Torque Steer

[badandy]

Okay guys...poll time...

Is your car running equal length driveshafts or have you converted it to unequal length?...and if so what was your reason? Did your car have more or less torque steer with the equal length?...if converted did it have more or less torque steer?

[MiniMopar]

You need a 3rd option: made no difference.

[turbovanman²]

I have tried both back to back, using poly everything, unequal had more TS. Haven't tried this with my OBX.

[badandy]

You need a 3rd option: made no difference.

Yeah, you're right! I don't think I can go back and edit it?

[minigts]

no difference for me, I have equal length

[RoadWarrior222]

I used to feel torque steer on my '88 3.0 voyager under hard acceleration, with unequal length, but since I swapped in a shortie driveshaft that had the damper/balancer weight on it, I haven't. Guess it doesn't mean it won't come back when I make more power...

[moparzrule]

You also need a clause that says if you haven't tried both than don't vote.

[badandy]

You also need a clause that says if you haven't tried both than don't vote.

I'm sure those that answer will be doing so from experience :nod:

[moparzrule]

I'm sure those that answer will be doing so from experience :nod:

No necessarily. Somebody might think ''well I have equal (or unequal) and I have torque steer, I'll vote for that''. And vise versa.
I understand that you tried to come across by the title that only those that have tried it should vote, but just in case you need to say it.

[86Shelby]

It made no difference on my GLHS. Brand new Mopar control arm bushings with the alignment dead nuts on for the toe. I had to swap because I broke the i-shaft.

I found from aligning the car every couple months that the toe setting had much more effect than I thought it would. If one side was more than +-.03* away from perfect it would have noticeable torque steer which only got worse the further out it was, with it correct +- .01* there was none.

[WVRampage]

I had the equal set up on my rampage with the 2.5 and the auto and I had some torque steer,When I swapped in the 523 I end unequal due to the availibility of the shafts and have some but at the track with the drag radials on it doesnt realy have that much at all so I will have to go with made no difference.Now I do think having the battery mounted on the pass side and new poly bushings in the front end does make a difference.Also I have a power rack with the lines off so it is a little hard to steer and you get aot of feed back and with the little grant wheel there are no issues holding the wheel at the track with a hard launch.

[mcsvt]

I have about the same torque steer. Went from equal to unequal. The only time it's bad is when I get on it and the road has a lot of ruts, then I have to make sure the lanes next to me are clear.

[2.216VTurbo]

Equal length on the Rampage, front suspension is flat wore out!:( Zero torque steer.:confused2: The TC has equal lengthand the torque steer is pretty bad. The GLHS has equal length, energy suspension bushings, recently aligned and the torque steer is so bad it will put you into the curb if you are not ready for the hit:o Maybe there is something to the toe measurement, don't remember what it was set at...

[Pat]

Tried both, no difference in torque steer.

[cordes]

i voted for equal length having more, but in reality it doesn't make a difference. My shadow had no difference, but in my omni the unequal length was better. However the trans mount on the omni was messed up and I fixed that at the same time so that isn't really fair.

[boost geek]

Iv'e had two Shelby Chargers, both unequal length, one with an OBX. The one without the OBX would almost change lanes at 17 psi, the OBX almost eliminates torque steer. I havent had high boost on equal length, so I wont vote.

[Shelbydaytona91]

No torque steer on my Daytona really, sometimes a tiny bit when I power brake a launch at ~14 psi. That's using unequal, with a little bit of an aggressive alignment. Maybe it's because I don't have enough torque to steer it though :lol: I haven't tried equal length though.

[BadAssPerformance]

Yeah, you're right! I don't think I can go back and edit it?

Edited :thumb:

And my $0.022 torque steer has more to do with suspension/steering alignment than axles.

[contraption22]

I have always run unequal. And I've never broken an intermediate shaft! Coincidence!?

[Turbo3Iroc]

I have had both in my car and I didn't see a difference.

[moparzrule]

I counted like 5 people that said it made no difference, yet only 1 vote for that in the poll...???

