What do you guys think? my little brother installed one i his mach 1 a couple of years ago and got 17h.p. to the wheels. the car felt like it had gears! i think this mod will be great because there is no tunning needed.

I know a shop in n. florida that makes them, i can't remember the name but i'll find it.


Who's intrested?

Can c/f truly handle that kind of torque?

What do you guys think? my little brother installed one i his mach 1 a couple of years ago and got 17h.p. to the wheels. the car felt like it had gears! i think this mod will be great because there is no tunning needed.

I know a shop in n. florida that makes them, i can't remember the name but i'll find it.


Who's intrested?

You're probably thinking of PST.

Yes CF driveshafts can be extremely strong, easily holding over 1000HP. They are also very expensive. Overall a lightweight DS wouldn't be a bad modification at all, but it's not going to net 17rw. In reality the motor isn't going to make any more HP/TQ than it did before, it just has less of its own mass to overcome (remember a motor has to accelerate the sum of its parts including driveline mass before a single HP available for vehicle propulsion is produced) which allows the dyno (which measures how fast a motor/car accelerates a known mass or an ebrake) to think it's making more power when it's really not.
A 17rwhp gain from a lightweight DS isn't going to happen unless the stocker was made of solid lead. You're eliminating some rotating mass, but not nearly enough to equate to 17rwhp. CF DSs for SN95 stangs typically weigh 13-14lbs, vs. 14-15lbs for aluminum and 28lbs for a stocker. Another advantage to CF is if it breaks you don't need a driveshaft loop to save you since it just disintegrates upon contact with the pavement.
Would I be interested in a group purchase on one? Sure. Who knows it may further eliminate some NVH from our drivelines because of superior balancing.

You're probably thinking of PST.
A 17rwhp gain from a lightweight DS isn't going to happen unless the stocker was made of solid lead. You're eliminating some rotating mass, but not nearly enough to equate to 17rwhp. CF DSs for SN95 stangs typically weigh 13-14lbs, vs. 14-15lbs for aluminum and 28lbs for a stocker. Another advantage to CF is if it breaks you don't need a driveshaft loop to save you since it just disintegrates upon contact with the pavement.
Yes CF driveshafts can be extremely strong, easily holding over 1000HP. They are also very expensive. Overall a lightweight DS wouldn't be a bad modification at all, but it's not going to net 17rw.

I absolutely agree that no way in H E double hockey sticks is a driveshaft change going net 17rwhp. As a rotating component with zero windage, it just isn't going to happen. If it were a reciprocating component, I could see a slight gain, depending on size, but not a rotating one. In a driveshaft application, even a switch from an extremely dense material to a very light one will not change the polar moment of inertia enough to be significant.

I have been working with carbon fiber in various aircraft "composite" structures and components for years (I was a certified NDT Inspector for Delta Air Lines, too), and it can be used to make some seriously strong and light parts. When used with other materials like Kevlar or fiberglass, you can increase impact and errosion resistance properties, but the biggest problem is that when composite components fail under load, they tend to fail catastrophically. No getting bent or dented like metallic parts. Remember the Airbus that went down in New York right after 9/11? Composite structure failure due to excessive loading.

As far as needing a driveshaft loop, I don't know about that. I would bet that the AHRA & NHRA would require one wherever their rules stipulate, irrespective of what material the driveshaft was made from.

This is a great read. I just learned a whole lot. Cool!

yeah sorry but i wish i had the dyno sheets to prove it but i don't. the car had a procharger and we did get 17 to the wheels. MM&FF did the same test w/ similar results. i am in no way saying that we can gain as much because i really haven't seen our driveshafts.
Moreover, you really won't "gain" any h.p. but you are freeing up the h.p. that is lost due to a heavy drivetrain.
again if i had my bro's dyno sheet i would've been more than happy to bet my nuts on the gains of using a CF driveshaft.;)

Nice posts, good info, no inflamatory or abrasive insults,WOW. Things could be looking up, but I would not bet YOUR nuts on it.:D

To reap any significant benefit we'd have to have 2 custom-made CF Driveshafts. Probably close to $2K to start.

We may be better off going with aluminum since it's almost as light and much cheaper. There are several shops we can contact, D&D Performance is at the top of my list, that should be able to hand out estimates no problem.
I've dealt with Don Walsh quite a bit in the past pertaining to Mustangs/parts, if we can get enough serious interest generated (10 or more I'd guess) I'll give him a call.

