? I would never have assembled it with the hole that far off from the plugs without knowing for sure what was going on. Also that looks like a NEW ujoint so whatever you do - make sure that the square drive part slips in and out of the transmission tail shaft freely since over the weekend I heard a horror story of one that was pulled into place with the ball ring bolts and then destroyed the pinion bushing in one of our bearings because of the force against the collar and pinion gear from the inability of the ujoint to go into the motor. Fixing the symptom rather than the problem can cause other very major problems. Did you guys ever verify the correct location of the hole in the drive shaft with regard to the top edge of the taper at the other end of the shaft?
The rear was 'professionally' rebuilt maybe 10-15 years ago. Then it was taken apart by an experienced model T guy in the club so he could change out the repo axle for original ones because the repo axles were too long. No I did not verify the drive shaft taper and holes.
None of my business I guess but why take the driveshaft apart? To simply change the axles the driveshaft assembly could have simply been unbolted from the differential housings and set aside while the axles were changed. Was there a problem with the driveshaft too?
It looks in your photo like the holes in the driveshaft & U-joint line up. You could have just installed the full pin in the normal manner then slipped the removable ball in place. After that it wouldn't matter that the access holes don't line up."END QUOTE"
Jerry, Explain to me how you can slip a removable ball over a U-Joint that is already pined?
Take the pinyon gear off, slide the driveshaft out, install the pin, slide the driveshaft back in place, replace the pinyon gear.
Take the pinyon gear off, slide the driveshaft out, install the pin, slide the driveshaft back in place, replace the pinyon gear."END QUOTE"
Tell me how you set your .002 to .005 thousandths end play doing it bass-ackwards like that?
If you have a stock Ford bearing, with the sleeve already pressed on, you are not going to pull the drive shaft out the front end.
The pinion gear does not control the thrust, the thrust bearing does!
The first thing you do is find out why the pin hole doesn't line up, as there is something bad off.
If you're using the fun Projects bearing, not the stock set-up, yes, you could pull the shaft out to install the U-joint. But, as John says, that's addressing the symptom, not the problem. Why doesn't the pin line up with the hole? I would certainly check the distance between the pinion end of the shaft and the hole, as John previously suggested. He knows his stuff, and I take his suggestions seriously.
"Jerry, Explain to me how you can slip a removable ball over a U-Joint that is already pinned?"
I didn't say it would be easy. Actually, I'm glad you asked. Just as I was beginning to feel smart, you reminded me that I can have "DUH" moments too. Thanks for keeping me grounded!
Apologies to Robert, (but I would still do something to avoid the 1/2 pin method).
There are enough RED flags here to make this look like Mayday in Moscow.
The guys I would listen to are Glen, John, Steve and Herm. If you are still confused ask them to explain the process until you understand it, then follow their advice.
It's none of my business either, but if the pinion to ring gear setup is off, the results will be very disappointing and costly.
I would also look at the spool to make sure it's mated to the flanges correctly, if the ring/pinion measures correctly.
He needs to post pictures of the other end so we can see what's going on. Is there a difference between the lengths of the two different types of spools? I think the earlier one is closed where you can't see the bolts, and the later one is open where you can. Is the earlier one maybe shorter also? I don't know, just asking.
Basically both spools are the same length from their flat "mating" surfaces end to end but if you try to put an early spool onto a later rear end then there is no ridge for the outer rim of the early spool to join with and that early spool will sit about 1/8" away and its mating surfaces between the spool and rear end will be about 1/8" apart. Some shade tree mechanics then cut or grind the ridge off the early spool and thus ruin it but they then may find out that the centering of the spool to the rear end is off and sloppy because it is that outer ridge on the early spool that centers the spool on the correct early rear end. I had a "core" returned to me recently that was a late 1909 spool and someone had cut it off that way. What a shame - a very rare spool completely ruined by what I can only call "shade tree" engineering as that ridge was crudely ground off.
Ok, thanks for the info John. I always like to hear what the experts have to say.
Post more pictures Robert. At this point you're only out 1 pin and some time. If anyone can help you get it all straightened out and really correct before anything permanent is jacked up it's these guys. =)
Could someone please supply the dimension from the mounting face of the ball to the center of the access holes, as taken from their removable torque tube ball?
Looking at photos of other torque tubes and looking at Robert's, something just looks out of proportion to me.
