HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

I just took a look on youtube. It looks like the v6 driveshafts even bust on the dyno.....that really sucks.

1CAMWNDR

iTrader: (21)

Why the hell are they using a 2 piece dirveshaft? I thought those were only used on 4X4s with a 14 foot lift or the delivery truck.

2002_Z28_Six_Speed

iTrader: (19)

Even my car has a two piece DS. You can use a smaller two piece DS in place of a larger one piece to deal with space restrictions.

thunderstruck507

iTrader: (18)

I suggest some of the people in this thread do some research on driveshafts before you learn the hard way.

At certain RPMs the shafts will deflect and eventually blow out in the middle, happened to my car on the dyno. It has to do with RPM, material used, material diameter, material weight, and length of the shaft. A driveshaft safety loop if installed properly will be towards the front of the car, which is to prevent catapault like behavior from U-joint failure. A driveshaft broken in the middle from over RPM'ing will still tear a bunch of **** up.

My driveshaft is 56" long, it needed to either be lighter aluminum or larger diameter and stronger to be able to handle over 5600rpm (in 1:1 gear). I went from the stock junk to a high speed balanced 3.5" diameter chromoly steel unit to remedy the situation.

Another option is a 2 piece shaft since the result is 2 shorter shafts which can be smaller diameter.

Wolfsblut

Regarding
That's all fine, but was there any information from Ford "Our driveshafts only hold up to 130 mph"? I mean, a tire check is easy.
If such infos officially exist, than it's all the owners fault (but still a cheap move).

And yeah, I still think it's a very cheap move from Ford to install a weak driveshaft, because they're advertising the Mustang like it's the best thing since sliced bread...........and it can't do 130mph without losing a critical drivetrain component?
We're in 2011. 130 mph should be a joke for a V6. A 3.8 F-body had a higher limited top speed than 112 (I believe it was 113?) and the 5th gen V6 has a 155mph limiter...

Tainted

iTrader: (9)

And so by that logic GM should have used a better rear in fbody cars

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

Pretty silly in modern times for sure. No component should fail within that capabilities of the vehicles power to weight ratio. That is just poor engineering.

Wolfsblut

Yes, they should have!

/edit: But it's too late to fix the F-bodys, but Ford still can fix the Mustang driveshaft.

thunderstruck507

iTrader: (18)

The piece of **** aluminum driveshafts in 4th gens were marginally better. This is nothing new.

I wouldn't want to do 120 in a f body with the stock driveshaft.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

I did 160+ on my stock ds.....hell I did well over 120mph on the stock ds in the 1/4.

MeentSS02

iTrader: (11)

Look up "driveshaft critical speed"...that will explain the two shorter shafts.

thunderstruck507

iTrader: (18)

Not saying it can't be done, saying I personally would not. I've seen 2 bust in person and I've yet to ride in an fbody with one that isn't at least slightly out of balance or bent causing vibration. Seeing how flimsy they are upon inspecting a broken one doesn't add to the faith either.

A good driveshaft is ~$200 and is worth it IMO. Everyone else can carry on as they wish.



First time you see a car blow out a shaft at the track or on the dyno you might be less confident in trusting a soda can stuffed with a toilet paper roll with your life.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Fixed.

I added "in the manual cars" because the stock 10 bolt (especially the Series II/3.23 geared cars) is perfectly fine in the 4L60 automatics until one goes REALLY fast or shoots too much nitrous, possibly well into the 10s without breaking in most cases.

7998

iTrader: (1)

Damn that scared me and I knew it was coming. It seems these new Mustangs are paper lions. Thats a shame because I really like the 5.0 and would consider buying one but with all the problems and my history with all the Fords I owned I think I would be better off owning a mid 1970's Jaguar.

Z28Z06

iTrader: (2)

The F-body plug was probably planned to be pulled as the LS engines were being dropped in. That body was old and the original rear was made for V6's and LT-1's with a lot less power. GM was not going to retool a rear for a product that was going to be laid to rest shortly. The rear may have been one of the reasons that the intake was restricted for less power. Just my 2 cents.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

Fixed

Have to say it again, but it's pretty damn sad when their 2011 300+hp sports car is only a few MPH faster than their mid-90s 100hp 4-bangers were. Hell, I'm pretty sure the mid-late 90s V6 Mustangs did more than 112 with less than 200hp.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

weather people agree or not there were reasons why GM used a 10 bolt. from a cost and mileage standpoint it made sense. being lighter was also a reason.


ive never heard of one blowing from a high speed run however.

TransAmWS.6

The difference is that the drivetrain components on these cars were designed well over 10 years ago. With today's technology, there really is no valid excuse for a driveshaft failing at 120-130mph, especially on a performance oriented vehicle, V6 or not, it has 300hp.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

IDK, there wasn't really any problems with the F-bodys stock drive-shaft. When do they usually break? 450-500whp, and slicks? That's not bad out of a car that came with 350hp stock. That said, I do run a drive-shaft loop on mine, but I think anyone (with any car) that could benefit from one should. Surprised Ford doesn't have something on them to keep this from happening. I would think that by now there are some safety rules on drive-shafts, considering how easily someone could get killed by a loose drive-shaft flying through the floor.

Z28Z06

iTrader: (2)

Yeah, I'm thinking 20 years ago in the case of a F-body rear. Its not very often that you hear of a driveshaft failing on a brand new vehicle, kinda odd.