Steering ?

[DEEPWOODS]

I redrilled the knuckles to7/8" holes for ruff stuff inserts and converted to one ton steering . I installed a new spindle and 5/8 degree camber shim on passenger side. Now it's more twitchy than before.

 

[bronconut73]

Ditch the dropped pitman arm.
That way the drag link and Trac bar are in the same plain.

 

[DirtDonk]

Doesn't look like a dropped arm to me. Looks at least close to stock-ish. And lowering it more would actually help as long as you lowered the trackbar too. And that's I think the root of the issues here.

...Now it's more twitchy than before.

Because you seem to be skirting around one of the most basic issues you're dealing with. And that's the overall angles of the links. They're too steep still.
Not only that, but you've now added another layer of vagueness with the 1-ton setup. Tie-rod roll is now "a thing" you have to work around.

You've got a lifted Bronco. So you MUST change the angle of the trackbar. Yours has a custom riser, but is it the full 4.5" that the lift is? Looks close from here, but wondering why the angle of the bar is still so steep looking.
Personally I would add a mild dropped pitman arm (even though you're already TRO) rather than the full drop, then add a drop to the upper trackbar bracket until the two bars are parallel.

With the GM setup the two bars are never going to be perfect without more custom stuff because the pivot point for the draglink is, like the previous linkage, farther to the passenger side than the trackbar pivot.
This is not a one-thing-or-another kind of problem you can fix. It's a "system" that has to have all it's bits working together. Whenever you change one you have to change several others.
The suspension lift is what started the snowball rolling down hill. The custom steering linkage is another. Then the custom trackbar riser that is not quite the right height.
Even custom parts have to work together.

It's really close obviously. The two bars are more parallel than most after all the mods. But they're still too steep, still slightly off from each other, still pivoting from different points, and the GM setup is still going to roll.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the GM setup doesn't roll as bad when it's new and the joints are tight as it will once they start to loosen up. Which is not something you really want to have to look forward to, but it's been the real world for a lot of EB owners for years.
Some are better than others, but they all do it to an extent. Lowering the angle of the draglink will reduce this a lot. But of course you have to then match the trackbar angle to it.
Snowballs...

Paul

 

[DirtDonk]

...Personally I would add a mild dropped pitman arm (even though you're already TRO) rather than the full drop, then add a drop to the upper trackbar bracket until the two bars are parallel...

Of course, what I just recommended can have it's own consequences with a setup like this on an EB. And that's the pitman arm being too long and getting close to, or even touching the tie-rod at full stuff.
So that becomes another aspect to plan for. Gotta measure the clearance you have before adding another non-stock part.

Fun stuff, huh?%)

Paul

 

[DEEPWOODS]

Paul I got a drop pitman arm from WH # 1275 but it looks like to much drop so where do I get a mild drop pitman arm? Does WH have it? Thanks for the help ,Thanks Keith

 

[bronconut73]

I wish stock pitman arms weren't so hard to get around here. You can always order one but there are none on the shelf.

 

[DirtDonk]

Yeah, it'd be too much drop at the moment until you match the trackbar to it. Maybe too much due to the TRO setup anyway, which would likely make your draglink almost level. Which can be a great thing by the way! Just harder to match the trackbar too.
But not impossible...

Yes, our full-size arm #791275 (http://www.wildhorses4x4.com/product/Drop_Pitman_Arm_7879yr/Suspension_Parts_78yr) is the one I was thinking of. It's got about 3/4" less drop and is what a lot of guys running '76/'77 Broncos use when converting from the Y steering to the T steering linkage.

It's only downside is that it's angled the opposite of what an EB arm normally is, due to it's normally going on a full-size truck facing front. But this has not proven to be any issue for most of us because most of us don't go off-roading and need maximum wheel travel.
That said, I have the same arm on my '71 with 3.5" of lift and F150 steering linkage (similar geometry to yours) and never had any trouble with it even on the Sierra trails I used to frequent.
So they do work.

