04-27-2016, 04:13 PM | #1 |
Drives: 2016 Camaro 1LT Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 892
|
Drive Shaft Question
My 2014 Mustang had a speed limiter at 112 MPH on it because the drive shafts had a tendency to join the drivers in the cabin at high speeds. Mustangs had a heavy two piece drive shaft that would come apart at high RPM. A lot of Mustang owners would buy one piece aluminum drive shafts if they regeared their cars for this reason.
I was wondering what kind of drive shaft they put on my 1LT. I have googled it but haven't found anything. I don't intend to drive excessive speeds but I am curious.
__________________
Life after retirement |
04-27-2016, 05:27 PM | #2 |
GM paint evaluation dept
Drives: Too many to list Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: South East US
Posts: 345
|
I thought the cool kids get CF drive shafts now?
__________________
Co-owner of Tony the Tiger
- A GM factory custom orange and mosaic black striped 2016 SS 2SS - U̶n̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ Officially the worst Mosaic Black paint on a 2016 Camaro SS 2SS See him here - https://drive.google.com/folderview?...3M&usp=sharing |
04-27-2016, 06:25 PM | #3 |
Drives: 17 SS 1LE Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,920
|
Should hit 150 no problem.
|
04-27-2016, 06:38 PM | #4 |
Drives: 2013 2LT RS, 2017 ZL1 Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 479
|
that issue was prob due to the rear diff choices that mustangs have. the higher ratios are like 4.95 driveshaft rotations per wheel spin which would make more sense to limit the speed.
the googler may be useful for finding that answer Last edited by datboi448; 04-27-2016 at 09:23 PM. |
04-27-2016, 07:00 PM | #5 | |
Drives: 2016 Camaro 1LT Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 892
|
Quote:
Some idiot was using his phone to video himself top ending a 2011 Mustang. Just before he hit 135 mph the drive shaft came through is floor board. Seriously who holds a phone to video their speedometer while driving those speeds??? That was when Ford started putting limiters on both the V6 and V8 Mustangs. But from what I understand, the aluminum drive shaft would actually transfer a little more torque and horse power to the rear wheels, due to it's weight and rigidity. The idea behind the two piece drive shaft was that it would reduce vibration, thereby reducing road noise and giving a smoother ride.. Which is why I was curious about what we have in our Camaros. I didn't know whether or not someone here would have some insight.
__________________
Life after retirement |
|
04-27-2016, 07:48 PM | #6 |
Jedi Master
Drives: Boeing 757/767+2010 IBM 2SS Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bangor, ME and Palm Coast, FL
Posts: 1,121
|
495:1 ratio.......uhhh.....no
__________________
|
04-27-2016, 09:22 PM | #7 | |
Drives: 2013 2LT RS, 2017 ZL1 Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 479
|
Quote:
Def right on the idiot holding his phone while going that fast. Sorry bout that, I have a tendency of not correcting my typos when on my phone. I have corrected it |
|
04-29-2016, 07:11 AM | #8 |
it is a two piece drive shaft..
|
|
04-29-2016, 08:43 AM | #9 |
Drives: 2016 Camaro 1LT Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 892
|
Thankyou. I tried laying on my back next to the car to see it but it is obscured.
__________________
Life after retirement |
04-29-2016, 09:03 AM | #10 | |
Drives: Cruze Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Montreal
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
I wouldnt be surprised the LTs would be limited to the same. |
|
04-29-2016, 09:43 AM | #11 | |
Drives: 2016 Camaro 1LT Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 892
|
Quote:
The old WS6 Z 28s and Trans Ams hit 13.5 in the quarter at 107 MPH. These little V6s are pretty respectable little engines. After reading up on the drive shaft under my Mustang the test and tune thing concerned me a little. Though my worries were abated when the car hit 93.99 MPH on my best pass. That 2:73 gearing was nice for highway mileage but it sucked for performance. I was wanting to go to 3:55s but to do that it was a good idea to drop another $600 on a once piece aluminum drive shaft for safety. The problem with that was that the people who did that reported more vibration. I got all the performance I wanted by trading off on my Camaro. The SS would be great fun, but for my retirement car I wanted brand new, and 40K plus just isn't in my budget. But I digress. Thankyou for your reply. I think I found out what I wanted to know. This forum is very helpful.
__________________
Life after retirement |
|
04-29-2016, 10:01 AM | #12 |
Drives: 1SS, A8, MRC, NPP, Blade Spoiler Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 1,485
|
I know on the last generation Camaro, the speed limiter was set according to the tire rating. If you got the LT with the regular steel wheels, it came with tires rated at 115, and the speed limiter was set the same. I got an LT and ordered the upgraded 19" wheels which came with P Zero Nero (all season version of the P Zero), and the limiter was set to 155 - the same as the tire's speed rating.
|
04-29-2016, 10:06 AM | #13 | |
Drives: Cruze Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Montreal
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
|
|
04-29-2016, 10:36 AM | #14 | |
Banned
Drives: 2017 Camaro 2SS 6MT Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 4,372
|
Quote:
This sounds like an odd scenario. Are you sure about this? Speed limiting on modern cars is almost always based on the speed ratings on the factory tires, and no one should be limiting a car's speed due to faulty driveshafts. I think Ford is better than that - limiting speed due to a known faulty component is not good business. I think Ford would fix the driveshaft issues before just limiting a car's speed lower. You had the V6 Mustang correct? |
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|