47-55.1 Tie rod questions

[51 3600]

The shop that installed my engine and drive train also installed the rack and pinion, a '93-'99 Camaro power unit. Stock length of that r&p is 52.6" which is way to long for my application. I have approx. 47" from steering knuckle to steering knuckle holes. So they shortened the inner tie rods and welded on another threaded section to achieve a workable (I didn't say correct) solution. Although my OCD doesn't like it (ugly and the two pieces aren't even welded together straight) I guess it will work unless it raises eyebrows among the members here.
My main concern is the angle of the tie rods. From what I've read downward angle is ok as opposed to upward, but the angle seems a bit much. Have tried to come up with ways to mount the outer tie rods on top of the knuckle instead of the bottom. Have searched for angled inserts but can only find references to 3/4 and 1 ton GM inserts which seem extreme for my purposes. Local speed shop suggested boring out the knuckles and using heim joints on top of the knuckle instead of outer tie rod ends.
I've always got questions so once again could use input, suggestions, answers, recommendations, ideas from the crew here. As always, thanks.






Outer tie rod not tightened in this pic.

[mr48chev]

First who in their right mind puts a Camaro rack on an MII front end? There is no logic to that. Standard procedure if you don't use a MII rack is use a T bird rack with the correct ends on it. Not cobble something on there that has no business being there.

The tie rods match the lower control arms as far as angle goes so that should take care of bump steer but what does it look with all the weight of the truck sitting on the tires?

If all the weight of the truck ready to drive is sitting on the tires now you have far bigger problems than a cobbled together rack, That left ball joint is at an angle that will cause failure if that is static ride height.

With all the weight of the truck ready to drive the lower control arms should sit level and the rack and tie rods should be one straight line end to end in a perfect world. If that is static height it has the wrong front springs or someone did something terribly wrong.

[51 3600]

I need to make a few clarifications. First, it's not a MII front end. It's a Danforth crossmember with stock Blazer suspension.

Second, weight of the truck is sitting on the tires, just not on the ground.

Third, I posted the wrong pic for the driver's side. That shows a tubular upper control arm which was replaced with a stock control arm as seen in pic below. Better geometry but I think will still have to be revisited when rad, front clip, hood, etc. are all installed. May have to look at the springs.



All that being said, you think I need to wait till the front of the truck is completely assembled (static height ?) before making any changes to the outer tie rods?

[mr48chev]

It flat does not do any good to show us a photo of it jacked up without the total weight of the truck on the tires. No one, can tell you the answer you asked for unless you put the total weight of the truck on the tires.

The rack is mounted about as right as you can mount rack, The inner rod end is as close to the lower control arm shaft as you can get just exactly the book of how to do steering on an independent suspension says. The tie rod exactly parallels the lower control arm. That is exactly correct.
My bad for assuming that it is a poorly installed MII I apologize for that.

The proper way to shorten the inner tie rods would be to chuck them in a lathe, turn them down to size and rethread them while shortening them to the correct length. Unless you have a skilled buddy with a lathe that is probably around 200 each. That might be a conservative estimate. The other option would be to spend a few hours on the inner tire rod for GM racks page and see if there was one that would work as needed. Not cobble something together that may not pass inspection in some states and positively won't pass in British Columbia. If it fails and cause an accident your insurance may bail on you because of it.
O'Reillys website won't separate things to just inner tie rods or I am not putting in the right search but there have to be pages in some catalogs of just inner tie rods for rack and pinion. https://www.oreillyauto.com/search?q...on+tie+rod+end

Now, lower the truck down, take photos and post them so Joedoe, I or one of the others with actual knowledge can see if there is an issue, the only issue that I see is that possibly you have too strong of springs for the weigh of the truck but that remains to be seen.

[51 3600]

In the previous pics the truck was not on jack stands, it was sitting on car dollies which seems to me the weight of the truck is on the tires. But to remove all possible variables I set the truck on the concrete floor and took the below pic.

