[MovieGuy]

Originally Posted by fastball

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?

I am absolutely 100% certain. My tires were rated at 175 MPH. The reason they put that limiter on was because some idiot was top ending his car while videoing the speedometer. Just before it hit 135 MPH the drive shaft joined him in the passenger compartment. He somehow managed to get warranty coverage. But after that incident Ford put limiters on both the V6s and the GTs. The V6 was 112 MPH. The GT wasn't much higher than that. The focus would actually go faster top end than the Mustangs would unless you bypassed the limiters with a tune.

[Doc]

The reason manufacturers go with a 2-piece driveshaft is primarily cost. By putting an extra joint in the middle it eliminates the need to spend the time and money balancing the shaft which is why 1-piece shafts are more expensive. The trade-off is efficiency. The 2-piece aren't as efficient which adds resistance in the driveline, and that reduces the amount of power that makes it to the rear wheels.

A 1-piece should make the car smoother; not add vibration. If there's more vibration then something is wrong with either the shaft, the mounts, bolts, etc. They do make a difference in the performance of the car and you can definitely feel it. Here's a link to my project thread which includes dyno charts showing the before/after results of installing a 1-piece on my 5th gen Camaro.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...t=45165&page=8

Having had both an aluminum and a carbon fiber, unless you're planning on doing a lot of track events (or just have the money) I'd recommend the aluminum shaft due to cost. It'll give you most of the benefits at about half the price of a CF shaft. What you gain with the CF shaft is the ability to handle higher amounts of power and torque, and the acceleration response seems just a tad crisper. Either way it's definitely an improvement.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by MovieGuy

I am absolutely 100% certain. My tires were rated at 175 MPH. The reason they put that limiter on was because some idiot was top ending his car while videoing the speedometer. Just before it hit 135 MPH the drive shaft joined him in the passenger compartment. He somehow managed to get warranty coverage. But after that incident Ford put limiters on both the V6s and the GTs. The V6 was 112 MPH. The GT wasn't much higher than that. The focus would actually go faster top end than the Mustangs would unless you bypassed the limiters with a tune.

Wow that is downright scary and Ford should catch hell for this on the magnitude of Pinto gas tanks!

What was Ford thinking to put a driveshaft into even the V6 Mustang that could kill someone? I get that the owner removed the speed governor and was doing 135, but OTOH it IS a Mustang and Ford engineers SHOULD have some reasonable expectation that owners are going to modify these cars and drive them fast.

Besides, limiting a Mustang to 112, even a V6 Mustang, is sacrilege!

[MovieGuy]

Originally Posted by fastball

Wow that is downright scary and Ford should catch hell for this on the magnitude of Pinto gas tanks!

What was Ford thinking to put a driveshaft into even the V6 Mustang that could kill someone? I get that the owner removed the speed governor and was doing 135, but OTOH it IS a Mustang and Ford engineers SHOULD have some reasonable expectation that owners are going to modify these cars and drive them fast.

Besides, limiting a Mustang to 112, even a V6 Mustang, is sacrilege!

The driver didn't remove the speed limiter. They put the speed limiters on as a result of this incident and a few others. It was their "fix" for the faulty drive shafts.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by MovieGuy

The driver didn't remove the speed limiter. They put the speed limiters on as a result of this incident and a few others. It was their "fix" for the faulty drive shafts.

Ok I see.... that's even worse! Anyone sue Ford over this?

[MovieGuy]

Originally Posted by fastball

Ok I see.... that's even worse! Anyone sue Ford over this?

Not to my knowledge.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by MovieGuy

Not to my knowledge.

Well I wasn't going to buy a Mustang to begin with but now I definitely will not touch a Ford!

[MovieGuy]

Originally Posted by fastball

Well I wasn't going to buy a Mustang to begin with but now I definitely will not touch a Ford!

