1918 GMC Need driveshaft rebuild any recommendations?

[bobs1916]

My  GMC  Drive  shaft  is   toast  at   one   end    Other  end   is  usable.   Can  anyone   recommend   a rebuilder   as  I  want  to  keep  it  original.  I  can   get  a  modern   shaft   fabricated   with new  flanges   machined    but  it   won't  be   as  it  was  when   new.       Prefer    Northeast   region but  will  consider    east   coast 

[ron hausmann]

Bobs1916,

     Not familiar with your driveshaft type, but your picture looks identical to my 1916-1924 Kissel driveshafts. 
     See picture.
     Can you please get us dimensions of the universal end covers and lengths?

     Maybe they were made by the same sub suppliers.

     Thank you. 
     Ron Hausmann P.E.

     

[edinmass]

Looks like an early Spicer unit. 

[ron hausmann]

40 minutes ago, edinmass said:

Looks like an early Spicer unit. 

Kissel used Spicer units.

Ron

[1912Staver]

They all seem to be more or less identical in design. But they vary in size to suit the application. My 1918 Packard truck used them as well on the shaft that ran from the trans to the rear end. The shorter shaft from the clutch to the trans used rag joints. I suspect the ones for the GMC are going to be larger than the automotive Kissel ones. I am not sure how many different sizes were made . 

[edinmass]

I probably have some 4-5 inch units up north, but they are from 1929-1931. They are off Pierce Arrow cars…….similar to a three ton truck! 

[bobs1916]

2 hours ago, ron hausmann said:

Bobs1916,

     Not familiar with your driveshaft type, but your picture looks identical to my 1916-1924 Kissel driveshafts. 
     See picture.
     Can you please get us dimensions of the universal end covers and lengths?

     Maybe they were made by the same sub suppliers.

     Thank you. 
     Ron Hausmann P.E.

     Ron  Thanks  for  the   reply    I   have to  go  pick  it  up  from   a   shop   where  I  brought  it   for  an  evaluation. 

   I  will  get  the  dimensions    next  week

The   drive   shaft   is   also  identical   in    construction  to  the  one  in  my  1918  Cadillac

bob

 

[bobs1916]

48 minutes ago, edinmass said:

I probably have some 4-5 inch units up north, but they are from 1929-1931. They are off Pierce Arrow cars…….similar to a three ton truck! 

Thanks  for  the  reply.   Do  you  get  back  up  North or   are   you   situated  in   Fl   permanently? When   you   say   4-5  in   units   you are  referring  to  the   flange  diameter   I assume. Is  that  correct?

bob

Edited November 5, 2022 by bobs1916 (see edit history)

[wayne sheldon]

For whatever it is worth? A mid1920s Studebaker rear end I had years ago had a similar U-joint. Many mid1920s Studebakers did use "rag" joints, so I don't know what model the Spicer one was from. I know several sizes were made, and some trucks did use larger ones. However chain driven trucks sometimes used lighter differentials and therefore maybe U-joints due the chain drive gear reduction gave torque advantage to the mid driveline. That is the primary reason so many really early large automobiles used chain drive. Before materials and production technologies had advanced enough, large heavy automobiles were easier and cheaper to manufacture with solid idler axles and rear wheels driven by chains through gear reduction. Even most high end automobiles used chain drive because not only was it cheaper to manufacture that way? In those days it was much more reliable! And they wanted their cars to be reliable regardless of cost!

 

Give some better photos with a size reference (ruler?) or really good measurements so that we may check any we may have for a proper size.

[bobs1916]

19 minutes ago, wayne sheldon said:

For whatever it is worth? A mid1920s Studebaker rear end I had years ago had a similar U-joint. Many mid1920s Studebakers did use "rag" joints, so I don't know what model the Spicer one was from. I know several sizes were made, and some trucks did use larger ones. However chain driven trucks sometimes used lighter differentials and therefore maybe U-joints due the chain drive gear reduction gave torque advantage to the mid driveline. That is the primary reason so many really early large automobiles used chain drive. Before materials and production technologies had advanced enough, large heavy automobiles were easier and cheaper to manufacture with solid idler axles and rear wheels driven by chains through gear reduction. Even most high end automobiles used chain drive because not only was it cheaper to manufacture that way? In those days it was much more reliable! And they wanted their cars to be reliable regardless of cost!

 

Give some better photos with a size reference (ruler?) or really good measurements so that we may check any we may have for a proper size.

Thanks  I  will   do  that   next  week

bob

[bobs1916]

Guys   I  did  measure  the  flanges  They  are   5 1/2  inches    The  length     I  have to  get  the    shaft  back  from  the   shop  to  measure  it

  Transmission  is  out   so  I  cannot   measure  it   on  the   vehicle.   Perhaps  the  U    joints  are  the  same  on  these   shafts   and   If   there  are any  usable  U  joints   out   there    that  would  solve  my   problem

thanks

[Larry Schramm]

Which joint is bad?  The one  you show, or the other end?

 

I had a place here in the Detroit area completely rebuild the joint/ torque ball for my 1915 Buick truck.  They did a nice job.

[bobs1916]

the    one   to   the   rear   end

 

[wayne sheldon]

My one from the Studebaker rear end was not as large as 5 1/2 inches. From memory, I would guess about four inches. It is probably still buried in a box in my parts storage (I rarely throw anything away and don't think I ever gave it to anyone?).  If I thought it was close, I would try to look for it it after it stops raining (which we very much need!).