I have never seen shafts that were not phased .If they are out of phase they would vibrate like hell .Is it possible the shaft you looked at was twisted ?
I agree - with the exception of the "69 Camaro. Of all the research topics that CRG could pursue, understanding why Chevy did this would be top of my list. I'm sure they had a reason. I am also sure it was not to ensure proper driveline dynamics. I realize that there are those that probably do not share my view, however, as a registered professional mechanical engineer for almost 30 years, I do have some understanding from whence I speak. Chevy compromised optimizing driveline dynamics in order to accomplish something else - perhapst an attempt to affect rear end "stiffnesss" for Trans Am racing?
Been previously discussed at the following links:http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=4425.0http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=980.0http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=914.0
So....from a purely engineering / driveline dynamics point of view, offset yokes are not correct. For the dirveshaft to compensate for the differrent instantaneous angular velocities at each end, one of the three major criteria is that the yokes have to be "in phase".
Previous discussion indicates that all '69 Camaros, with the exception of BB, TH400 cars, had yokes offset relative to one another by approximately 20 degrees. As William previously indicated, BB, TH400 cars used driveshaft p/n 3950196, with in phase yokes - just like every other Hotchkiss suspension, rear wheel drive car I've ever seen.
My '69 RS (327 base / Powerglide) had offset yokes. I had the driveshaft modified to in phase yokes about 15 yrs ago. I have a dirveshaft in the garage which came out of a '69 Camaro that had a 3 speed manual. It too has offset yokes. As far as I know, only the BB, TH400 cars had the yokes in phase.
Seems to me we would all benefit by getting to the bottom of this.