[t3rse]

unequal: over a certain power level torque steer is life, so deal with it. if you don't want torque steer, get a RWD car.

[badandy]

Edited :thumb:

And my $0.022 torque steer has more to do with suspension/steering alignment than axles.

I agree 100%...but the I will say that know for a fact that equal length setups do reduce torque steer over unequal length everything else being properly setup on a stock vehicle.

The debate was why do those of us that change from equal length to unequal length do so in the first place? My opinion is that we do so for durability...everyone I know does so for this reason...so maybe the poll should really be did you swap to unequal length for durability sake or to reduce torque steer...as Matt suggested was the reason he and all of his friends made the swap and in the process eliminated torque steer.

My 2 cents says that once the power level has been increased to a certain level it doesn't make a bit of difference what the axle configuration is.

[moparzrule]

My 2 cents says that once the power level has been increased to a certain level it doesn't make a bit of difference what the axle configuration is.

What exactly is that level then? My daytona had 300 WHP...

[ottawa rogue]

I'd have to say it makes no difference....in my car at least.
i had the equal length setup with the auto, and when i went 5 speed, i went unequal length.
My car is stock though, more HP might make a difference

[minigts]

I would think more horsepower, posi-trac and engine alignment would make a lot of difference, not to mention the additional piece to make the drive shafts equal. All of those factors will probably have an impact on torquesteer, I believe. :D However, it seems as though if all of those factors were in the equation and the engine was properly centered, torque steer would be nominal on either setup, but my degree is in Sales and Marketing, with a minor in wasting time in college. ;)

[MiniMopar]

Proper alignment of suspension and drive train has more effect on torque steers than the axle type. For a car with geometry problems, the equal length setup will probably keep torque steer in check better than the unequal setup. I use both setups and the results are inconclusive.

Both cars now run LSDs (more accurately TBDs), which should further reduce the impact of which axle setup I use. The CSX (equal) has more torque steer than the Daytona (unequal). The CSX needs a front end alignment bad, so is probably the reason there.

[badandy]

What exactly is that level then? My daytona had 300 WHP...
I'm not positive as there are too many variables with all the different combinations possible. The only time I was at that power level was with my Daytona at the drag strip on slicks (with equal length) on an automatic car.

I'm will say this...and then I'm just going to peace out on this one:nod:

Torque steer is an industry wide known condition with FWD vehicles. You can properly setup a FWD car all you want to. Because "your car" doesn't torque steer (so you say) you feel that everyone else's issue must be improper setup and I'm telling you that may be some of it...but the inherent design of FWD lends itself to torque steer no matter what you do...now is it manageable?...well certainly...but it still exists. Things like torsen diffs and equal length driveshaft setups and traction control try to dull down the situation and make it less noticeable...and some do a great job even...but it's still there unless your power level is next to nothing.

Get in your car on level pavement....set the steering wheel straight and let it go...now accelerate and don't touch the steering wheel...see what happens:eyebrows: I guarantee that once boost comes on and the power increases the steering wheel will tug one way or the other...now your car is steering itself right?...why?...could it be because of torque?....if you only had 100 H.P. would the results be less...I bet it would...if you double your power level will the results be more?...once again I bet it would...no matter how well your car is setup.

I know I could get in my Ram and set the steering wheel straight and give it gas and it would go straight as an arrow...why?...well duh!

So, if your FWD car does not do this and makes 300 HP you need to go be an engineer designing FWD drivetrains...because you just solved an issue that current engineers have been working on ever since FWD was invented.

[MiniMopar]

As far as front end alignment goes, torque steer is directly impacted by castor. Unfortunately, so is the ability to turn the car at all. :p

[turbovanman²]

If equal length driveshaft setups didn't work, why would most, if not all manufacterers waste money on making them and install them????

Maybe it affects the van more due to axle length. I have 0 toe and 3/4 camber. Stock castor of course, :eyebrows:

[minigts]

Yeah, I'm running a -.02+/coefficient of Pi with a 2+ offset on my shoe in. I have ZERO torque steer. Respond to THAT.

