15 have a 2 piece driveshaft
12/12/14 | 08:29 PM
#4
Shelby GT500 Member
Joined: July 1, 2006
Posts: 2,910
Likes: 1
12/12/14 | 09:20 PM
#5
Post *****
Joined: December 14, 2007
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 4
From: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
IDK... might be better to ask Ford. Also, it's steel, not carbon fiber like the GT500. Reason: Ford wanted it to be more rigid. Discussed here (around 4:30): SVTPerformance.com Interview: Jamal Hameedi on the Shelby GT350 - YouTube
I don't understand why use a 2 piece??
Both the engine and diff are mounted. Unless they want to drop the rear a bit so as to lessen the angle of the half-shafts... 
>Edit: Or maybe it has to do with safety in the event of a rear collision so the shaft breaks away as cited for the S197.<
.
http://www.lethalperformance.com/inf...st-look-at-irs
(What a monstrosity.... )
Last edited by cdynaco; 12/12/14 at 09:26 PM.
12/12/14 | 09:57 PM
#7
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: February 2, 2004
Posts: 7,582
Likes: 670
From: Insane
There's a few reasons for two piece they're concerned about.
1) Packaging. The longer driveshaft has to be bigger as well to handle the torque involved. Breaking it into two pieces allows the shafts to be smaller diameter, and also allows a shorter arm length that moves with the axle. This splitting also directly relates to the potential for a saddle tank hit possible with a one piece, but not with a two, at full axle jounce in an S197. In a 15, though, this isn't a thing, so it's more packaging and...
2) Resonance and harshness. The longer driveshaft is harder to balance and prevent resonance, and this is a truth. But well balanced, intended for the purpose of high speed driveshafts and proper, good joints at both ends will probably eliminate a lot of that.
Hope that helps y'all out on the 'why' of it from the factory/engineering.
---
And yes... that IRS in back is seriously jacked up. I mean.. I've been studying other IRS setups. A Camaro came in.. it's a simpler design, to be sure, as are most. But this one.. geez. It's just... HUGE. Goodness. Overengineered and beefy. And STILL hops.
But hey... it is what it is now. Y'all who wanted it got it, I suppose. I'd rather the SRA with a Watts or keep the panhard instead of that complicated beastie, but that's me.
1) Packaging. The longer driveshaft has to be bigger as well to handle the torque involved. Breaking it into two pieces allows the shafts to be smaller diameter, and also allows a shorter arm length that moves with the axle. This splitting also directly relates to the potential for a saddle tank hit possible with a one piece, but not with a two, at full axle jounce in an S197. In a 15, though, this isn't a thing, so it's more packaging and...
2) Resonance and harshness. The longer driveshaft is harder to balance and prevent resonance, and this is a truth. But well balanced, intended for the purpose of high speed driveshafts and proper, good joints at both ends will probably eliminate a lot of that.
Hope that helps y'all out on the 'why' of it from the factory/engineering.
---
And yes... that IRS in back is seriously jacked up. I mean.. I've been studying other IRS setups. A Camaro came in.. it's a simpler design, to be sure, as are most. But this one.. geez. It's just... HUGE. Goodness. Overengineered and beefy. And STILL hops.
But hey... it is what it is now. Y'all who wanted it got it, I suppose. I'd rather the SRA with a Watts or keep the panhard instead of that complicated beastie, but that's me.
Last edited by houtex; 12/12/14 at 10:00 PM.
12/13/14 | 09:23 AM
#8
V6 Member
Joined: May 13, 2013
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=houtex;6877743]There's a few reasons for two piece they're concerned about.
1) Packaging. The longer driveshaft has to be bigger as well to handle the torque involved. Breaking it into two pieces allows the shafts to be smaller diameter, and also allows a shorter arm length that moves with the axle. This splitting also directly relates to the potential for a saddle tank hit possible with a one piece, but not with a two, at full axle jounce in an S197. In a 15, though, this isn't a thing, so it's more packaging and...