Perhaps you could supply the same dimension from your assembly as well?
If someone hasn't suggested it yet, read this thread as well;
The torque tube end in the first photo looks different from Roberts. Also, look at Richard Gould's May 21, 11:40am posting mentioning reproductions made from later torque tubes. Could it be that Robert's flange and ball are made over from later versions but with some error in the process?
Jerry, my shaft is all tucked away and put back together. The picture of the two shafts on my previous thread look like what happened to me.
In other words, my repo shaft hole is lower or closer to the rear than the original shaft. If the repo hole was just a little higher toward the engine, it would probably be ok. I suspect the problem is the repo hole was off.
Considering that the location of the hole is specified on Ford drawings with only a +/- .005 error allowed, the distance your hole is off is not a minor issue. Assuming the hole in the repro ujoint is accurate (not likely) then having the hole as far off as it appears to be makes the pivot point of the ujoint a long way off from the pivot point of the ball. This means that some rather severe stress will occur when the ball pivots in the back of the motor and the ujoint pivots inside the ball but each has a different axis with your setup. I know you want to forge ahead but I think you are ignoring a potentially expensive future problem. The nuts on the radius rods not allowing cotter pins seems also to point to the housing ball and ujoint not having the same axis of rotation. Enclosed drive shafts are not like modern driveshafts that have no outer housing and thus can self center themselves and are also tolerant of driveshaft length a bit too. Model T driveshaft is a shaft within a hollow shaft and the length of outer housing must match up at each critical point with the inner shaft location of things. If either the outer housing or inner shaft is different in length than what is proper, you are going to have serious problems. I have said my piece - its your issue now.
example of the stress john speaks of- when i was young i built a "free" model t out of junk, and used an open drive shaft new car rear axle. both rear radius rods cracked off exactly in a straight line with the ujoint in the drive shaft.
I guess this is why State trucks have big signs on the back, that say "Please Don't Follow Trucks Into Work Area" as cars will blindly follow somebody with out thinking on their own.
No. 1. I am one of those shade Mechanics that have machined off the flange of about 8 spools to use on later Ruckstell axle's.
No. 2. Contrary, to some low information Model T Experts, removing the out side flange Will NOT, in any way, shape, or form, deplete Spool Alignment accuracy!
No. 3. Model T builders should know that the out side flange was not put there on the early spools for alignment, as the alignment is had from the I.D. of the spool. It was put there for the early, and much weaker rear ends for strength only. When the strenght improved, the flange was dropped, and thus cheaper to build.
No. 4. It also does not make any difference if the spool has studs, or bolts, which has nothing to do with alignment. The only difference is the different thread and bolt size.
Early and late spools!
Herm,I agree with your second point re alignment of the spool. The OD of the bearing sleeve is a neat fit in the hole between the two diff halves and so is aligned by this close fit.
I have a different take on the removal of the flange on later spools. The flange was still there long after Ford settled on the familiar diff centre castings introduced in 1915 and carried right through the rest of production. Rather than it being removed because there was no need for it on the stronger later diffs, it could well have been removed simply as a cost saving measure. The machining of the diff halves to accommodate the flange on the closed spool was eliminated. The casting on the end of the tube was machined flat rather than stepped, as were the ends of the spools.
Opinions may vary.
Allan from down under.
Robert, in an earlier post I asked if you had the assembly together previously. If not, and you were putting together parts from various sources, I made the suggestion that some two piece torque tubes have been created by fitting early castings onto later tubes. Now you have posted more photos,from the first one, I cannot see the shoulder between the back of the casting and the tube. On a real tube the shoulder is almost right up against the casting. Your photos do not show this. They also do not show enough of the tube for me to tell if the step is an inch or so back of the casting, indicating that it is a made up tube. If this is the case, then the casting may have bee installed at the wrong length.
Also, I note that the radius rods appear to have shorter than normal threads. Usually there are two or three threads through the castle nut and as many, if not more behind the plain nut on the other side of the casting. This would make your rods seem some 1/4" or more too short. There is something strange going on here. I would not be comfortable until I got to the bottom of it.
Hope this helps.
Allan from down under.
When the strenght improved, the flange was dropped, and thus cheaper to build."END QUOTE"
Rather than it being removed because there was no need for it on the stronger later diffs, it could well have been removed simply as a cost saving measure."END QUOTE"
I Agree, Herm.