I remember the feeling from my butt-o-meter after putting an aluminum driveshaft in my '94 GT. I could seriously feel it pulling better, especially in the higher gear. I wouldn't be surprised with 10whp being freed up, but 17 it a little hard to swallow. That's cool, if it's true.

Correct me if I am wrong, the rear drive shaft is aluminum. Thought I was losing my mind so I went and checked.

Correct me if I am wrong, the rear drive shaft is aluminum. Thought I was losing my mind so I went and checked.

you sir are correct. it's also balanced.
________
Buy herbalaire vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/herbalaire-vaporizer)

you sir are correct. it's also balanced.

Just because it's aluminum and balanced (all factory driveshafts are) doesn't mean it's of the same quality as an aftermarket shaft.
The type of Al and the thickness used can vary quite a bit as can the diameter. Also, perhaps more importantly the factory shafts are balanced to within a certain specification. Aftermarket shafts are always held to a higher standard in this regard. Indexing your stock driveshaft always helps reduce NVH after a gear install, but not as much as a quality aftermarket piece.

I remember the feeling from my butt-o-meter after putting an aluminum driveshaft in my '94 GT. I could seriously feel it pulling better, especially in the higher gear. I wouldn't be surprised with 10whp being freed up, but 17 it a little hard to swallow. That's cool, if it's true.


I felt (SOTP wise) the difference an aluminum flywheel made vs my old billet steel piece (13 vs. 28lbs). The car pulled harder everywhere in the band, and I saw a .15-.2 reduction (weather corrected) in the quarter. I felt nothing when I went with an aluminum shaft, and the timing equipment at the strip said the same.

OK, I am certainly not an expert here, and the possibility does exist that a measureable hp gain can be made by lightening the driveshaft. Flywheels have a relatively high moment of inertia due to their high weight and large diameter. A lightweight flywheel will have a significant effect on hp because of a relatively much lower moment of inertia (Moment = weight x distance from the axis of rotation).

Considering that horsepower is a calculation, not a measurement, of work over time, (hp=(tq x RPM) / 5252) the quicker you can get an engine to rev, the more horsepower you can make. With a lighter driveshaft, I can see a benefit in suspension action by reducing unsprung weight (weight of the suspension and the components attatched to it), but I'm just skeptical that a gain of that much hp can be had by swapping driveshafts. What is the weight difference between the two shafts? I think it would need to be a dramatic difference, depending on the diameter of the shafts. I'm sure I could come up with a calculation for all this if I had the weights and dimensions of the shafts, but I really don't want to work that hard. Besides, I'm thinking there are some other factors involved in getting that 17rwhp gain (temp, barometric pressure, relative humidity, accuracy of the dyno, etc.)

By the way, I miss-spoke earlier in reference to "polar moments". That term describes an objects resitance to a torsional, or twisting force. The polar moment of inertia must not be confused with the moment of inertia, which characterizes an object's angular acceleration due to torque. Oops!

I have to stop now; my brain hurts!!!:p

Mine too, good read , thanks for the physics refresher. In this case I would have to agree with you.:)

interesting read

I have one for my 93 3000GT VR4. These are a mod everyone wants to get as they tighten up the entire drivetrain, give better throttle response and are easier on our fragile transfer cases. My stoke 3 piece steel DS weighed ~45 pounds and the one piece CFDS weighs only 17. I dont have figures but alot of people say their Butt-Dyno feels an improvement :)

I dont know the JGC driveline setup, but if they are 1 piece Al, you might not get much gains out of this, but if it is steel, or multi piece, these should help. All carrier bearings create extra weight and frictional looses.

A few people have had vibration issues at high speeds due to harmonics as these things can get long, but some have been solved by rotating the shaft 90 degs at a time until its gone. I have heard of one breaking on our forum and it was believed to be caused by faulty deisgn and not power overload.

PST makes a great product as does ACPT (mine). You all should harp on Matt from Dynamic Racing to have htem made for JGC. He sells ACPT (~$1100) on his wesite for 3000GT's and has a little writeup about them you can read.

Wow! A 28 pound weight difference??? I can see that making a difference, for sure. 45 pounds for a driveshaft seems like a LOT for a passenger car.

Thanks for the info!

Wow! A 28 pound weight difference??? I can see that making a difference, for sure. 45 pounds for a driveshaft seems like a LOT for a passenger car.

Thanks for the info!


S197 Mustangs also have a 45lb+ 2 piece driveshaft.