2) Resonance and harshness. The longer driveshaft is harder to balance and prevent resonance, and this is a truth. But well balanced, intended for the purpose of high speed driveshafts and proper, good joints at both ends will probably eliminate a lot of that.
Hope that helps y'all out on the 'why' of it from the factory/engineering.
I certainly appreciate your comments and feedback but based on my understanding Ford is concerned with rigidity more than anything else?
I have a hard time understanding Ford's reasoning with respect to rigidity as an issue when they have been running one piece carbon fiber drive shafts in the GT500 cars which obviously create much torque than the new GT350 will ever come up with. I am not convinced that Ford cannot come up with a supplier who can supply a proper carbon fiber drive shaft for the great new car?
I have run DSS one piece carbon fiber drive shafts in my new generation 302's and having driven them with both the original 46 pound 2 piece steel units compared to the 1 piece carbon fiber unit which weighs about half of the OEM unit I can certainly feel a difference in response and smooth acceleration through the gears. There is about 18 pounds of ballast alone on the axle end of the drive shaft that is required for balance.
With 20 to 25 pounds of less rotating mass to power up it is just common sense to go that route as does many other high performance cars from other manufacturers.
Don't get me wrong, I am a long and loyal supporter of the Blue Oval automobile company but when a high performance car such as the new GT350 can reduce its overall gross weight and also reduce the rotating mass weight the overall result is improved performance and that is exactly the direction that Ford should take with the drive shaft issue.
I suggest that cost is not a big issue here and in my opinion they are missing the mark and need to take a second a look at a 1 piece carbon fiber unit.
1) Packaging. The longer driveshaft has to be bigger as well to handle the torque involved. Breaking it into two pieces allows the shafts to be smaller diameter, and also allows a shorter arm length that moves with the axle. This splitting also directly relates to the potential for a saddle tank hit possible with a one piece, but not with a two, at full axle jounce in an S197. In a 15, though, this isn't a thing, so it's more packaging and...
2) Resonance and harshness. The longer driveshaft is harder to balance and prevent resonance, and this is a truth. But well balanced, intended for the purpose of high speed driveshafts and proper, good joints at both ends will probably eliminate a lot of that.
Hope that helps y'all out on the 'why' of it from the factory/engineering.
I certainly appreciate your comments and feedback but based on my understanding Ford is concerned with rigidity more than anything else?
I have a hard time understanding Ford's reasoning with respect to rigidity as an issue when they have been running one piece carbon fiber drive shafts in the GT500 cars which obviously create much torque than the new GT350 will ever come up with. I am not convinced that Ford cannot come up with a supplier who can supply a proper carbon fiber drive shaft for the great new car?
I have run DSS one piece carbon fiber drive shafts in my new generation 302's and having driven them with both the original 46 pound 2 piece steel units compared to the 1 piece carbon fiber unit which weighs about half of the OEM unit I can certainly feel a difference in response and smooth acceleration through the gears. There is about 18 pounds of ballast alone on the axle end of the drive shaft that is required for balance.
With 20 to 25 pounds of less rotating mass to power up it is just common sense to go that route as does many other high performance cars from other manufacturers.
Don't get me wrong, I am a long and loyal supporter of the Blue Oval automobile company but when a high performance car such as the new GT350 can reduce its overall gross weight and also reduce the rotating mass weight the overall result is improved performance and that is exactly the direction that Ford should take with the drive shaft issue.
I suggest that cost is not a big issue here and in my opinion they are missing the mark and need to take a second a look at a 1 piece carbon fiber unit.
12/15/14 | 11:23 PM
#10
Mach 1 Member
Joined: July 17, 2010
Posts: 864
Likes: 2
Crash protection. The two piece drive shaft just folds up when the engine is shoved in a high speed front collision, the one piece offers more resistance and under the right circumstances the engine will go into the cab rather than under it as it is designed to do. The k member has weak attachment points on the floor for the same reason they want it to ripe away and allow the engine to go down under the floor. that said I would run a one piece and take the risk.
