Tie Rod End hits Torsion Bar

[Atomic440]

Just buttoning up a front end rebuild on my '70.  I've pretty much got it completely together, but noticed when turning the steering wheel that the driver's side tie rod end and pitman arm hit the torsion bar.  I haven't adjusted caster/camber/toe-in yet, but ride height is pretty close to where it should be.  The interference is there with the front end on its wheels or up on jacks.  I've played around with different ride heights, but it doesn't seem to change.  After double checking my notes and before pictures, I believe the centerlink is in correctly.  Even so, I flipped it around to try it, and nothing changed.  I'd like to finish it up and get it aligned this week, but need to figure this out first... Any help is appreciated!

[bordin34]

Is the tie-rod supposed to attach below the center link?

[FLG]

Hmm, no i belive it is above...

Are you sure you have the correct pitman arm?

Your center link seems to be more straight, (stole this pics from ebay)....but his seems to sit at more of an angle




??

[Atomic440]

The holes in the centerlink are tapered, and since both the idler and pitman arms connect from above, there's no choice for the tie rod ends.

The idler arm and pitman arm were replaced a couple years ago, and I re-used them for this rebuild.  They worked fine before...  although now that you mention it, the pitman arm was purchased and installed by someone else (long story), so they could have got the wrong one and I just never knew it interfered (haven't driven much since)...

hmmm... any way I can confirm that I have the correct pitman arm?

Just went to the garage and inspected my old torsion bars... yep, the left one has a small area that was worn away, looks like just the right spot for the tie rod end to hit...  Must have been hitting this whole time!  I'll have to look into this more,a new pitman arm may be in order...  I think I just might have the original one buried in the garage somewhere... I'll look

[FLG]

Check if theres any numbers stamped on it, maybe a part number and we can locate its application. Check out the idler arm while your at it.

Also might be able to pick one up at your local parts store so you can compare the two.

[maxwellwedge]

Looks like it is assembled correctly but can't tell on the center-link. I would suspect the pitman arm - it may not have enough "drop".

[b5blue]

You have a different inner tie rod than I do on my 70....mine is flat on top, yours looks like the "cap" is raised up. It looks to be the correct height.

[HPP]

I agree, tie rod cap height appears to be different. Same thing can happen if you go to a significantly larger diameter t-bar or a larger grease zerk.

To move the relative height of the tie rod end, you need to shim the steering box upper mounting bolt to lower the center link, ergo, the tie rod end will also drop. Procedure is outlined in the FSM, so it is not a wholly uncommon problem.

[Atomic440]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Was out of town after last post, so just now getting a chance to follow up.  I did find my "old" pitman arm.  Comparing it to the "new" one that is installed, I thought they were different, so I pulled the "new" one off.  While there is definitely a difference in the curvature, I now believe that the location of the splined end relative to the centerlink end is the same.  The vertical drop appears to be the same as well, see attached pics ("new" one has grease zerk).  IM004679a.JPG looks like the "new" one maybe slightly longer, but I took it at an angle to show both parts.

The "old" pitman arm has a number stamped on it, difficult to read, but I believe it is 1858018N18(3?)0(8?)73 3 2.  I haven't been able to find any reference to that number.  The "new" one is stamped with RP20|01.  There is a definite difference in the | and the 1, however, if you google RP20101, it shows up as a 65-70 B-Body Pitman Arm.

For kicks I plan to reinstall the "old" one tomorrow morning, and see if that changes anything.

For the tie rod ends/adjusters, I went with C-body 11/16" parts.    I've seen several guys on here do the same, haven't heard of the interference problem before.  The tie rod end that is interfering is Moog ES355RL.  That may be the reason the tie rod end cap seems larger.  Haven't yet, but tomorrow will compare the 9/16" old ones to the new ones.

I also plan to compare old and new idler arms.  In the rebuild I swapped 0.90" torsion bars for new 0.96" ones.

As I mentioned before, it hasn't been aligned yet, so I'm sure caster/camber/toe-in is all screwed up (ride height is close).  However, my thought is that won't effect this interference, the tie rod end location is fixed by the pitman arm/centerlink connection.  Do you guys agree with that?

So I guess right now I'm thinking I have the right pitman arm, and really don't know what else to do.  Shim the steering box like HPP suggests?

[b5blue]

The reason they hit is the tops of both are higher, ride height won't change the height of the drag link, only a slight bit of angle on the inner tie-rod. C body tie-rods and the pittman arm in your photo all "stick up" higher than the parts on my car, the torsion bar diameter difference is so tiny it wouldn't matter because the car parts are all engineered to take any bar that was available in 1970. Buy the way you'll like the ride with the new bars, I just put them in my car and it handles well without being too stiff. I hope this helps you some!     

[Atomic440]

I installed the "old" pitman arm, and the interference is the same  .
I'm convinced at this point that I have the correct pitman arm.

Yes, the C-body tie rod ends are slightly taller, but looking at the old, original 9/16" tie rod ends, the grease zerk on the inner driver's side is severely worn.  No doubt it was making contact with the torsion bar (also worn in that area) previous to the rebuild.  That leads me to believe even if I went back to the B-body tie rod ends/adjusters, the problem would still exist.

