Banjo to Torque Tube Oil Leak Solution

[Detonator]

If you’re running a banjo and torque tube — especially if your car sits on a rake — you’ve probably wrestled with the problem of your rear end oil drilling it’s way up the torque tube, starving the banjo and flooding the trans. When this problem resulted in a banjo fry in a friend’s roadster, it was time for some pre-emptive action.
My partner's’s Deuce roadster has a ’35-’36 banjo and torque tube, with a ’34 driveshaft and 4.11 gears. He was getting ready to switch to 3.54’s, so it was an ideal time to attack the oil migration problem.
It worked out to be three part solution: a machined Insert Sleeve designed to sit in the bell of the torque tube, a simple Ford seal, and a Pinion Collar designed to replace the locknut on the pinion.





The Insert Sleeve slides into the torque tube bell and is fixed by three set-screws that have been drilled and tapped into the tube. Ford didn’t precision-machine these bells – in fact Gary’s was slightly cone shaped – so the sleeve was machined for O-rings to accommodate Ford’s variations. The sleeve was also notched to match the flow-back hole in the flange, providing a return path for trapped oil to flow back into the banjo.



You can see one of the three set-screws on the torque tube in the photo below. The sleeve is dimpled to accept it.





The pinion seal slides in, and seats against a shoulder machined into the sleeve.



The Pinion Seal Collar below replaces the original pinion locknut. We installed it when we replaced the ring gear, but it could also be done to a banjo that was already buttoned up because the nut that adjusts the preload doesn’t have to be loosened to install this new locknut.



We welded the nut to the collar. If this could turn into a product, we’d machine the nut and collar in one piece.

Here’s the collar on the pinion. The collar is shallow enough that it won’t interfere with the driveshaft coupler.



We’ve put quite a few miles on this set-up and have had no problems. It’s bone dry on the shop floor under the car, too.

We’ve machined a second set of seals for Mike Whitman’s car: it’s running a shortened ’40 torque tube. As expected, when compared to Gary’s, the inside bell dimensions were different. In machining these seals, if we find any consistency in Ford’s torque tube bells across certain years, we’d be able to turn this seal solution into a product. Until then, we’ll be building them one by one.

[Mac VP]

Nice idea. Looks like a fix that could be fairly easy to install. Keep your thinking cap on about the tube inconsistency issues.....there has to be a way to adapt easily to the various diameters.

The matter of rear end lube working its way forward (and leaking out or back filling the gearbox) is a problem I hear about from time to time. It especially comes up when the torque tube is angled downward for a dropped chassis. If you can make this setup work across the board and make it at a reasonably price, I could see selling this.

[PeterC]

When you mention Banjo - are you referring to a modern 9" Ford type rear mated to a torque tube or the original rear? Also - when you advise that particularing if the chassis has rake - are you thinking about a severe rake or as little as 1 inch rear to front?

[Tim Ayers]

Certainly can appreciate all of the work you've put into this and engineering and machining. Love to see folks how think through a problem and fix it.

You may want to look at the baffle Vern Tardell sells. It's designed to slide into a torque tube to remedy this "problem" as well. His sells for $65 (I think). Since his is a slip-in unit and fits all torque tubes, it may be something to thing before you try to produce these on a larger scale.

Certainly take pride in coming up with a solution for your's and your buddy's car. Bravo.

[flatheadA]

Nice job,I had the same problem,scratched my head awhile for a solution.There is a place in Texas(can't remember who)that had a similar solution,with a flanged unit that was assembled with the torque tube , and a oil seal on the end,apparently it works but the cost was to much for me(over $100.00 I have more time than money).I had a idea similar to yours but did not have the machines to fabricate,what I had in mind.I ended up using the Vern Tardel torque tube baffle and modified it with a PVC(very flexible) boot on the end with a hole to fit snug on the drive shaft(like a seal).So far it works good,I still carry some oil in the baffle, but it no longer fills the tube or trany,which was a major pain.
Good luck if you try to market your idea I think there are a lot of guys out there that would use it.I think the cost will be the your stumbling block?

[David J]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Isn't seal B-4245 supposed to do this ?

[DavidG]

David,

Yes, but it's location did not envision someone elevating the rear end and lowering the front end to the point where the normal position of the torque tube on level ground was either level (or worse) to the point where the torque tube becomes full of rear end lubricant as a normal condition thereby starving the differential housing of its lubricant. From what I gather from our correspondence, this is problem does not apply to your cars or mine.

[Chris]

I like it!

[David J]

DavidG you are right - I only do stock on my old fords & this definately doesn't apply to them . My mistake was in thinking this site was for stock cars . David J

[Detonator]

Thanks for the encouraging comments!

Tim -- One of the things that prevents this from being a "Slip-In" solution is the shape of the Ford bell -- like this one:



Vern Tardel took his baffle off the market, he complained that customers couldn't figure out how to install it.

Peter -- We're talking original Ford banjos.

David -- We're messin' with old Fords, too. We just get mixed up sometimes and combine one year's parts with another. That, and sometimes we forget to put the fenders back on.

[PeteVS]

In a post quite some time ago, Richard Lacy mentioned a seal that had a thin (I think it was 1/8" or so) flange that got bolted between the torque tube flange and the banjo. The seal was carried in that flange. That did away with all the torque tube ID variations.

