dizwiz24

The C4 is the superior car, we all know that.

that said, why do parts on the c4 IRS break, while Tesla plaids launch 60ft times out of the box and dont break anything

curious how/why its rear suspension doesnt break, while ours does

383vett

One reason is the Tesla has 4wd, the C4 2wd.

AmoriFati

Design. Look at a Tesla's design to handle the torque also.

blackozvet

The C4 design is early 80's technology and engineering.
You have modern 650 and 750 hp Corvettes that don't have that unreliability in the rear end.

Krusty84

CV joints are a ton better at handling torque and axle angle. CV joints also operated very smoothly throughout the angle range, whereas a U-Joint introduces vibration at the slightest of angles.

Also, Tesla controls the power hit. Power delivery is definitely progressive. They would all break **** if they weren't.

SH-60B

lol!

dizwiz24

the nannies to control the power delivery, along with its simpler /more effective traction control is something i didnt think of


can we convert to CV and tougher(bigger?) stub ends?

I know some people solid axle convert, but those seem expensive and theres not a straightforward kit it seems

MatthewMiller

One huge difference is that there is no rear differential in the Tesla: instead, there are individual motors for left and right halfshafts for individual wheel torque vectoring. So there's no diff to break or require fluid changes, no clutches or worm gears to wear out, etc. Halfshafts can be spec'd to any desired torque so that's no biggie. I think the nannies are less a factor (it's sending as much power as traction will allow on a hard launch), but the fact that the electric motors use no clutch/transmission means there are no shocks to the drivetrain from rough clutch engagement, neutral drops, or gear changes.

I don't think U-joint vs CV joint is a factor. Semis that see 80,000lb loads and hugely more driveline torque than any C4 ever did have U-joints in their driveshafts that hold up just fine. As previously noted, it's just that these things were spec'd for 250-300hp and tires with low grip by today's standards. Still, my 96 was probably around 480hp at the crank and autocrossed with really sticky DOT-legal tires available (315/35/17 Hoosier A7s) and I autocrossed the hell out of it and only ever saw one halfshaft U-joint fail (it failed again because the first replacement I used was defective, but I had to use it before a better one could be ordered). The driveshaft joints never failed. I always thought the C4 driveline was pretty simple and stout, but if you start using one like 383vett (just look at his avatar!), you're going to break stock parts. You'll break a Tesla halfshaft if you triple its power and use drag slicks on it, too.

No, you cannot convert a C4 to CV joints. The halfshafts are part of the suspension: they serve as the upper lateral links in the rear suspension. They cannot change length, ever, or the car will do horrible things (which you'll note if you ever break a U-joint in one). CV joints allow for lots of plunge and can't be used in a suspension link.

vader86

They don't have the same instantaneous torque shocks to the drivetrain that our cars do.

AmoriFati

This company sells conversion kits in England. They have some interesting drivetrain components to convert these cars, transmissions, stub axles so they can handle the torque. Their VW has Tesla motor in it and it is quick.
But, engineering, design, nanny controls, shock to components all factor into strength.
https://www.evwest.com/catalog/index...67c06573757010
This video is pretty cool. He talks of the design, implementation Tesla motor etc.

1985 Corvette

Diz, I love ya buddy, but sometimes I wonder if you’re an AI program.