Oh, and they also have the larger tapered hole, which should fit your large rod ends.
I don't know for a fact that the degree of the taper is the same as your GM stuff, but I did think that both the GM and the F150's used the same 7° taper.
I just can't confirm it from memory.

Paul

 

[DirtDonk]

I wish stock pitman arms weren't so hard to get around here. You can always order one but there are none on the shelf.

They ship USPS pretty cheap from anywhere else though. So maybe not a big stumbling block if you find one say, in Arizona, Oregon, or Michigan or thereabouts.
Or even California if you need a full-size stock arm: http://www.wildhorses4x4.com/produc...an-Arm-used/fullsize-bronco-tierods-draglinks


Actually, that full-size arm would work with an EB draglink if you had a tapered sleeve to neck down the hole a bit.
Much beefier than most EB arms too, even if the angle is off slightly.

Paul

 

[DEEPWOODS]

Paul I have a 77 EB arm looks to have about 1 1/8" more drop than the EB arm I have on it now. I also have a 79 Bronco arm it is about 3/4" more drop than the arm that's on it now but like you say it is angled the opposite direction of the EB arms

 

[DEEPWOODS]

It has a 4x4x2 box and I read somewhere that you don't need a drop arm with the 4x4x2 box especially if you have TRO. Although looking at my other Broncos it looks about the same below the frame to me

 

[DirtDonk]

Paul I have a 77 EB arm looks to have about 1 1/8" more drop than the EB arm I have on it now. I also have a 79 Bronco arm it is about 3/4" more drop than the arm that's on it now but like you say it is angled the opposite direction of the EB arms

That's great! You have arms to experiment with then.
Use the arm with the most drop that does not hit the tie rod. Then match the trackbar to that.
You're 4.5" and currently don't have enough steering correction.

It has a 4x4x2 box and I read somewhere that you don't need a drop arm with the 4x4x2 box especially if you have TRO. Although looking at my other Broncos it looks about the same below the frame to me

That's crap info, or at least was taken out of context. Or you were thinking of the F100 box that's super long.
The boxes are quite a bit larger than the stock EB box it's true. But not much farther down even with normal mounting. But the mounting of the non-stock box is totally custom anyway. How is yours mounted by the way? Directly to the frame? Using one of the thick plate adapters? Is it angled rearward to clear the body mount, or was the body mount cut for clearance?
The only box that is normally recommended to use without a pitman arm is the F100 box mounted inside the frame rails.

With the 4x4x2 box you've just run into another problem of lack of real estate on a Bronco. If your box is too far rearward, most pitman arms will be too long and run the risk of contacting the tie-rod.

You have to keep remembering something. Not only are you no longer stock in any way up front, but you are also over the normal lift height. And most steering correction parts are made for 3.5" lifts or LESS.
TRO is great, and a big help here. But in your case you need it AND a pitman arm because you're more than 3.5 inches taller than stock. Most arms are made with slightly less than 3.5" of drop, but with the 3.5" lifts in mind. Same for the drop brackets. You've gone over that.

AND EVERY BRONCO IS DIFFERENT!
Yours is yours, and other than the frame very little is still stock, and it's lifted higher than "normal" too. If you ever want it to drive well, you have to fab stuff up. You can't use just off the shelf parts made for lower lifts and expect it to drive like a normal Bronco.
You either have to us a combination of those parts, custom fabbed parts, or both. Or put up with less than stellar performance.
Period.

So get those angles down any way you can. Make them more parallel at the same time. Make sure everything clears and nothing binds. Look at other peoples junk and mimic what works. Read between the lines and don't just go by those that drive off-road only, or don't care how theirs really drives on the road because they only drive it a mile or three every third weekend.

And remember that nothing is made specifically to correct for a 4.5" or taller lift. YOU have to make it. If you're lucky that involves off-the-shelf parts used in combination with one another. But most likely you'll have to do at least some custom tweaking. You've already got a custom lower trackbar mount, so nothing standard for that end is going to work any longer. It's going to be at least partly custom.
Doing all this correctly the first time will involve mocking it up before buying more parts that won't work together, or welding something on permanently.