I'm not familiar with "the inner tire rod for GM racks page" so could use a direction on locating that. Didn't find it through a Google search. I have found various lengths of inner tie rods from Moog and Detroit Axle. Have to figure out how to measure length I need.

[mr48chev]

What springs did you use? That front is designed for GM Metric = 78/84 Chevelle pieces.

Looking at this old thread http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=670981 My memory is trying to tell me that you did not set the crossmember in the frame the way Scott designed it to be but set it up to run at stock ride height or close to it and I believe that is where your problem lies along with believing that he designed the front end to run bags and not springs. You are probably the only person who is trying to sun springs rather than bags on that front end and set it up to run at a stock ride height rather than lay frame.

He also designed it to use the 95 T bird rack that was a pretty straight forward install.

This frame is in Australia but the Jag XJ install is set at real close to stock ride height for an AD truck plus he didn't do much if any trimming on the Jag crossmember and just built brackets to connect with the stock Jag subframe straight out of the Jag. I just found the photo on FB last week.

[51 3600]

I set the crossmember up just as Scott described in his instructions for stock ride height. Nothing in the instructions says anything about air bags nor was I looking for a bagged or lowered setup. As you mentioned Scott's design uses GM Metric and as Scott lists 82-04 S-10 and 82-92 Camaro. I used all components from a 2WD 01 Blazer which I understood to be the same as the S-10. All suspension components including springs were stock from the junkyard donor. I did have a misadventure with tubular upper arms but stock arms are in use now.

I do remember comments about using a T-bird rack but instructions leave rack choice up to user. In fact in his instructions Scott uses a Camaro rack with optional mounting tabs. I did tell the shop who installed this setup about the T-bird rack but they went the Camaro rout. Not going to change that now as all my steering is setup for the Camaro rack.

[MARTINSR]

I am with Mr48, don't like those control arm angles at all! Now, without all the weight on the truck it's hard to tell but the majority of weight is in the engine and trans and if it's that high with them on the chassis that is not looking good.

Why is the upper control arm mount to high on the frame? It just doesn't look right at all.

There are some big red flags in these photos.


Brian

[mr48chev]

What info I can find on using springs says that V6 springs are too heavy and one said they used 4 cylinder springs with some cut off to make it work. Your shocks aren't bottomed out by chance holding it up like that?

I did find an old HAMB post from 2013 that a guy with one of the very first Danforth crossmembers was having trouble with his F body rack. He had mounted it wrong but the rack was way too wide for the application. This was one Scott sold before he had ever to my knowledge installed one.
https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/...ration.764628/

He was a three post an out guy so we never did find out how he came out with it.

He had installed the rack in the wrong place for it to work right trying to clear the front motor mount that you or your guy cut out as it isn't needed.

What I want to show is that even with no front end sheet metal or radiator or bumper his A arms did not have the radical angle that yours do with the weight of the truck on them.

The regular Monroe 32132 shock that is the basic shock for an S-10 or G body has a compressed length of 8.680 inches extended length of 13.370 with 4.690 inches of travel I'm thinking that the shock on your truck may be several inches longer and intended for a different application all together.

[leegreen]

Gbody / S10 have radical control arm angles, seems GM wanted us to see where we were going as we went off the road so they built in massive understeer.

That said these upper arms look wrong.
Does the suspension compress if you jump on it or is there something up with the shock as 48chev suggests?

Should the uppers be mounted on the inboard side of that mount plate, not the outboard?

513600's build shows them outboard with both the tubular and stock upper arms:



I found these pictures of other Danforth installs:

[51 3600]

Lots of info and questions to digest. Where to start.
Mr48, shocks are not bottomed out. I think they are KYB shocks that were on the donor Blazer. Obviously not stock so don't know if they are correct.

leegreen, your comments raised my eyebrows. Looked back on Scott's instructions and pics were unclear on which side of the plate to mount the upper arm. But one, showing a stock upper arm, like mine, looked like it could be mounted inboard. A comment under the pic said "Use of stock A-arms may require clearancing". Exactly what your 3rd pic shows. As I have them mounted, upper arm is nowhere near needing clearancing. So I believe that is one problem I have. Don't know if it will solve all my problems.

