Pot joints are smoother, cheaper and better all round.....

Cheers, Ian

+ 1 for Ian's comment.

If you do end up with pot joints, I have found that zipties don't hold the boot onto the pot well enough, so use stainless steel straps (most recently bought from Repco, about $4 each), but you would need the "special tool" which grabs the tail of the strap, allows you to apply tension, wrap it back on itself and then cut it. Takes a bit of doing but does deliver a very sturdy result. Happy to take a pic if anyone would like. Cheers.

_________________
'68 Deluxe w/Metro engine

I have pot joints on a 4 synchro box with an 850 magic wand.
Pot joints are very strong and reliable.

_________________
Find a job you love and you will never have to go to work !

Now if you want to get technical, pot joints fall into the "Constant Velocity" category. Which means that the output shaft rotates at the same velocity as the input from the gearbox.
Hooks joints (universal joints) do not do this as the distance to the ends of the "cross" in the middle changes angle and therefore distance from the centreline of the shaft. This causes the output shaft to accelerate/decelerate twice every revolution.
This does not cause any real issues unless severe angles are used, but it is there none the less.
Just being pedantic

_________________
Find a job you love and you will never have to go to work !

Quite right Phil 850! If I recall correctly, a drive shaft in a rear drive car would always be set up with the rear UJ perpendicular to the front UJ, so that when the rear was speeding up, the front was slowing down, and vice versa. I still find it hard to believe that BMC used these rubber unis, and that so many people used them for so long, even to this day. In the end, they get the job done, but with various limitations - exhaust clearance and install headaches not the least of them!

_________________
'68 Deluxe w/Metro engine

UJ are cheap and easy to produce and seal compared to CV joints. Hence why they survive to today.
Because of the large angles used, CV's are employed at the outboard end on front wheel drive cars because of the inherent problems with UJ's.

_________________
Find a job you love and you will never have to go to work !

Trivia alert-
My 1997 Jeep Cherokee has Hardy Spicer U/Js in the front hubs, not CVs. It also has full time AWD.
It turns tighter than my Mini does.
Current 2016 Jeep Wrangler still uses the same setup, they are more durable offroad than CVs are. No booties to rip.

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

My STI is all wheel drive too.
It uses CV's inboard and at the hubs, front and rear. Just good engineering I suppose!

_________________
Find a job you love and you will never have to go to work !