My mean green hornet

So despite my best efforts today, the thread I cut on this hasn’t turned out well enough. I should have equalised the surface on the lathe and threaded it there too, but got the sudden urge to do it earlier and got carried away manually.
It’s a 3/4 unf LH thread on one of my front strut arms. After a couple of successful test runs I cut it down to final length on the bandsaw and carefully cut the thread.
I think what’s happened is the bar wasn’t perfectly straight and/or round where I’ve threaded, hence the short nuts thread on fine but the longer sleeve binds after a while.
I will try another one with the lathe, but also actively looking for a suitable off the shelf drag link which could be used instead. I think the taper is 6 degrees but need to check that..could turn a tapered adapter for a straight shaft

6024711E-11C3-4F2A-BF19-56A63CE7534E.jpeg84DEA6FC-945F-433F-92BB-88FE18649589.jpeg
16D7BA98-21B0-4910-8F51-2EE10202035A.jpeg

Jim
 
A couple of potential contenders with LH 3/4 unf thread and tapers. They don’t have the cranked angle but I’m not yet sure if there would be an issue with clearance or binding, there’s a lot more articulation possible with the new inboard joints..I’ll do some measuring today
2547A4F7-59AB-48BC-8F8B-07B861BCA687.jpegE2720B58-FAF0-44A2-8A54-F6E7C4592880.jpeg87DAEBC8-5719-4C4B-BACE-4C08C2B6CFA9.jpeg
 
There might be more articulation available on the inner joint, but the range will remain the same, it is limited by the stroke of the damper.
 
Thanks, yes you’re right.
With a straight link there would actually be more clearance at the top of the stroke but perhaps not the necessary angle when the balljoint’s travel ends.
This is the stock arm clearance at extreme top of stroke
96CD54DD-AAAC-4219-B985-1303DE76AB66.jpeg355DED5F-ECCE-48FD-B6A1-72B9F4AF3D7E.jpeg8997E7DC-2737-4E31-9EE3-A648D311FAA9.jpeg

I’m sure I can make the modified Rover arms work but do like the idea of an off the shelf greaseable joint.

Jim
 
It is going to be tricky to know how much angle you need without assembling a stock set up with a damper and then taking measurements from hub centre to ground at each end of the stroke, then seeing if your new joints can provide the same angles with a bit to spare before running out of travel.

Have you found a greaseable joint then ? all the ones you show look sealed. I often wondered how successful it would be to tap a 1/4 UNF thread in the centre of one of those sealed joint caps and screw in a grease nipple , gotta work surely ?
 
The bottom one has grease nipple included in the photo so assume it’s already tapped at the bottom or side. Most Moog joints include grease fittings. Cant see a problem with drilling and tapping a factory one in either location but you’d have to have it apart ideally wouldn’t you.
I’ve found an almost perfect offering from early mustangs, unfortunately only RH thread I think..

B80846A4-1894-4000-B891-AB7110D3D5F5.jpeg

Also considering a tapered tie rod stud to convert to a high misalignment rose joint instead

55024816-57ED-43DB-86CF-6B2C35F4DD19.jpeg0BD4FD78-5827-4E66-B073-9CB9DC156C1E.jpeg1582AD7F-78F0-403D-9263-895397E51820.jpeg

Jim
 
I have it in my mind that the early Mustang joints were handed, certainly my early Mustang had grease zerks ( as our American friends call them ) in the joints, in the centre of the caps.
I was going to use those tapered tie rod studs when I made up a set of steering side arms with rod end joints. I got so far down the garden path and then had to abandon the idea. I thought I could improve the bump steer on a lowered car by relocating the joints , but it did not work out.
I since found out that by removing the dampers and bouncing the car throughout the travel that there is not any bumpsteer. So reinventing the wheel was not such a good idea. The Rover boffins with their slide rules knew their onions.
 
I decided to remove the 3/4 unf from my search and have found something suitable I think, just need to double check taper.
It’s for a Ford F250, Moog do nice ones for reasonable prices.
Thread is M22 so a little chunkier and I can get hold of M22 threaded bungs for the tube size so no problem there, other than the mix of metric and imperial on different ends of the arms :eek:

6A03C00C-AD0E-44B8-BA7E-9B5382A63E1B.jpeg
 
Yes I’m fairly sure they’re a standard 7 degrees, but will be checking more accurately shortly
 
I make it between 3.5 and 4 degrees per half of the taper so assuming it’s 7 degrees included angle. I think 8 degrees would be very unusual?
 
A bigger issue than the taper angle is the overall size of it. There’s very few tie rod ends with something large enough that I’ve found. The Rover’s tapers down to 5/8.
The best solutions I can see other than persevering with modifying Rover arms, is either a 5/8 tapered stud and rose joint, or one of these from Steinjager, which is essentially the same thing but staked into the joint. This is 5/8 x 3/4 LH so would be a direct fit

5E222B16-E9E4-49A2-929B-CC88248A5BEF.png

The separate studs would provide more angle and adjustability of course.
The ones pictured a few posts back come in the correct sizes necessary, so I’m sure I’ll make my mind up soon and order one or the other to try

Jim
 
This is pioneering stuff, I can see this being adopted as a go to guide when you are finished. A lot of hard work on your part, but tremendous satisfaction when you get there.
 
I wonder if a tapered sleeve would help give you more options. An 8 degree cone in brass bronze or steel could be fitted between a smaller ball joint stem and the tapered hole of the suspension component.
 
Corazon, I'm reading this thread with great interest. With apologies in advance for being dim, may I ask why you are going to the trouble of making adjustable length control arms? Is it to accomodate fitment of wider wheels, and/or to be able to adjust camber/caster/toe-in? Or something else entirely? Sorry if the answers are glaringly obvious to everybody else.
 
Not being dim at all Al.
The adjustable arms aren’t necessary to accommodate the wider wheels no, but more part of an adjustable package involving them/more rubber and the effects of lowering to different extents. ie what different ride heights do to camber angles etc, and being able to dial in what I want- even for different purposes such as different settings for road or track if I get carried away ;)

At least a couple of the P6 racers had/have different front arms, used to very good effect.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Back
Top