I think the springs are another problem. I don't remember what engine the donor Blazer had. Probably didn't even look. I've attached more pics standing back from the truck for perspective. Putting a level on the driver side running board, the front of the truck is higher by 1" in 4 feet. Wrangler leafs in back and Blazer in front, which is close to stock I don't know. Don't have a comparison truck either. I did measure from under frame to concrete floor just behind lower control arm and it's 18". Stock? Wheels/tires are very close to stock 3600 height.

Third fix will be tie rods. Replace butchered ones with correctly sized ones. Will order correct lengths if possible from universal types or cut and rethread stock Camaro inner tie rods. Making changes to upper arm location and changing springs may correct tie rod and lower arm angles. If truck is too high now that would help bring it down too.

Thanks for all the help. I'm learning a lot and getting closer to solving my dilemma(s). More thoughts and suggestions welcome if you have them.






Note: rack has been removed in next 2 pics.

[mr48chev]

After spending a few hours poking around on several sites I'm thinking that part of the issue is that Scott assumed that people buying the crossmember had a far higher level of experience in installing front crossmembers = MII than many did. That and he started selling them way too soon without a few thousand test miles on a test mule. As I told EHurter in that 2013 HAMB thread, he was at that time Scott's product development engineer because at that time I didn't know of one of his crossmembers that had actual street miles on it. I still nine years later have never seen any threads by people who have one who have actually put a lot of miles if any miles on them.

I'm just pondering, you didn't deviate from the measurements side to side but especially between the lines between the upper A arm attachment points and the lower A arm attachment points? Those distances just as on an MII install should match the distances that are on the donor vehicle. Meaning that if you were building your own crossmember from scratch you would have set a G body crossmember cut from a donor up on a table or stand and transferred the measurements to your crossmember. you can fudge on the width a bit if your mounting points match per what you add to the width. Then you deal with the steering pivot points as you already have.

[MARTINSR]

Originally Posted by mr48chev

After spending a few hours poking around on several sites I'm thinking that part of the issue is that Scott assumed that people buying the crossmember had a far higher level of experience in installing front crossmembers = MII than many did. That and he started selling them way too soon without a few thousand test miles on a test mule. As I told EHurter in that 2013 HAMB thread, he was at that time Scott's product development engineer because at that time I didn't know of one of his crossmembers that had actual street miles on it. I still nine years later have never seen any threads by people who have one who have actually put a lot of miles if any miles on them.

I'm just pondering, you didn't deviate from the measurements side to side but especially between the lines between the upper A arm attachment points and the lower A arm attachment points? Those distances just as on an MII install should match the distances that are on the donor vehicle. Meaning that if you were building your own crossmember from scratch you would have set a G body crossmember cut from a donor up on a table or stand and transferred the measurements to your crossmember. you can fudge on the width a bit if your mounting points match per what you add to the width. Then you deal with the steering pivot points as you already have.

Exactly!

Brian

[51 3600]

Originally Posted by mr48chev

I'm just pondering, you didn't deviate from the measurements side to side but especially between the lines between the upper A arm attachment points and the lower A arm attachment points?

I understand what you're asking and it's a very good question. Unfortunately I didn't remove the whole donor crossmember only suspension and brake parts so I don't have the original dimensions. I'm depending that Scott's design was done to correctly utilize the components he specified. My ignorance.

Referencing previous comments about the upper arm mounting location, I went out this morning and put a level on both rims. There is a slight positive camber on both which would be corrected (maybe even too much) by mounting the upper arms on the inside of the mounting plate as is correct.

At times like this I wish I would have gone with a MII setup or something else. Threaten to rip it all out and start again. But guess I'll persevere a little longer and see if I can get it to work. Hate to quit.

[mr48chev]

If memory serves right you were looking to keep pretty close to stock ride height and not lower the truck any if at all.

