....
Always mark the drive shafts in relation to the yoke. Can save you some headaches.
Isn't that an interesting concept? I always thought it was stupid. The whole idea is that the parts are not balanced perfectly, so the factory "somehow" "played with" the shafts to find an acceptable balance orientation. Then everything's good, until someone later makes the mistake of changing the orientation of the shaft/yoke.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. The shafts should be balanced, from the factory, period. If they are balanced, then the orientation is meaningless.
I know about u-joints having to be synced properly, this about balancing. I used to worry about marking yokes when I was younger, I have not bothered with it for 30+ years. If a vibration is created, then something(the shaft) was not balanced properly. Plus the real worry is, if a shaft is out of balance, and there wasn't a vibration before, then you also have the adjacent part out of balance. Meaning the two parts matched their imbalance, and how did that get done, did the factory match up two imbalanced parts? That's the real dilemma, if it's true.
I'm sorry for the rant. I get tired of dumb ideas being spread forever, sometimes I say something.
The TC issue is basically the same thing. It's an assumption that the TC and the drive plate are possibly imbalanced(both), and keeping them mounted the same way keeps the matching balance result. I think the parts should be balanced when new(meaning the factory balanced them), so it should make no difference how it's mounted. If it does make a difference, then the factory put it together with imbalanced parts, and went through some procedure of mating two imbalanced parts. That makes no sense to suggest the factory would do that.