[Terry,OH]

I bought one of Vern's baffles and had to remove 1/8" of the diameter of the torque tube to get it into the torque tube end, once it is in, it has to be concentric with the length of the drive shaft. I drilled and taped the torque tube for temporary screws to hold the baffel in the center of the tube. Once it is in the proper location it has to be welded in place, then removed the screws and welded their holes closed. It took 6 hours of careful grinding to remove 1/8" of the ID. I informed Vern's group of the install problems and they wanted photos, which I sent. If Vern doesn't sell the baffle any more it is probably because of the fitment issues. It appears the back end of the torque tube are of unpredictable size and shape. Vern's baffle was always a weld in unit, using RTV only to aid in sealing.

[PeteVS]

Here's a link to the thread that Richard posted on...
https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8439
Here's the text from his post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Fairfax
I agree whole heartedly with idea of mocking up the driveshaft in the torque tube and verifying your dimensions. My transmission was destroyed (over time) by having a drive shaft that was too long-it extended thru the u-joint far enough that it was in constant contact with the head of the u-joint retention bolt. It was imposing an unatural thrust on the output shaft that ultimately ruined the gear box. It happened when I had a local shop (with a good rep-up to that time) change a rearend in my '32. I supplied them with a complete '39 rear axle assy to get the 3.78 gear. Still don't know what they did but it was about a half inch too long.
They probably used the length of a 32 and did not allow for the fact that (as already posted) the banjo housing flange is about 1/2" longer on a 35-48 and the pinion shaft is also 1/2" longer.

Richard's response:
We just went through this on a 36 Columbia rear that had already been shortened to "fit" a 32. The owner had removed the rear from his car and brought it in, so we nor he realized there was a problem. We added a rear seal (from Danny Burroughs at Bruce's Rod Shop in Spring TX) that has a 1/8" plate that goes between the banjo and the torque tube. That 1/8" was just enough to cause the center section to hit the rear crossmember when re-installed. (The rear spring was a little bound-up too...) We took it back apart and re-measured everything and determined that the person who had shortened the torque tube and driveshaft to fit the 32 had used the exact 1932 dimensions without deducting the 1/2" - we deducted that plus the 1/8" more from the torque tube and had our good friend redo the stuff to the correct length. All is well... so far...

If the vehicle will be low in front causing the torque tube to run down-hill, we HIGHLY RECOMMEND Danny's seal setup - which will prevent rear end oil from running into the torque tube (or worse if the front driveshaft seal leaks...)

Hope this helps!!
__________________
Early V8 Garage
Pasadena Roadster Club

[Brian]

I like this idea! Question- having this seal installed, do you think the diff could benefit fro the addition of a breather? Brian

[fordcragar]

This is a great idea!

[PeteVS]

I mentioned Butch's Rod Shop in a post above. Here's a link to the site:
http://brucesrodshop.myshopify.com/p...ube-seal-plate
And here's a screen shot of their page:

[Detonator]

Originally Posted by PeteVS

I mentioned Butch's Rod Shop in a post above. Here's a link to the site:
http://brucesrodshop.myshopify.com/p...ube-seal-plate
And here's a screen shot of their page:

We were aware of the "Bruce's Rod Shop" style parts, but we were looking for an alternative to a "flange" type solution because of that extra 1/8 inch -- for all the problems you mentioned: Increased wheelbase, spring bind, cross member interference, plus possible loading on the transmission gears at the other end.

Brian -- We actually added a breather, and experimented with breathing through a couple of different bolt holes where the axle bells bolt to the banjo. Both tended to pump oil out the breather. Open drive line banjos don't have a one, so we pulled this breather off and have been running fine without it. No drips, no runs, no errors.

[PeteVS]

Originally Posted by Detonator

We were aware of the "Bruce's Rod Shop" style parts, but we were looking for an alternative to a "flange" type solution because of that extra 1/8 inch -- for all the problems you mentioned: Increased wheelbase, spring bind, cross member interference, plus possible loading on the transmission gears at the other end.

I don't think you'd have problems with the extra 1/8" length. When you think about it, the rear axle doesn't go straight up and down- it swings on an arc. Measure the wheel base on a torque tube car and then put a couple hundred pounds of stuff in the back and measure it again. It'll be different. (I can see where getting the radius rods bolted up would be a hassle.)

[Tim Ayers]

Originally Posted by Detonator

Thanks for the encouraging comments!

Tim -- One of the things that prevents this from being a "Slip-In" solution is the shape of the Ford bell -- like this one:



Vern Tardel took his baffle off the market, he complained that customers couldn't figure out how to install it.

Peter -- We're talking original Ford banjos.

David -- We're messin' with old Fords, too. We just get mixed up sometimes and combine one year's parts with another. That, and sometimes we forget to put the fenders back on.

There you go. Your sticktoittiveness proves you can build a better mousetrap.

Let us know what you plan to do for it can certainly save some us some messy clean up in our garages.

Keep to it and thanks for sharing.

[Steve/IL]

Detonator,


With the seal on the front side of the step inside of your Insert Sleeve do you foresee a long term problem with the seal lip running dry on the Pinion Collar or is this a non issue? How about installing the seal on the back side of the step? The Pinion Collar could then be shorter and the seal lip would have diff lub against it. However, in this position, the seal housing likely doesn't have much of a lip on the back side to press the seal into place?


Another consideration: How close is the splined pinion to drive shaft adapter to the your Pinion collar? If it is close as I suspect, why not move the step for the seal inside of the Insert Sleeve forward enough to align the seal lip with the OD of the splined adapter. This would eliminate the Pinion Collar but, of course, would require a different seal with a smaller ID lip to run on the OD of the splined adapter. From my limited experience I do not believe that there is much, if any, diff lub leakage by the splines of the adapter