[badandy]

Yeah, I'm running a -.02+/coefficient of Pi with a 2+ offset on my shoe in. I have ZERO torque steer. Respond to THAT.
:lol::clap: too funny!

[moparzrule]

If equal length driveshaft setups didn't work, why would most, if not all manufacterers waste money on making them and install them????

Maybe it affects the van more due to axle length. I have 0 toe and 3/4 camber. Stock castor of course, :eyebrows:

Because it's cheaper to make it that way, why else do manufacturers do changes?

[turbovanman²]

Because it's cheaper to make it that way, why else do manufacturers do changes?

Its not cheaper to make an equal length setup, its way more expensive.

Compare-

Equal length parts-

Sub/jack shaft
U-joint
Bearing assembly
Mounting bracket assembly
R@D for all of that
Possibly 2 different axles as in the case of a 99 Sienna I worked on with equal length.

Unequal length-

One short driveshaft.
One long driveshaft.

[RoadWarrior222]

I would imagine that torque steer will feel worse in vehicles with a wider track to wheelbase ratio also, such as the Omnis.

[ssheen]

Do not forget that the engine mounts can effect torque steer as well. The FSM even points out that the spacers under the passenger mount were there to lessen torque steer. Effects how much weight is over what wheel.

[BadAssPerformance]

I agree 100%...but the I will say that know for a fact that equal length setups do reduce torque steer over unequal length everything else being properly setup on a stock vehicle.

The debate was why do those of us that change from equal length to unequal length do so in the first place? My opinion is that we do so for durability...everyone I know does so for this reason...so maybe the poll should really be did you swap to unequal length for durability sake or to reduce torque steer...as Matt suggested was the reason he and all of his friends made the swap and in the process eliminated torque steer.

My 2 cents says that once the power level has been increased to a certain level it doesn't make a bit of difference what the axle configuration is.

when the power level in creases above a certain point for a given vehicle weight, the u-joint in the equal length setup becomes the weak link

http://www.badassperformance.com/mrides/z/misc/14no04_d-shaft_01.jpg
http://www.badassperformance.com/mrides/z/misc/14no04_d-shaft_02.jpg

[minigts]

I wish I had your problems... :)

[moparzrule]

That was Badandy's point for posting. He was asking if people were going to unequal for the strength of unequal or because of less torque steer. See, I was telling him that in my experiences going to unequal actually lessened torque steer on my daytona and made no difference on my shadow. So I actually swap in unequal because I have less torque steer with it, and the extra strength is just a bonus. But apparently most people have no difference in torque steer either way, so we were both wrong I guess.

[MiniMopar]

I doubt anyone is switching to the unequal setup for the sole purpose of reducing torque steer. They switch for durability reasons and most seem to find that it has no notable negative impact on torque steer. For those that may have seen a reduction in torque steer, I would argue that the cause of that was related to some other change.

[moparzrule]

Well, at the same time I switched to unequal I also swapped on a ported head and super 70 turbo along with a TU cal pushing 5 more PSI boost than I ever had before. So in essence I was making about 50+ more WHP yet had less torque steer. Yes I did switch to a mopar front mount (not a solid, MP is still rubber just stiffer than stock) and a poly side mount at the same time. But my previous mounts were in fine condition I just replaced them anyway.
I actually changed to unequal as a fluke, couldn't get the axle out of the int shaft so I went to the junkyard in search for another axle. Found the unequal out of a lebaron and since I planned on making high HP I figured why not take out the weak link.
So, in all honesty the first time I put in the unequal I was doing it for the purpose of strength and simplicity. The less torque steer was a shock because everyone told me to expect more, nevertheless that is what actually happened.
I believe that my shadow's lack of reduced torque steer with the change is because it needs an alignment badly and I also never properly centered the engine.

[Speedeuphoria]

I doubt anyone is switching to the unequal setup for the sole purpose of reducing torque steer. They switch for durability reasons and most seem to find that it has no notable negative impact on torque steer. For those that may have seen a reduction in torque steer, I would argue that the cause of that was related to some other change.


