Original 64 owner- took a good look at my disassembled parts and they are both Spicer and WITH Zerk fittings. What does the current Judging Guide say? Jack J.
-
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
Jack, factory U-joints had no grease fittings.New England chapter member, 63 Convert. 327/340- Chapter/Regional/national Top Flight, 72 coupe- chapter and regional Top Flight. -
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
The judging manual for 63-64 says that you are going to loose points for grease fittings. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. U-joints are available without grease fittings. If you can't find them try Volunteer Vette in Knoxville, TN.
JR
PS. Don't forget the drive shaft as it has no grease fittings.Comment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
i recently purchased non-zerk fitting u-joints from Summit. not only are they needed for ncrs judging of c-1 and c-2's, they are considerably stronger than joints drilled for zerks. ask dennis clark about the strength of zerk u-joints. mikeComment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
As Mike said the zerk joints are weak. Here is one off my 69, probably 25-30 years old now but only had 18k miles on it when it broke. It was shifting at 3k RPM getting on the highway. The car was not raced and this is a USA NAPA joint.
I really am not into judging or points so this is all I use now. The only time I had them break was when my son's 75 dead hooked at the track and sheared BOTH inner & outer LH shaft spicer solids.
Comment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
This is what I was trying to emphasize, that I am the Original owner of this 64. The flanges are deeply corroded but I assume they are Spicer flanges while the attached u-joints are Spicer WITH Zerk fittings. .??????Comment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
Gary------
The lower u-joint in your photo is THE ONE TO USE. Period. Strength and durability trumps original configuration on u-joints.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
Jack------
The fact that you are the original owner of the car is why I was stumped and didn't respond earlier. I have never seen an original C2 or C3 Corvette u-joint that was of the zerk fitting type although I believe that Spicer-branded u-joints were used on some Corvettes. I think that GM sourced these u-joints both from Spicer as well as from their own internal parts manufacturing operations.
Also, I've not seen a pre-1975 Corvette which used Spicer branded half shaft u-joint flanges. Perhaps as early as 1963 they did use some, though. However, most, if not all, 1963 used nodular cast iron half shaft flanges. I am virtually certain that these were not manufactured by Spicer. I have some NOS examples of these [none for sale] and I see no indication whatsoever of Spicer manufacture.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
Gary------
GM actually went to this type u-joint for SERVICE many years ago and there have been numerous GM part numbers over the years. The latest is GM #89059111.
Folks should note that the body of this u-joint is made from forged powder metal. This material is at least TWICE as strong as the old style forged steel. The grease seals are also far superior to the old style.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
Joe, these are the flanges. The one on the left is a Spicer flange from a midyear rolling chassis that I purchased and I will use its repaired frame and attached components. This chassis came with 4:11 rear-end so it's pure speculation if the flanges had at one time been replaced from damage. The one on the right is from my original frame with a Spicer u-joint with a Zerk fitting/opening. I do not recollect the dealership doing any drive train repairs other than a new clutch while it was under warranty or out of warranty. I have to totally agree with you that the flanges by themselves, are two different configurations. Jack J.
Comment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
Jack-------
The flange on the left is a GM #360913 which was manufactured by Spicer. These were used in PRODUCTION for 1975-80 Corvettes and became SERVICE for 63-74 in the mid 70's. The same flange was also sold through Spicer dealers. There's no way in the world that this flange could have been originally installed on a 1963 Corvette.
I can't really tell about the flange on the right. It's either the nodular iron GM #3832048 used for most, if not all, 1963 or it might be the forged steel GM #3843018 used for 1964-74 and SERVICE for 1963. Generally, though, from what I can see it looks like the 3843018.
I don't think the u-joint installed in the flange is original, primarily because it's the zerk type. However, I could not absolutely rule it out as GM did some "funny things" during 1963. The fact that it's a Spicer u-joint, itself, does not rule out that it was originally used as, as I mentioned, Spicer u-joints were originally used on some Corvettes.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
Did the factory installed U-joints have a Chevrolet bowtie as shown in the photo below?
Comment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
Here are a few originals (I believe) Consistently see the bow tie on these and a part number.
These are 2 drive shaft and 1 half shaft. Just did not save more on half shafts which are still on my 64.Comment
-
Re: Spicer flanges and u-joints
Dave------
Yes, some originals did have the "Bowtie" on them. These were u-joints that were manufactured by GM internal parts manufacturing operations. So, why the "Bowtie"? Here's what I think the reason is: at the time that these u-joints were manufactured, most of GM's casting operations and all of their forging operations were part of the Chevrolet Division. These u-joint bodies were forged, probably at the then Chevrolet Tonawanda Forge, the then Chevrolet Detroit Forge or Chevrolet-Buffalo. That's what I believe the "Bowtie" signifies. The machining and assembly of the u-joints was probably done by the New Departure-Hyatt Division or, possibly, another GM parts manufacturing division.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
Comment