Date:         Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:20:37 -0500
Reply-To:     k1cajun <k1cajun@PIPELINE.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         k1cajun <k1cajun@PIPELINE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Friday Jetta "knuckle" problem (No real Vanagon content)
Comments: To: "Tom L. Neal" <jneal@NETCOM.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Tom L. Neal wrote:

> < Jetta CV joint story snipped >

> Another odd CV story is that I asked the Olds dealer about repacking the
> CV joints on a '91 Olds 98 at 60K original miles and he thought I had
> flipped.  "Those are sealed and we don't open them."  Really?  So what
> gives with General Motors CV joints?  Just run them until they die? They
> don't die? Right. The entire rest of the car except the engine has already
> died at one time or another so why are the CV joints special?

The Olds 98 is rear wheel drive right (with a front engine that is) ?  Then
the CV joints on it are on the drive shaft running from the front
engine/tranny to the rear differential housing.  This setup puts more distance
between the two CV joints than on Vanagon drive axles, or any front wheel
drive car.  So the longer distance means that as the rear suspension goes up
and down, the angles that the CV's must assume are much smaller.  The CV's
movements along the shaft's axis are also smaller.  So the smaller demands
made of those CV's may allow sealed units.

Now I'm no CV expert, but it can be shown by geometry that the CV's on
front-engine/rear-differential cars don't move as much.  I've never had to
work on that style CV, though I replaced many universal joints, which is what
was used on American drive shafts at least up to early 70's.  But the American
drive shaft CV's I recall seeing when I worked as a grease monkey as a kid,
were big things that probably would take up too much room to use at both ends
of a front-wheel drive car's axles.

IMHO of course.
Dave