And the carbon is far stronger and stiffer than any steel or aluminum drive shaft one piece or two. Simply no comparison.
And the carbon is far stronger and stiffer than any steel or aluminum drive shaft one piece or two. Simply no comparison.
12/16/14 | 01:17 AM
#11
Member
Joined: December 8, 2014
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: SF bay area
[QUOTE=PP0001;6877855]
been thinking about upgrading the DS in my 302 as-well, I'm glad you noticed the improvement, did you do the work yourself?
There's a few reasons for two piece they're concerned about.
1) Packaging. The longer driveshaft has to be bigger as well to handle the torque involved. Breaking it into two pieces allows the shafts to be smaller diameter, and also allows a shorter arm length that moves with the axle. This splitting also directly relates to the potential for a saddle tank hit possible with a one piece, but not with a two, at full axle jounce in an S197. In a 15, though, this isn't a thing, so it's more packaging and...
2) Resonance and harshness. The longer driveshaft is harder to balance and prevent resonance, and this is a truth. But well balanced, intended for the purpose of high speed driveshafts and proper, good joints at both ends will probably eliminate a lot of that.
Hope that helps y'all out on the 'why' of it from the factory/engineering.
I certainly appreciate your comments and feedback but based on my understanding Ford is concerned with rigidity more than anything else?
I have a hard time understanding Ford's reasoning with respect to rigidity as an issue when they have been running one piece carbon fiber drive shafts in the GT500 cars which obviously create much torque than the new GT350 will ever come up with. I am not convinced that Ford cannot come up with a supplier who can supply a proper carbon fiber drive shaft for the great new car?
I have run DSS one piece carbon fiber drive shafts in my new generation 302's and having driven them with both the original 46 pound 2 piece steel units compared to the 1 piece carbon fiber unit which weighs about half of the OEM unit I can certainly feel a difference in response and smooth acceleration through the gears. There is about 18 pounds of ballast alone on the axle end of the drive shaft that is required for balance.
With 20 to 25 pounds of less rotating mass to power up it is just common sense to go that route as does many other high performance cars from other manufacturers.
Don't get me wrong, I am a long and loyal supporter of the Blue Oval automobile company but when a high performance car such as the new GT350 can reduce its overall gross weight and also reduce the rotating mass weight the overall result is improved performance and that is exactly the direction that Ford should take with the drive shaft issue.
I suggest that cost is not a big issue here and in my opinion they are missing the mark and need to take a second a look at a 1 piece carbon fiber unit.
1) Packaging. The longer driveshaft has to be bigger as well to handle the torque involved. Breaking it into two pieces allows the shafts to be smaller diameter, and also allows a shorter arm length that moves with the axle. This splitting also directly relates to the potential for a saddle tank hit possible with a one piece, but not with a two, at full axle jounce in an S197. In a 15, though, this isn't a thing, so it's more packaging and...
2) Resonance and harshness. The longer driveshaft is harder to balance and prevent resonance, and this is a truth. But well balanced, intended for the purpose of high speed driveshafts and proper, good joints at both ends will probably eliminate a lot of that.
Hope that helps y'all out on the 'why' of it from the factory/engineering.
I certainly appreciate your comments and feedback but based on my understanding Ford is concerned with rigidity more than anything else?
I have a hard time understanding Ford's reasoning with respect to rigidity as an issue when they have been running one piece carbon fiber drive shafts in the GT500 cars which obviously create much torque than the new GT350 will ever come up with. I am not convinced that Ford cannot come up with a supplier who can supply a proper carbon fiber drive shaft for the great new car?
I have run DSS one piece carbon fiber drive shafts in my new generation 302's and having driven them with both the original 46 pound 2 piece steel units compared to the 1 piece carbon fiber unit which weighs about half of the OEM unit I can certainly feel a difference in response and smooth acceleration through the gears. There is about 18 pounds of ballast alone on the axle end of the drive shaft that is required for balance.