In other words... You have to make it all work for your specific conditions.

Paul

 

[DirtDonk]

Just remembered there's a thread on here very recently (hmm, don't think it was yours though) that talked about mounting up and custom making everything for the 4x4x2 box. Lots of thought and work (and re-work, and re-re-work) getting it dialed in. Reason it popped into my head was the pitman arm hitting the tie rod.
Not sure if they ever got it dialed either. Don't actually remember an outcome.

Maybe search for that here. It would be within the last month I think.

Good luck.

Paul

 

[74 Bronco Billy]

Deep Woods, Paul is correct, it is time to Fab. When you get that high, you need to tweak with what you can buy off the shelf, but sometimes you have to make it too. Look at my pictures, you can see where I am heading.

Paul, you have been at it too much, probably up too late, and taking care of others as usual. I think you are referring to my thread on TRO.

I fabbed a modification to my TRO set up with the Pittman arm, because it was getting really thin due to drilling it out for the Ruff Stuff inserts. I am still working on getting more clearances, but it makes me think that maybe I want the shortest Pittman Arm that Ford made for the stock F 100 box. Sorry if I am hijacking, but I think the fab part and the TRO is relevant.%)

I am now looking at getting the steering box ported and then the RAM mock up comes next. But 1st I need Pittman Arm clearance, and I bought materials (Ruff Stuff) to make a custom track bar to get it out of the way of the Tie Rod and not hit the Dana 44 cover when compressed.;D

I used the Ruff Stuff to fabricate the TRO, i.e., the high steer arms, the TR, the DL, and next will be the TB. I had to go to the High Steer arms because of the TR hitting the Dana 44 cover. Now I am so high with the TR, it is at the level of the Pittman Arm when suspension is compressed, and level with the TB. Both the TB and DL are equal in length, so, they may arc thru their travel very nicely.

Paul, what is your learned opinion on how much clearance we need between the Pittman Arm to DL, to TR, to TB. How much is enough, and how much is not enough? I'm close to my drop bracket with the TR.

Anyone out there know of a shorter Pittman Arm for my box? Mine is 8", I'd like one 7" - 6.5". I'll re fab the strengthening part, I hate drilling the damn hole in that metal, it is F&^%*&g hard.

 

[DirtDonk]

I'd say as the links get beefier, your minimum gap can get smaller because the components don't flex as much. So 1/8" is likely way more than enough for 99% of situations.
However... Isn't there always a however however?! With most people's setups that have more angle on their draglink, the tie-rod is going to roll quite a bit. This rolling motion changes the position of the draglink during the roll. So if when the tie-rod rolls the draglink "up" that action closes the gap, then that change would have to be factored in.
With yours being so level, that roll may be gone. It will certainly be minimized, and of course will change with suspension height so can still roll while bouncing around. But at least you're starting from a better place.

Seems to me then that if you can mock these things up like you're doing, and lock them in place without final welding, you can run the steering through it's paces and see what kind of movement you get.

Hey, we are "fabbing" now, right?;D Might as well throw "lots of mock-up" on to that list as well.

So to review:
1. Minimal tubing flex gives you the ability to run tight gaps. Even to the point of a light rub without causing trouble. Other than scraped paint that is.
2. But tie-rod roll during suspension articulation could cause the gaps to close up even more. Which is what's ultimately going to cause any trouble that crops up.
3. But the silver lining is that this tight spot only occurs when the pitman arm is closest to the tie-rod.

Paul

 

[EricLar80]

Wait, do you have a steering ram attached directly to the steering gear?

Deep Woods, Paul is correct, it is time to Fab. When you get that high, you need to tweak with what you can buy off the shelf, but sometimes you have to make it too. Look at my pictures, you can see where I am heading.