I've never seen a set of Scott's instructions but have to believe just as with MII instructions there has to be an exact verticle distance that the lines between the upper A arm mounting points are and the lower A arm mounting point. Meaning that he would have to have measured a G body or S-10 to get those measurements. Maybe someone has an S-10 frame sitting there that they can measure that distance on to tell you what it is and you can see if your spacing is right or off a bit.

[Rickysnickers]

In your other thread, http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s....php?p=8616061, somebody posted, near the end, some photos. It appears as though the A arms go on the inside of the crossmember. This thread may be worth looking at too. Here's one more thread to look at, https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/...ration.764628/ Hope this helps.

[leegreen]

Originally Posted by 51 3600

a slight positive camber on both which would be corrected (maybe even too much) by mounting the upper arms on the inside of the mounting plate

Bringing your ride height down will push the top of the wheel back out.
pull the springs out and use a stack of plywood or something between lower arm and spring pocket to set ride height, then look at the angles on everything. it might be close enough to correct with alignment shims.

Some of the aftermarket arms are shortened to correct camber when gbodies are lowered, that might be an option and also save you having to notch the frame rails for clearance to stock arms as shown in that picture above.

I assume the crossmember came to you welded up and you have not altered the relationship between the control mount points, so as long as the cross member builder got it right you just have an assembly problem to correct the arm angle.

it is hard to judge from the pictures, but the tie rod pivot point appears to be outboard of the plain defined by the 4 control arm pivot points, so you will have some bump steer. If the hacked up tie rods look strong enough in person I'd probably drive it around for a day before spending money to replace them - just in case there are steering issues that need the whole rack replaced.

[51 3600]

Originally Posted by Rickysnickers

In your other thread, http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s....php?p=8616061, somebody posted, near the end, some photos. It appears as though the A arms go on the inside of the crossmember. This thread may be worth looking at too. Here's one more thread to look at, https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/...ration.764628/ Hope this helps.

I have looked at those threads that you and Mr48 posted. The first is not mine although I posted there. Coach59 was having problems too but more related to air bag config. The JalopyJournal thread was a little more complicated for me to understand, Ackerman's principle, etc.

[51 3600]

Originally Posted by leegreen

I assume the crossmember came to you welded up and you have not altered the relationship between the control mount points, so as long as the cross member builder got it right you just have an assembly problem to correct the arm angle.

it is hard to judge from the pictures, but the tie rod pivot point appears to be outboard of the plain defined by the 4 control arm pivot points, so you will have some bump steer. If the hacked up tie rods look strong enough in person I'd probably drive it around for a day before spending money to replace them - just in case there are steering issues that need the whole rack replaced.

The crossmember did not come assembled but in 3 pieces. Those pieces were tabbed and slotted so they could be assembled only one way, no adjustments.

Tie rod pivot points are outboard of the lower control arm. In fact the plane formed by the two upper arm pivot points and the two lower arm pivot points are at about a 30 degree angle going inward from top to bottom. So tie rod pivot point is not inline vertically (if that is desired) with lower arm pivot nor is it anywhere near inline with the plane of pivot points of both control arms.

Couple pics trying to show those relationships.

[leegreen]

That is what creates bump steer. your tie rod pivots on a shorter radius that the control arms, so as the suspension moves up and down the tie rod will steer the wheel in and out. A bit will not matter, too much will make the truck squirrely or even dangerous depending how you drive it

The simplistic ideal is that at ride height control arms and tie rods are parallel, horizontal, the same length and all pivot on the same plain driving straight ahead. All IFS have some bump steer that gets worse as you turn the wheel and move the tie rod pivot in and out. The OEM I beam and steering in our trucks was near zero bump steer, but even they had some as the steering box moved the drag link pivot out of line with the rear spring perch

The Gbody setup is more complex and designed by smarter people than me.
look where the tie rods pivot on this stock-ish setup, it is inboard of the lower arm pivot but the tie rod arms are long to minimize toe changes as they swing up and down


Your setup may be fine for street driving a truck. Set ride height with lower control arms level, make sure tie rods and rack mounts are well enough done to not fail mechanically and test drive it.

maybe someone with more experience driving setups like this can comment?


here is a description of bump steer that is better than I could write
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/ct...eer-explained/

there are some gbody specific bump steer articles, but most are selling something.