+1000:amen:

[Turbodave]

Proper alignment of suspension and drive train has more effect on torque steers than the axle type. For a car with geometry problems, the equal length setup will probably keep torque steer in check better than the unequal setup. I use both setups and the results are inconclusive.


I'm wondering if the effects are more pronounced on a car with the squishy stock engine mounts? There is a lot more movement of the drivetrain relative to the suspension with the stock mounts and this causes the CV joint angles to vary more. I'm guessing most of us have gone to poly motor mounts of some sort which keep things in check better and may have make it it less of an issue.

On the cars I've swapped over on I've noticed not much difference. But I've never thought that doing the swap would reduce torque steer. My rationale was that a long axle was a simpler setup and has less failure points, despite a negligible change in torque steer so it was still worth swapping out.

[Birddog]

I'm wondering if the effects are more pronounced on a car with the squishy stock engine mounts? There is a lot more movement of the drivetrain relative to the suspension with the stock mounts and this causes the CV joint angles to vary more. I'm guessing most of us have gone to poly motor mounts of some sort which keep things in check better and may have make it it less of an issue.

On the cars I've swapped over on I've noticed not much difference. But I've never thought that doing the swap would reduce torque steer. My rationale was that a long axle was a simpler setup and has less failure points, despite a negligible change in torque steer so it was still worth swapping out.


I was thinking along those lines, I figured my torque steer was a combo of the solid front/rear mounts and 22 year old suspension bushings.

I just went unequal because I had the parts and didn't want to wait for the equal stuff to get back from the rebuilder. Either way it still changes lanes under full boost through 3 gears.

[overlordsshadow]

1+ to what Turbo3Iroc said. That being said, road surface, tire tread, size, inflation, and engine power will all affect your traction and that, I find, will dictate how much you will feel the difference in the torque steers.

[johnl]

What's the OEM's theory?

I mean, why would a long axle on one side vs a short on the other side necessarily result in the car pulling to one side or the other? The OEM's engineers seem to think so. Must be some kind of geometry going on.

I can see how, during wheel movement up and down, the camber will change more on the short axle side than on the long axle side; that I imagine would affect the size of the short axle side's tire's footprint more than the long axle side.

Then there's the road surface - probably the most important variable. If one side catches a low spot/hole/sand and starts spinning while the other side is stays hooked up, well there we go - the hooked side pulls the car toward the weak side.

[MiniMopar]

It's true that factory used the equal length setup in turbo cars and it's clear (at least to me) that they did do it to reduce torque steer due to issues with suspension and/or driveline geometry. It's also true that Chrysler phased them out over time, at least with the automatics. My 87 T1 automatic Shadow had the equal length setup, but my uncle's 89 turbo Spirit had the unequal. Clearly they felt that it was not important enough to use on all vehicles. The 3.0L cars never had them at all as far as I know.

The subject has come up many times in the past and I do recall hear mixed feedback as to what cars had them and what cars did not. It seemed get more random after '87.

[badandy]

What's the OEM's theory?

I mean, why would a long axle on one side vs a short on the other side necessarily result in the car pulling to one side or the other? The OEM's engineers seem to think so. Must be some kind of geometry going on.

Isolating just that issue...because there is different torsional properties due to the length of the axle itself.



I can see how, during wheel movement up and down, the camber will change more on the short axle side than on the long axle side; that I imagine would affect the size of the short axle side's tire's footprint more than the long axle side.

Camber will not change. That is a function of the suspension geometry and not the driveshaft geometry



Then there's the road surface - probably the most important variable. If one side catches a low spot/hole/sand and starts spinning while the other side is stays hooked up, well there we go - the hooked side pulls the car toward the weak side.

Yes...but this affects all vehicles really...we were more concentrating on the actaul design of the drivetrain.

[The Pope]

first and second gear and spinning the tires it doesn't matter much. But as the car makes enough power to roll on the gas and spin them in third it becomes an issue. Both types at this power level will hunt for traction vilolently and it won't matter. Supension geometry changes with a lot of power because everything under there is flexing. So torque is steering by changing the direction of the front wheels and with one drive wheel. The way to get rid of torque steer, almost completely is with posi not with axle changes. An OBX is cheap and so are the poly A arm bushings. It isn't like 10-20 years ago when this stuff wasn't around and cheap. I also like to get the big 3" long heavy axle weight off of the late G bodys and add it to the driver side axle and make sure there isn't a weight on the other side. That helps a little, with an auto trans.

