Chevy Nova Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Premium Member
1965 2door HT Helena, GA 31037
Joined
·
1,581 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My '65 driveshaft is very rusted and I have a chance to pick up a very decent '62 driveshaft for a bargain. Does anyone know if the '62 material is thinner due to only having a 4 & 6 banger available that year?

Happy Thanksgiving to all and please be safe!

Sam
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,013 Posts
I used the driveshaft from a Vega in my 11-sec daily driver 67 coupe. The tube isn't the weak link, it's the u-joints.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,645 Posts
I used the driveshaft from a Vega in my 11-sec daily driver 67 coupe. The tube isn't the weak link, it's the u-joints.
Mike is correct as usual. Lol. That older steel is very dense compared to what’s around these days. I run the stock driveshaft in my 66. Many 10 second passes with no issues. I run a solid u-joint (no hollow cavity like a greasable joint).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,121 Posts
I used the driveshaft from a Vega in my 11-sec daily driver 67 coupe. The tube isn't the weak link, it's the u-joints.
I agree


Mike is correct as usual. Lol. That older steel is very dense compared to what’s around these days. I run the stock driveshaft in my 66. Many 10 second passes with no issues. I run a solid u-joint (no hollow cavity like a greasable joint).
Yeap, hardly anybody ever greases a u-joint after install anyways. I run the solid, just put some grease in the cups first is all. I did have a new driveshaft made for mine for the correct length.
 

·
Premium Member
1965 2door HT Helena, GA 31037
Joined
·
1,581 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I guess I should have added more info with the thread. Even though I will be running a SBC 350 it will be a daily driver and will never see the track. The most torque it will see will be during normal acceleration. I'm looking at maybe a 350hp tops engine not a 1000hp one.

My concern is with the thickness of the walls in the tubes. The '65 and the '62 look identical except for one thing. The '62 is 1/4" shorter from the front U-joint to rear U-joint but I wouldn't think that would make a whole lot of difference due to the yoke sliding in the rear of the tranny.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,123 Posts
I hadn't heard that '62-'67 Chevy IIs in stock or near stock trim had troubles with weak driveshafts. I'm referring to SBC to 350 HP. Anything rusty or neglected would be a problem but I've had a few V-8s at that power level with stock driveshafts, one I drove for nearly 100K. No issues.

I will say that the driveshaft on my '65 was different. A different driveshaft part number is shown for 1965 for 6 cylinder cars, but I'm not certain what the difference is. My '65 wagon had a stock driveshaft, the one that I believe came with the car, that had two diameters, slightly larger for the rear 2/3 of the length, and slightly smaller for the front 1/3. I've always wondered about that in other years with V-8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,121 Posts
The '62 is 1/4" shorter from the front U-joint to rear U-joint but I wouldn't think that would make a whole lot of difference due to the yoke sliding in the rear of the tranny.
1/4" shouldn't hurt you. Typically I look for abut 3/4" of yoke sticking out with the rear suspension loaded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,601 Posts
I just had my sons 67 C10, 2 pc driveshaft shortened, new steel non grease able joints (3), carrier bearing installed and balanced for his muncie trans.
I asked about the DS condition and he told me the old tube is much better then the newer stuff. It can be straighten'ed shortened etc better then later stuff.

A lot of things come into play for a driveshaft to come apart.
Driveshaft critical speed is one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
Whether you trust it or not, wall thickness should have been 0.063".









...Which is the same as V8 cars through at least '74.
Whether or not the material was the same, or SS cars used the same, I have no idea. That's beyond my level of education. (No expertise. Just education.)
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top