With 20 to 25 pounds of less rotating mass to power up it is just common sense to go that route as does many other high performance cars from other manufacturers.
Don't get me wrong, I am a long and loyal supporter of the Blue Oval automobile company but when a high performance car such as the new GT350 can reduce its overall gross weight and also reduce the rotating mass weight the overall result is improved performance and that is exactly the direction that Ford should take with the drive shaft issue.
I suggest that cost is not a big issue here and in my opinion they are missing the mark and need to take a second a look at a 1 piece carbon fiber unit.
12/16/14 | 01:27 AM
#12
Member
Joined: December 8, 2014
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: SF bay area
Crash protection. The two piece drive shaft just folds up when the engine is shoved in a high speed front collision, the one piece offers more resistance and under the right circumstances the engine will go into the cab rather than under it as it is designed to do. The k member has weak attachment points on the floor for the same reason they want it to ripe away and allow the engine to go down under the floor. that said I would run a one piece and take the risk.
And the carbon is far stronger and stiffer than any steel or aluminum drive shaft one piece or two. Simply no comparison.
And the carbon is far stronger and stiffer than any steel or aluminum drive shaft one piece or two. Simply no comparison.
Last edited by LMS007; 12/16/14 at 01:29 AM.
12/16/14 | 07:08 PM
#13
V6 Member
Joined: May 13, 2013
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=LMS007;6878718]
I had a local Ford dealership install the drive shaft as I know them well and if I have any issues with the installation or any warranty work that needs to be done to the car I know that they will work with me.
Good luck with your decision and suggest you will be happy with the results.
Good luck with your decision and suggest you will be happy with the results.
2/6/15 | 10:00 PM
#16
TMS Staff
Joined: May 1, 2014
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
One-Piece or Two? Why the 2015 Mustang Still Has a Two-Piece Driveshaft
It seems like a very simple piece of the drivetrain. The driveshaft transfers the torque of the transmission to the differential, so the rear wheels can drive or, you know, do burnouts. However, the 2015 Ford Mustang will not come with a single-piece driveshaft despite being an IRS layout. So, why, if the driveline angle will never change, will the 2015 Mustang need a two-piece driveshaft?
Read the rest on The Mustang Source homepage. >>
2/7/15 | 10:15 PM
#17
Cobra Member
Joined: March 30, 2011
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 6
From: Minnesota
GT40 2 , I would think you could have a driveshaft manufacturer make a custom aluminum driveshaft for your V6 or you could buy a GT driveshaft and have it modified and balanced by your local machine shop.
Years ago Ford decided to have all it vehicles meet very high NVH standards. I would like to see Ford lower some of the noise and harshness standards for its high performance vehicles.
Years ago Ford decided to have all it vehicles meet very high NVH standards. I would like to see Ford lower some of the noise and harshness standards for its high performance vehicles.
2/9/15 | 09:58 AM
#18
Bullitt Member
Joined: October 17, 2013
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
From: Metro Detroit
The GT shaft is an inch or two shorter than a V6 shaft. Some have theorized you could machine a block of metal to act as a spacer and use the GT shaft with the V6, but I haven't seen it done.
2/11/15 | 09:05 AM
#20
GT Member
Joined: January 30, 2015
Posts: 149
Likes: 1
From: Greenville, SC
Carbon Fiber runs about $20.00 a pound. That's before Ford or the supplier for Ford gets their hands on it.
It is more rigid than steel, but unlike steel, it can shatter where steel will bend to some degree.
It's simply a cost savings measure I think. The good news is, Carbon Fiber used to run about $150.00 a pound, so the price has come down on it quite a bit over the years. Though retailers still charge an arm and a leg for it.
It is more rigid than steel, but unlike steel, it can shatter where steel will bend to some degree.
It's simply a cost savings measure I think. The good news is, Carbon Fiber used to run about $150.00 a pound, so the price has come down on it quite a bit over the years. Though retailers still charge an arm and a leg for it.
Last edited by CriticalmassGT; 2/11/15 at 09:08 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post