Can't find my old idler arm to compare, but ordered this one through year one, so pretty sure it's correct.

Nice to hear feedback on the torsion bar upgrade, can't wait to see the difference!

Very frustrating as this is the last thing to resolve before getting it back on the road after being down for 20+ months!

[maxwellwedge]

OK - Here are a few things to maybe try. Is it just the grease zerk that's hitting? If so, fill 'er up with grease and snap (cut off with some good HD side cutters) the top half of the zerk off (factory did). Is the tie rod end fully tight/seated? It does not look like a lot of threads are showing. Try the old tie rod ends on that side and see if it's any better. Do your original parts have threads right to the end (where the nut goes on) or is the last 1/4" of the stud non-threaded. The non-threaded ends are factory - anything else is aftermarket.

[Atomic440]

Thanks maxwellwedge.  The picture above was taken before fully seating the tie rod end.  Here's another picture with it fully seated, torqued to 40 lb-ft per FSM, interference still there.  Much more and the hole in the stud would be past the castle nut rendering the cotter pin useless.  I believe the cap would still hit the torsion bar even with the grease zerk gone. 

The original parts do have the last 1/4" of the stud unthreaded, so sounds like they are factory.  For both the right and left (factory original) the outer tie rod end has a zerk that is perpendicular to the cap, the inners have a 90 degree zerk.  It's this 90 degree zerk on the drivers side that is pretty worn.  If I have time tomorrow I'll try reinstalling the originals...

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

Man there is definitely something wrong there....are you sure you have your centerlink installed correctly?

The idler arm bolts to a fixed location, the steering box bolts to a fixed location----all on k-frame.....

Here are some '70 susp reference pics...

[b5blue]

Man your just showing off! That is one sweet set up!  Notice the shape of the components right where his rub, they are different. That notch in the T bar is bad news, if a gouge from clamping vice-grips on a bar to remove it can make a T bar fail, then that notch is capable of the same thing, don't let that happen to the new one's!!

[hemi68charger]

Centerlink itself may be flipped around. I had the exact same condition on the new Daytona I just got. Turned out the pass's side of the centerlink was on the driver's side. There is a unique way of installing her. My tie-rod ends were real close to the torsion bar as well. It's obvious which side is the top and which is bottom, but it's not so obvious which is left and which is right. The centerlink should angle down and forward.

[b5blue]

Backwards not upside down maybe...but his parts are still "taller".

[Atomic440]

I remember seeing Shakey's build using the C-body tie rod ends/adjusters.  Same part numbers as mine, but looking at his pics, no interference.

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,15396.60.html

I'm confused about the centerlink now.  My notes say it came off angled down and back, though that certainly doesn't make it correct.  hemi68charger says down and forward.  But, looking at the pics from NOT Just 6T9 CHGR and the following thread, it looks like down and back.  Also,

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,50414.0.html

Currently the centerlink is installed down and back, as indicated in the above thread.  Early on when I first noticed the interference I changed the centerlink to down and forward, but it didn't make a difference.  Admittedly I didn't torque everything down when I checked this.  Personally, I can't convince myself that it matters one way or the other.  You essentially have two fixed points (pitman arm and idler arm), with a fixed distance in between.  As long as the link that connects them is solid, I don't think it matters if that link is straight, curved, looped, etc.  And flipping it around doesn't change the distance between the two, so the relative movement between the two points is the same, no matter the orientation.

At this point I'm willing to flip it around and try it, but get a little nervous with how many pickle fork removals those new boots can handle...

[maxwellwedge]

Get a proper tie rod puller. The pickle fork is like using a chain saw to do a heart transplant. 
Did you try the original parts? I'll see if I have a good pic of the center link.

Here's one so far.

[HPP]

There is a chance that when you disassembled everything and cleaned all the components that you dislodged a factory installed shim and lost it without noticing. Lacking this shim, when you reassembled everything, you created an interference issue. As I said before, this is not an uncommon problem and the FSM and Chassis manul both outline the shimming method as the correction for the pitman side. To adjust the idler side requires grinding and welding so guess which side was typically adjusted on the assembly line.

Check these measurements; from the floor to your pitman mounting face, floor to ilder mounting face, and the floor to each tie rod. The pitman and idler should read the same, the inner tie rods should read the same, and the outers should read the same. These are all relative measurements, so you do not have to have the engine or trans in to do this. You are simply comparing position.  These should all match on each side of the car to deliver optimum steering performance and to avoid any bumpsteer issues. I'd receommend correcting checking them and correcting them even if you do not have interference issue.

[Atomic440]

Certainly a chance I didn't notice a shim.  The thing that keeps bugging me is that it appears the tie rod end and torsion bar was rubbing before this project, as indicated by obvious wear marks.  However, the "mechanic" that replaced the pitman arm and tried to tighten up the steering certainly could have removed the steering gear and lost shims that way a few years ago...

Having trouble finding the shimming method in the FSM, can you point me in the right direction?  I assume for my case I'd shim the upper 2 steering gear mounting bolts to rotate the pitman arm downward.  Sound right?