Paul, you have been at it too much, probably up too late, and taking care of others as usual. I think you are referring to my thread on TRO.

I fabbed a modification to my TRO set up with the Pittman arm, because it was getting really thin due to drilling it out for the Ruff Stuff inserts. I am still working on getting more clearances, but it makes me think that maybe I want the shortest Pittman Arm that Ford made for the stock F 100 box. Sorry if I am hijacking, but I think the fab part and the TRO is relevant.%)

I am now looking at getting the steering box ported and then the RAM mock up comes next. But 1st I need Pittman Arm clearance, and I bought materials (Ruff Stuff) to make a custom track bar to get it out of the way of the Tie Rod and not hit the Dana 44 cover when compressed.;D

I used the Ruff Stuff to fabricate the TRO, i.e., the high steer arms, the TR, the DL, and next will be the TB. I had to go to the High Steer arms because of the TR hitting the Dana 44 cover. Now I am so high with the TR, it is at the level of the Pittman Arm when suspension is compressed, and level with the TB. Both the TB and DL are equal in length, so, they may arc thru their travel very nicely.

Paul, what is your learned opinion on how much clearance we need between the Pittman Arm to DL, to TR, to TB. How much is enough, and how much is not enough? I'm close to my drop bracket with the TR.

Anyone out there know of a shorter Pittman Arm for my box? Mine is 8", I'd like one 7" - 6.5". I'll re fab the strengthening part, I hate drilling the damn hole in that metal, it is F&^%*&g hard.

 

[DirtDonk]

He's contemplating putting it on the pitman arm, so it's mocked up that way currently. I'm trying to talk him out of it, but can't exactly quote engineering do's and don't s as to why not to do it that way. It just didn't seem right.
Maybe you have specifics, and a better solution for him?

Paul

 

[ntsqd]

Applying the ram to the pitman arm will work, but it puts a whole bunch more linkage in the wear path, and any wear in those parts will not be constrained by the ram.

Said differently, the ram acts as a steering damper too. If one joint wears a little and allows the tire to shimmy it can now shake the other tire, wearing out that steering joint in the process, and also wear one or both of the drag-links joints. All before the ram could stop it.

If the ram is connected to the tie-rod then it will put an immediate stop the linkage transmitting something going on with one tire to the rest of the system.

Next consider a tire against something and doesn't want to turn. With the ram attached to the tie-rod there is only one joint at risk of premature wear or worse. With it at the pitman arm the whole linkage is at risk of premature wear, bending, or breaking.

There are good reasons why they're always attached to the tie-rod and nowhere else.

 

[EricLar80]

**edit - it looked to me like the ram was in place of the drag link and so my comments are in relation to that, I'll delete if that's not the case**

Aside from the strength concerns, the steering ram plus the pitman arm will try to push the wheels left or right at the same time. Meaning that the steering would be twice as fast and would want to move twice as far as needed. Also, nothing guarantees they move together equally so steering center will never be correct.

I would suggest at that point you just go full hydro in the way that the ultra-4 buggies do it. Get rid of the steering gear, pitman arm and drag link. They mount a double-ended ram to the diff and either end connects to each wheel. So two short tie rods with a ram in the middle.

 

[74 Bronco Billy]

Ya, that Ram picture was for a mock up. I'd love to see the pictures of those buggies.

Deep Woods, have you made any more progress? Is it still twitchy? ;D

 

[DEEPWOODS]

Yes it is all over the road now like someone else said like on ice skates.The joints are all new and tight now I did think the box might have to much play but it is tight also . My caster #s from the alignment shop in post 36 was not as bad as I thought they would be. I am thinking about putting in 7 degree C bushings but my front drive shaft is about to bind now at the transfer case so it can't take any more drop.It is a Tom Woods drive shaft so I don't think I can get one that can handle more drop.The track bar riser is a bunch of plates welded inside and out and has to come off to correct the angles. It's going to be a bitch to cut off and replace that is what I am going to try next .