[johnl]

Isolating just that issue...because there is different torsional properties due to the length of the axle itself.

Good stuff Andy but I'm not visualizing it. Are you saying that the long axle is "winding up" more so that the short axle has to break traction? with the result that the long axle then starts pulling the car to the short axle side?




Camber will not change. That is a function of the suspension geometry and not the driveshaft geometry

Excellent. I stand corrected. Of course, the lower control arm controls the arc of travel.



Yes...but this affects all vehicles really...we were more concentrating on the actual design of the drivetrain.

Right again.

Most of the guys here are concerned about traction and torque steer out of the hole - drag racing. Could it be that the equal length axles contribution is most important when steering under power - road racing/slaloms/ice/dirt roads/wet pavement?

[badandy]

Good stuff Andy but I'm not visualizing it. Are you saying that the long axle is "winding up" more so that the short axle has to break traction? with the result that the long axle then starts pulling the car to the short axle side?

Yes! now if you have noticed the "long" axle shaft is also larger in circumference because it was made hollow. The objective was to mimmic the 'winding up" of the short soild shaft axle...in which it does an excellent job IMO. I mentioned earlier in this thread the FWD world learned this little trick from VW;)



Excellent. I stand corrected. Of course, the lower control arm controls the arc of travel.

not meaning to correct you at all...i just didn't want to get all confused:)



Right again.


Sweet!...I'm on a roll!...lol.



Most of the guys here are concerned about traction and torque steer out of the hole - drag racing. Could it be that the equal length axles contribution is most important when steering under power - road racing/slaloms/ice/dirt roads/wet pavement?

You know? I think you may be onto something...however to be honest I think this was touched on a little earlier in this thread...but it was in disguise;)

The open diff would have more affect on torque steer with road racing/slaloms/ice/dirt roads...and also drag racing than does driveshaft design...however I think at the time a "limited slip" type diff for front wheel drive was too expensive for production back then.

I do 100% believe that at lower power levels the equal length setup reduces the effects of torque steer...and once more power is made I really don't think either design has a advantage over the other...nor do i believe that with a "limited slip" type diff neither design would have a advantage over the other...but...what the heck do I know:p

[moparzrule]

I don't do any road racing/AutoX, I only drag race in a straight line. It certainly may be a reason why I have not experienced torque steer when converting to unequal.

[87glhs232]

I've done it both ways in my 'S and had no real difference. I'm currently running unequal length...I know what happens when an intermediate shaft lets go :yuck:

[85lebaront2]

I do know that for SCCA racing, the equal length is the desired setup, otherwise you get different steering results for each direction. We use them even for the basic Omni 4 dr (runs F-production) due to torque steer issues. The car I want to build for Improved Touring B is a Turismo 2.2 with the same package as a non-turbo Charger with the vin 8 HO engine (basic GLH engine). I will be using equal length axles on it.

[Stratman]

I've been having BAD vibration issues with the the driveline since I bought my 89 Daytona 3 weeks ago, but I have not have any problems with torque steer. Found the vibration to be in the 2 piece assembly so I removed it to install the new (unequal length) one piece axle. A very, very tiny bit a torque steer showed up under 20 psi boost and the car is so much more smooth and feels like it has quite a bit faster acceleration.
The Daytona has polyurethane control arm bushings, great suspension, and a good alignment.

My drag race 87 CSX has the one piece axle on an A-413. At 20-30 psi I have to crank the steering wheel just about a full 1/4 turn to the right to make it go strait.
The CSX has a good alignment, old worn out rubber control arm bushings and overall terrible suspension components.

[supercrackerbox]

I have no noticeable torque steer on the Charger, which has unequal lenth shafts. My reasoning for going that route was simple.

It's just getting too hard to find those intermediate shafts.