What about putting a spacer between the gear box and the pitman arm (on the sector shaft)?  There's a couple threads left on the sector shaft, so there might be enough room... I could even take a band saw to the old pitman arm, and make a splined spacer... 

I like the measurement suggestions and plan on doing those when I can.

[maxwellwedge]

Was this car ever hammered? That could explain some of this as well.

[Atomic440]

Hmmm...

I've owned the car 16 years, 4th owner.  I knew the 3rd owners, elderly couple, had it for probalby 12-15 years.  I'm pretty sure it's never seen any track time.

However, about 13 years ago I lost control on the dirt road I lived off of and put it in the left side ditch.  Narrowly missed a telephone pole, and scraped the heck out of the drivers side front fender.  This was 2 weeks after a new paint job  Something could have happened then, though inspection after the event, and during teardown for this project nothing seemed bent or broken.  Tweaked the frame maybe, so the K-member's not sitting true?  Scary thought...

[b5blue]

I gotta pipe in here one more time Atomic440...Please get your hands on a MoPar CHASSIS book. It covers all of this in depth. Your parts don't look like my parts, they stick up higher...the distance your fighting. Shimming any more than .90 thickness can overstress the mounting tabs causing them to break. If you move all this stuff just to make these parts work you can end up with some built in handling problems or worse some kind of failure. Your like me in that I've had my car a long time. One of the things I like about the B body is the ride and handling. Add to that the durability and these cars are winners, set up right they really last a long time. Check out a CHASSIS book before you modify your car...it's all in there, not the FSM.

[maxwellwedge]

Hmmm...

I've owned the car 16 years, 4th owner.  I knew the 3rd owners, elderly couple, had it for probalby 12-15 years.  I'm pretty sure it's never seen any track time.

However, about 13 years ago I lost control on the dirt road I lived off of and put it in the left side ditch.  Narrowly missed a telephone pole, and scraped the heck out of the drivers side front fender.  This was 2 weeks after a new paint job  Something could have happened then, though inspection after the event, and during teardown for this project nothing seemed bent or broken.  Tweaked the frame maybe, so the K-member's not sitting true?  Scary thought...

Yes - by "hammered" I meant hit, smacked, poked, popped, whacked....pick one 

I bought a car once that went off into a ditch by the seller. The frame rails were twisted and the K-frame was junk. Here is the interesting part. You could not tell. Until the car was put on P4's (frame machine) it was determined one side was almost 2" higher than the other! It straightened out fine but I had to find a nice k-frame replacement. I am starting to lean this way a little more now. Have a competent shop (front end experts) give it the once over. Like B5 mentioned above the FSM shows all the gauge holes and measurements the shop (or you) can check.

[tan top]

yep , been racking my brains as to whats happening ..shim thought shim on steering box , like was mentioned !!   now its come to light it has left the road into a ditch ..... sounds like frame damage or Kframe at least .....  have you got any good pictures of the front end frame rails k fram etc  so we can see both sides ??   ...might be mistaken but don't your year B.body have insulator between k Frame & frame rail 

[Atomic440]

I'm apprehensive about shimming the box as well, which is why I haven't done it yet.  I understand the parts may be taller, but other guys on here have used same part numbers and haven't had this problem.  Gotta admit, leaning toward the frame issue now.  Is this the Chassis book you mentioned?
http://chucker54.stores.yahoo.net/mopchas8thed.html

My luck would be that the K-member is messed up, and I just reinstalled it after weld reinforcing it!  Visually looked okay, but I never checked for any type of level or trueness.  Everything bolted up fine so figured I was good to go.  The K-member's reinstalled now.

Don't have the best pics, but here's a few.  2 of the frame rails inside the wheel wells on both sides, the driver's side K-member before removal (no insulators), and a front view from before the rebuild.  Looking closely at that one it seems the center link is angled upwards on the drivers side...

Anybody know a good shop in San Antonio for this kinda stuff?

[b5blue]

That is a newer issue of my book, get it!  Yes I see the angle your talking about. If you can wait and read the book you can make informed decisions, why did you oversize the tie rods to start with? (just wondering)   

[Atomic440]

Just ordered, seemed like a good deal, and I'm sure will be useful.  Will wait to review the book before doing anything substantial.

Saw the tie rod end upgrade on here first, but also picked up a copy of Tom Condran's book "Performance Handling for Classic Mopars".  In it he suggests buying the 11/16" tie rod adjusters from a '74-78 C-Body car, and the C-body tie rod ends to match.  The shanks are 11/16", but the tapers fit perfectly into the steering linkage of the A/B bodies.  The sleeves are exactly the right length, and he claims they carry 50% more stiffness than the original 9/16" ones.  Essentially the same price either way, so went with the larger ones.  Aside from my interference problem, they do fit right in.

[b5blue]

If you right to front suspension just read up on the different aspects of what does what and why, after thinking things over I decided to just stick with "stock" parts for durability I can't see needing to "up-size" or change to tube type parts anywhere unless racing on a dirt circle track. The only upgrade cop and taxi got was a sleeve on the UCA bushing. (I'm not knocking what anyone else is doing...my car is a daily driver) Good Luck!!

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

Any update???

[b5blue]