I bought mine brand new with the idea that it was going to be my retirement car. It was my garage queen that I never drove in the rain, let alone snow, one I could shine up and be proud of and travel in occasionally. A car I would have the rest of my life.

Less than 2 years later I took the hit on depreciation to get out of it and into a Camaro. I have always driven old cars that I could afford to pay cash for. That car spent more time in the shop in 22 months than any of my old vehicles did in years of driving. I know you can get a lemon in any car. But as I researched the problems I had I found that every one of them were very common for that vehicle.

Here is an example. When my car was 6 months old the paint started bubbling on the lip of my hood. Ford fixed it under warranty, but I found this in the mean time
https://www.bing.com/search?q=paint%...logo=CT3210127

A year after they fixed it I had to have it fixed again. From what I have read there is no permanent fix. You just keep getting it repainted until the warranty runs out. Then it starts coming out of your pocket. There are 2 class action law suits over this.

[aestil]

Originally Posted by MovieGuy

I bought mine brand new with the idea that it was going to be my retirement car. It was my garage queen that I never drove in the rain, let alone snow, one I could shine up and be proud of and travel in occasionally. A car I would have the rest of my life.

Less than 2 years later I took the hit on depreciation to get out of it and into a Camaro. I have always driven old cars that I could afford to pay cash for. That car spent more time in the shop in 22 months than any of my old vehicles did in years of driving. I know you can get a lemon in any car. But as I researched the problems I had I found that every one of them were very common for that vehicle.

Here is an example. When my car was 6 months old the paint started bubbling on the lip of my hood. Ford fixed it under warranty, but I found this in the mean time
https://www.bing.com/search?q=paint%...logo=CT3210127

A year after they fixed it I had to have it fixed again. From what I have read there is no permanent fix. You just keep getting it repainted until the warranty runs out. Then it starts coming out of your pocket. There are 2 class action law suits over this.

I'm sorry, but Bing? Really?

[MovieGuy]

Originally Posted by aestil

I'm sorry, but Bing? Really?

I don't know what you have against Bing...but here is an NBC news report.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/busin...130218428.html

In the Ford case it is not corrosion but galvinization. It is iron contamination in the aluminum basically turning the hood into a giant battery using the paint for the electrolyte. Here is a picture of my paint acting up 6 months after I bought it.

[MovieGuy]

And from the NY Times
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013...-move-forward/

[Modshack]

Keep in mind, the 2011 GT (I had one) had the solid rear axle which moves around a lot resulting in angle changes between the shaft and pumpkin. IRS cars with solidly mounted differentials should not be going through these stresses..

[MovieGuy]

Originally Posted by Modshack

Keep in mind, the 2011 GT (I had one) had the solid rear axle which moves around a lot resulting in angle changes between the shaft and pumpkin. IRS cars with solidly mounted differentials should not be going through these stresses..

That is an excellent point.

[MovieGuy]

Originally Posted by Doc

The reason manufacturers go with a 2-piece driveshaft is primarily cost. By putting an extra joint in the middle it eliminates the need to spend the time and money balancing the shaft which is why 1-piece shafts are more expensive. The trade-off is efficiency. The 2-piece aren't as efficient which adds resistance in the driveline, and that reduces the amount of power that makes it to the rear wheels.

A 1-piece should make the car smoother; not add vibration. If there's more vibration then something is wrong with either the shaft, the mounts, bolts, etc. They do make a difference in the performance of the car and you can definitely feel it. Here's a link to my project thread which includes dyno charts showing the before/after results of installing a 1-piece on my 5th gen Camaro.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...t=45165&page=8

Having had both an aluminum and a carbon fiber, unless you're planning on doing a lot of track events (or just have the money) I'd recommend the aluminum shaft due to cost. It'll give you most of the benefits at about half the price of a CF shaft. What you gain with the CF shaft is the ability to handle higher amounts of power and torque, and the acceleration response seems just a tad crisper. Either way it's definitely an improvement.

I marvel that they make drive shafts out of carbon fiber now.