How likely is it for a 200-4R to be the cause of a vibration problem?

I was chasing an out of balance issue myself some time ago. Was very frustrating and time consuming, but eventually did find out (through the process of elimination) just what the problem was.

Had all wheels road force balanced....it did help somewhat , but did not eliminate the vibrations which started around 65mph.

Had the tail shaft bushing replaced (with engine in the car) as I felt there was too much free play in the output shaft. Didn't eliminate the vibration though.

I finally decided to have my drive shaft checked and re-balanced.
Took it to a drive shaft shop and low and behold found out what I've been chasing my tail on for the past few seasons.

1) front U joint was not centred in the slip yoke
2) drive shaft had a slight bend to it (which was carefully straightened in a hydraulic press)
3) installed new HD Spicer (non greasable) U joints.

No more vibrations!
 
I had a similar experience with a slight vibration. Had the driveshaft balanced and they found one of the yokes was not square to the tube. Also had the solid Spicer U joints put in at the same time.
 
Ttype6
Let me go back a few posts The problem really became noticeable when we changed from a 7.5 rear end with a 3.42 To an 8.5 from a Grand National with a 3.90 gear set , everything was new except the housing, carrier,Rear yoke and axles,The drive shaft from the donor car was rusted badly so a new Strange heavy duty unit was ordered with 1350 spicer grease less ujoints the rear is a conversion ujoint.
After the swap there was a very noticeable vibration starting around 50-55 mph at which time tires were road force balanced Brake drums were checked axles were checked. Finally the stock drive shaft was installed and the vibration seemed to go away. only difference between the old drive shaft and the new was the new had noticeably more play at the transmission. A spare output was chucked in my lathe and both drive shafts were checked for runout the new strange unit bottomed out my indicator, the old stock had I don't remember exactly but it was less than .030 Strange was notified and they sent a different yoke. All was well until she started running up and down the expressway at which time she said Hey my car still vibrates just doesn't start till 65-70- now.
So were back at it. And this time around it makes no difference what drive shaft,new or old changed ring n pinions and all bearings, does it without tires without drums. I haven't had the car here to try some of the Ideas that have been brought up as the Daughters been on vacation and she lives a ways away.
In short both statements are true! At this time.
A member of another forum is loaning me the tool to change the rear bushing.
Also Phil's transmission in Clio,Mi has the tool and for what I thought a reasonable price will do it if the other falls through
Thanks
Mike
 
So, if this problem only started after you did the rear end upgrade and drive shaft upgrade then your problem is somewhere in the new parts you installed.

You seem to have gone thru a lot of trouble shooting in areas that were not touched and were vibration free before the upgrades.

You should have just trouble shot the upgrades.

Now, since you’ve touch many different areas, you’ll never be sure which component is the culprit.

To me, from what i’ve read, it appears the rear end is the culprit.

D
 
Kawaiikeno said:
Ttype6
Let me go back a few posts The problem really became noticeable when we changed from a 7.5 rear end with a 3.42 To an 8.5 from a Grand National with a 3.90 gear set , everything was new except the housing, carrier,Rear yoke and axles,The drive shaft from the donor car was rusted badly so a new Strange heavy duty unit was ordered with 1350 spicer grease less ujoints the rear is a conversion ujoint.
After the swap there was a very noticeable vibration starting around 50-55 mph at which time tires were road force balanced Brake drums were checked axles were checked. Finally the stock drive shaft was installed and the vibration seemed to go away. only difference between the old drive shaft and the new was the new had noticeably more play at the transmission. A spare output was chucked in my lathe and both drive shafts were checked for runout the new strange unit bottomed out my indicator, the old stock had I don't remember exactly but it was less than .030 Strange was notified and they sent a different yoke. All was well until she started running up and down the expressway at which time she said Hey my car still vibrates just doesn't start till 65-70- now.
So were back at it. And this time around it makes no difference what drive shaft,new or old changed ring n pinions and all bearings, does it without tires without drums. I haven't had the car here to try some of the Ideas that have been brought up as the Daughters been on vacation and she lives a ways away.
In short both statements are true! At this time.
A member of another forum is loaning me the tool to change the rear bushing.
Also Phil's transmission in Clio,Mi has the tool and for what I thought a reasonable price will do it if the other falls through
Thanks
Mike
Click to expand...
Explain to us how you set your pinion angle.
 
Hi All
First of all I'd like to thank everyone for the ideas. I'll try and respond in order.
Evil
I've tried to be careful not to claim that it started with the rear end change it very well could be that the difference in drive shaft speed between a 3.42 and a 3.90 or 4.10 brought the speed at which the vibration occurs down enough to be more apparent.
Pronto
A 4 wheel alignment was done and all that was off was the thrust angle which showed up as rear toe +.4 on the left -.37 on the right Camber was -.3 on the left -,1 on the right, adjustable rear control arms were used to correct both the thrust and pinion angle.
Ttype 6
Both the motor and transmission were updated a few years before at the time headers were added, when we went to hook up the column linkage for the prndl indicator the headers interfered so the lower trans mount was lowered 1/2"
Angles were measured two different ways first a digital angle finder was used to measure the angle at the harmonic balancer this angle was 3.5 deg down from front to back, drive shaft was measured the same way at 2 deg front to back,pinon was measured by removing the drive shaft and reading off the yoke face measured front to back at 2.5 deg down. For a front ujoint angle of 1.5 and a rear of .5 which is a difference of 1 deg right at the supposed limit.
second method was a kent moore tool that just compared ujoint angles but the cross member had to be removed for this gage to fit,every attempt was made to put the transmission where it would sit if the cross member was installed this gage doesn't give true values rather is used to calculate ujoint angle both methods gave the same results. all measurements taken with full weight on the suspension as close to level ground as possible.
Thanks Mike
 
