I don't think any of the current muscle cars use live axles anymore. The Mustang's were the last to switch over to independent a few years ago ... I think. I am sure the Cobra's have IRS.

Isn't the weakness in our axles related to the use of CV joints instead of U joints? I recall something about Honda choosing CV joints for their ride quality, instead of going with the more durable U joints. I have no idea if this is accurate.

 

The concept between Constant Velocity (CV) and Universal joints are very similar: bend a rotating axis with minimal frictional losses. In reality, both can be very strong if designed correctly, however U-joints are almost always stronger, giving up degrees of mobility for strength. CV's can transfer torque smoother with less binding at extreme angles at the cost of strength.

Using CV's on the axles allows for freeer suspension articulation, and therefore smoother driver feedback and more consistent traction versus U-joints.

for the same amount of torque, you're more likely to break CV's and not U-joints. A useful retrofit I doubt would be easy on the S2k. I know Spoon makes "stronger" CV's, however I cannot say if this claim is useful on the track.

 

I looked into the Spoon axles a while back and AJ racing said they were simply "balanced", but not strengthened in any way (other than the possible strength increase by being balanced). They did not recommend me purchasing them for what I was trying to do.

 

gotcha, thanks for clearing up the Spoon CV issue

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wesmaster
[B]I looked into the Spoon axles a while back and AJ racing said they were simply "balanced", but not strengthened in any way (other than the possible strength increase by being balanced).