[51 3600]

In studying more on this topic I ran across discussion and pic (similar to one below) of an assembly to modify a rack to get the tie rod pivot points in line with the lower arm. Unlike pic below it appeared to be an individual's fab but done very well. (As usual I can't find the pic again.) He fabbed L shaped brackets to attach in place of inner tie rods and bend around behind rack with attachment points for rod ends. He then used rod ends and bars to replace tie rods and ends. Net effect reduced pivot center to center distance to match the lower arm but used the existing rack where that dimension was larger. Not a new concept but one I hadn't seen before.
Not saying I'm going to jump into this but might play with it one day if bump steer turns out to be a big problem.

[leegreen]

This is a dodge intrepid rack

they are evidently used in various swaps where there are bump steer issues to correct, either leaving them as-is with long tie rods or by adding a plate to the center portion to widen the tie rod mounts out to the optimal point.

I have never used one, or even seen one in person, just something I stumbled across and filed away under things to remember.
Front steer, 3 turns lock to lock and 6" travel. '98 and newer was a stronger version

A cavalier rack is evidently similar but rear steer

edit: Evidently there are versions of the Intrepid rack that have a built in electric pump for PS!

[mr48chev]

I don't think that there is anything wonky with the angle that the mounts for the control arms sit on. Wonky would be if you differed with the vertical distances between the spots the upper control arms bolt on and where the lower control arms bolt on but after looking at Coach529's thread http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s....php?p=7418168 and studying his install photos It looks like you have the mounts in the right spots.

It could and hopefully is just too strong of front springs that aren't compressing as they should.

A stock 2 wheel drive S-10 has right at 1719 lbs on the front wheels. an ad has 1775 so you don't need heavier springs than the S 10 came with and from other sites the V6 springs are too stiff. Put an LS or small block and turbo 350 in an AD and you probably loose a hundred pounds or more off the front end.

[51 3600]

Originally Posted by leegreen

This is a dodge intrepid rack
Attachment 2202154
they are evidently used in various swaps where there are bump steer issues to correct, either leaving them as-is with long tie rods or by adding a plate to the center portion to widen the tie rod mounts out to the optimal point.

I have never used one, or even seen one in person, just something I stumbled across and filed away under things to remember.
Front steer, 3 turns lock to lock and 6" travel. '98 and newer was a stronger version

A cavalier rack is evidently similar but rear steer

edit: Evidently there are versions of the Intrepid rack that have a built in electric pump for PS!

I ran across this info yesterday in more online searching. Was intrigued with the Cavalier rack until I saw that it was rear mount. Intrepid essentially the same and looks workable.

As I think about this more I wonder which application is more work or more difficult to accomplish. My Camaro rack is mounted (still need to verify correctness) with steering set up so wrap around bracket (as in post 21) is most of the work. Mounting the Intrepid rack is more involved because of the style of mounting and question of where pinion shaft will locate. Either application will require rod ends/heim joints, etc. to act as inner tie rods.

At this point I think I should take a step back as I now have several concerns about my present setup. As has been suggested remove the springs and establish the ride height I want. Get the right springs whether cutting what I have or purchasing something else. Look at shocks. Then fit a rack, probably modified from stock in some manner, that is right for my application. Seems there's always a step(s) backward to move forward.

mr48 surprised me with the 1775+/- lbs weight number of the front end of AD trucks. I wouldn't have thought it was that much

[mr48chev]

The normal use for a Cavalier rack on an early ride is on the 49/54 Chevy cars. As mentioned it is rear steer. It won't work on a front steer setup. It works good on those cars because the location of the pivot points match the car's original tierod setup real close.

Most front wheel drive racks are rear steer. Often tucked up pretty high behind the engine.