Kawaiikeno said:
Hi All
First of all I'd like to thank everyone for the ideas. I'll try and respond in order.
Evil
I've tried to be careful not to claim that it started with the rear end change it very well could be that the difference in drive shaft speed between a 3.42 and a 3.90 or 4.10 brought the speed at which the vibration occurs down enough to be more apparent.
Pronto
A 4 wheel alignment was done and all that was off was the thrust angle which showed up as rear toe +.4 on the left -.37 on the right Camber was -.3 on the left -,1 on the right, adjustable rear control arms were used to correct both the thrust and pinion angle.
Ttype 6
Both the motor and transmission were updated a few years before at the time headers were added, when we went to hook up the column linkage for the prndl indicator the headers interfered so the lower trans mount was lowered 1/2"
Angles were measured two different ways first a digital angle finder was used to measure the angle at the harmonic balancer this angle was 3.5 deg down from front to back, drive shaft was measured the same way at 2 deg front to back,pinon was measured by removing the drive shaft and reading off the yoke face measured front to back at 2.5 deg down. For a front ujoint angle of 1.5 and a rear of .5 which is a difference of 1 deg right at the supposed limit.
second method was a kent moore tool that just compared ujoint angles but the cross member had to be removed for this gage to fit,every attempt was made to put the transmission where it would sit if the cross member was installed this gage doesn't give true values rather is used to calculate ujoint angle both methods gave the same results. all measurements taken with full weight on the suspension as close to level ground as possible.
Thanks Mike
Click to expand...
Based on what you have written here,your pinion angle is 1 degree down. There's nothing wrong with that and in fact I wouldn't change it because when you accelerate,your pinion will rotate upward. If you have stock control arm bushings,the pinion will probably move to zero pinion angle and continue past that to an upward pinion angle. It's not enough to cause a noticeable vibration. There is no need to ever look at u-joint angles. You only need to know the angle of the output shaft of the transmission which is the same as the crankshaft and the angle of the pinion.
 
Thanks
The uppers arms have poly at rhe frame and roto joints at the axle
poly both on the lowers
pinion angle is now set to match transmission
a few angles were tried and actually you couldn't tell the difference
thanks Mike
 
but the two angles should mirror each other for vibration free operation. ( one is +1 other is -1 ) they cancel out each others oscillation.

Yea I'm thinking I don't agree with that statement.
My understanding is that they should be parallel to each other.
one example being http://www.4xshaft.com/driveline101.asp
on a drag car it is practice to run the pinion down a little so under power it rotates up
But lately I've wrong a lot.
Thanks Mike
 
but the two angles should mirror each other for vibration free operation. ( one is +1 other is -1 ) they cancel out each others oscillation.
Kawaiikeno said:
but the two angles should mirror each other for vibration free operation. ( one is +1 other is -1 ) they cancel out each others oscillation.

Yea I'm thinking I don't agree with that statement.
My understanding is that they should be parallel to each other.
one example being http://www.4xshaft.com/driveline101.asp
on a drag car it is practice to run the pinion down a little so under power it rotates up
But lately I've wrong a lot.
Thanks Mike
Click to expand...
We're saying the same thing I think
Did you look at the pic I posted in link?
 
Kawaiikeno said:
but the two angles should mirror each other for vibration free operation. ( one is +1 other is -1 ) they cancel out each others oscillation.

Yea I'm thinking I don't agree with that statement.
My understanding is that they should be parallel to each other.
one example being http://www.4xshaft.com/driveline101.asp
on a drag car it is practice to run the pinion down a little so under power it rotates up
But lately I've wrong a lot.
Thanks Mike
Click to expand...
You are correct.
 
No disintegrations said:
but the two angles should mirror each other for vibration free operation. ( one is +1 other is -1 ) they cancel out each others oscillation.

We're saying the same thing I think
Did you look at the pic I posted in link?
Click to expand...
You are saying the same thing. As long as the two shafts
(output and pinion) are parallel,the two u-joint angles will mirror each other.
 
It's all good.
I now have several things to check out. just have to find the time to do it.
I've often heard retired people say the don't know how they ever found time to do anything.
Now I can verify that
Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Two cars for the price of one!
Replies
3
Views
915
rking
R
L
Driveline Vibration - Possible worn slip yoke?
Replies
3
Views
2K
2quiktocare
2
R
It Was One of Those Days - Pt VII
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Quiky One
Q
R
It Was One of Those Days - Part XIX
Replies
5
Views
2K
Quiky One
Q
M
200-4R OD Problem(long)
Replies
4
Views
510
MR_PINK
M
Top