Engine and Transmission Tech

tips, technology, tools and techniques related to vehicle driveline components

Go to Thread: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicLog In


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 02, 2010 05:10PM

Right place? Other than noise/vibration,(many road use cars use rigid mounted engines),seems like irs. cars could use a fabbed or oem. torque tube, rigidly attached to frame or unit body/cage, to enhance chassis stiffness ? Perhaps this would lend to a strong tunnel design ? I'm considering this for irs. use ,in the sbm/JH.Your thoughts ? roverman



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2010 05:26PM by roverman.


tr8todd
Todd Kishbach

(390 posts)

Registered:
12/04/2009 07:42AM

Main British Car:


Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: tr8todd
Date: May 02, 2010 08:24PM

Something similar to what Porches use? Can't hurt. Chassis stiffness is better found on the perimeter of the body and not along the spine if your doing a roll cage. I just did a car where I cut away the outer rockers, installed 2" square stock the length of the rockers and then tied the feet of the cage into the rockers. Made for great jack points in addition to stiffening the tub. What rear end are you thinking about running? Every time I walk by one of my BMW rear assemblies. I can't help but think that they would be fantastic in a LBC.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 02, 2010 11:03PM

Todd, this is my consideration for the sbm/JH roadster. 5.2L ,400+hp,420lbs? R154, turbo.Supra 5 spd and Series II, Mazda R.E. clip,(modular with dynam. steer.). I would like to get enough torsional rigidity with out bars in the doorways, or a cage. Since this is a fairly deep tunnel car, I thought, what if ? Perhaps rigidly linking together all three major components, could be good.Front wheels "may" go forward, from std.92 to 97". 2300-2400 lbs.I suggest a"peep" of the Grannys Speed Shop, webbsite,pretty awesome! 7" ring gear(std. Mazda), finally gave up at 9.03 sec. in qtr,(3K+ lbs.) Thanks, roverman.


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(6468 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: May 03, 2010 11:00AM

Depends on what you're looking for. Obviously a large diameter thinwall tube can add a great deal of stiffness, but that is one of the reasons a monocoque is successful. The best chassis possible is one where all the material is used to make the outer shell, the shape is that of a very large cylinder, and all or most openings in the shell have been eliminated or minimized. Clearly this is impractical for many reasons so we end up with a great variety of compromises, but for strongest yet lightest construction it is well to go back to that ideal as a starting point and then add in the compromises that are essential for your own design along with the reinforcements that make them possible.

JB


TRip
Trip Anthony

(162 posts)

Registered:
08/18/2009 01:16AM

Main British Car:
1980 TR7 performance 4 cyl

Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: TRip
Date: May 03, 2010 02:26PM

Hey guys,

Just a thought here. The torque tube is connected to the engine through the bell housing and also - to the rearend ex: Porsche 928 and Corvette. Okay - so doesn't the torque tube then have to be able to move with the twisting and vibration etc. of the engine, transmission and rearend on their respective mounts? Won't you end up with cracks and other issues throughout the drivetrain, torque tube and chassis because what was supposed to be able to move freely is now fixed to the chassis?

Being a deep tunnel, maybe support structure can be added in there instead of a fixed TT???

Trip


tr8todd
Todd Kishbach

(390 posts)

Registered:
12/04/2009 07:42AM

Main British Car:


Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: tr8todd
Date: May 03, 2010 05:55PM

That Mazda rear end is fine for your basic street goer, but all of the racers get rid of the rear steer. Doubt there is a competitive IT car in the country that hasn't switched to one of the aftermarket rear control arm kits. Speedsource sells a good one. I heard the kit was very expensive thou. I'm by no means a Mazda expert. I get my Mazda info from a guy near here who is rotary Mazda crazy. Has rotary pickups, RX3, RX4, and several RX7s.


pcmenten
Paul Menten

(242 posts)

Registered:
10/08/2009 10:40AM

Main British Car:


Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: pcmenten
Date: May 03, 2010 06:44PM

Chevy Camaros from the 80's had a torque-arm attached between the transmission and the differential. But I don't understand how that works with the rear suspension; if one wheel drops into a pothole, wouldn't that put torque on the torque-arm, which would twist the transmission and engine? (Same for early Fords.)

But for an IRS, it seems like it would work.



roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 03, 2010 07:00PM

Paul, torque arm,(camaro), is nothing like a torque tube, as you say an "arm", with a rubber bushing-front pivot. I'm not aluding to real early cars with enclosed driveshaft as part of a solid rear end assembly,(Ford, Rambler etc). C5-up Corvette, 928 etc. have used modern type torque tube designs, all of which, are irs. Idea is to add chassis strength will minimal intrusion. roverman.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2461 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: mgb260
Date: May 03, 2010 08:20PM

Art, Did you see the torque arm setup on Granny's website. No reason you couldn't do similar on IRS.
TASA7300w.jpg
TASA8500w.jpg



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2010 08:23PM by mgb260.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2461 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: mgb260
Date: May 03, 2010 09:05PM

Art, To eliminate rear steer they just use Delrin bushings on the toe rods. I would repace all the other bushings with poly,good setup.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 04, 2010 11:14AM

Jim, Thanks. Why do irs. set-ups, even use, or need ,"u-joints" , on the input ? Seems like if the chassis isn't a "flexi- flier", why bother ? More weight, frictional loss and maintenance. A T-axel would probably be even better, but more fitment problems. I'm thinking of reinforced, tunnel as in "backbone" design, as used by Lotus and others, except this would be part of the unit body, and possibly attaching to front subframe ? roverman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2010 02:22PM by roverman.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength/u-joints ?
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 12, 2010 02:22PM

Anybody? Why ? Peripheral beefing may be good , but I suspect, tying-in to torque tube/re-inforced tunnel, should add torsional rigidity,( important for stellar handling). Some cars of yesteryear, used, "X member" frames, I suspect for same reason. Dialog anyone ? roverman.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3188 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Torque Tube for chassis strength/ building a driveshaft
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 16, 2010 09:30PM

Ok, I got front of Turbo Supra shaft, to be mated to rear of "Spicer" built RX 7 shaft. Seems to me, conventional cross/needle u-joints, that use near zero, static/working angle change, tend to "imprint" the needles into the cross shafts ? Possible to replace needles with something like "Oilite" bronze ? Obviously, this is for u-joints that will see very little angle change. Not ready to rigid mount drive train, or scratch build a custom torque tube, but am considering "trussing", the trans to the re. center section.Thanks, roverman.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2010 02:00PM by roverman.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.