• Welcome to ClassicBroncos! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all the site features, please take a moment to register. It's fast, simple and absolutely free. So please join our community today!
    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

Ruff Stuff steering pt #’s

BobbyA

Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
254
Looking at doing the Ruff stuff steering but with all their issues right now they can’t get anything shipped, or answer their phones. I was just wondering if someone had the pt #’s for the the tie rod ends? Do have the high angle for the drag link and the one for the pass side knuckle(the one with the hole in it). I just need pt #’s for the other 2.

Any help would be appreciated.
Ty
 

phyler

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
80
Loc.
Denver area
I actually looked all this up awhile back with AI.

The RuffStuff Specialties Y-Link (Inverted T) steering kit typically uses four specific GM 1-ton tie rod ends (TREs). Because these are standard GM parts, they are easily serviceable at most local auto parts stores.
### **GM 1-Ton TRE Part Numbers**
The kit is composed of the following components to build the tie rod and the drag link:
| Component | Part Number | Thread Direction | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Tie Rod (Passenger Side)** | **ES2233L** | 7/8"-18 Left Hand | The "Y-Link" end. It is reamed to allow the drag link to bolt directly into it. |
| **Tie Rod (Driver Side)** | **ES2234R** | 7/8"-18 Right Hand | Standard GM 1-ton tie rod end. |
| **Drag Link (At Pitman Arm)** | **ES2027L** | 7/8"-18 Left Hand | High-angle drag link end, used to prevent binding at the pitman arm. |
| **Drag Link (At Tie Rod)** | **ES2234R** | 7/8"-18 Right Hand | Standard GM 1-ton tie rod end (same as the driver side). |
### **Key Technical Notes**
* **The "Y-Link" End (ES2233L):** This is the heart of the system. In the RuffStuff kit, this part is specifically machined (reamed) to accept the taper of the **ES2234R** drag link end. When ordering a replacement, ensure you specify if you need it reamed for "Over the Knuckle" (OTK) or "Under the Knuckle" (UTK) configurations.
* **Taper Specs:** These ends use the standard GM 1-ton taper (1.5" per foot or 7°). If you are upgrading from stock Jeep or Toyota steering, your knuckles and pitman arm will need to be reamed to match this larger taper.
* **Threads:** All of these TREs use **7/8"-18** threads, which is why the kit includes matching tube adapters and jam nuts for 1.5" OD DOM tubing.
 

DirtDonk

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
51,619
Good info.
Especially those last few paragraphs! Don't expect an off-the-shelf stock part to bolt right in place (so to speak) if your orientation is not compatible.
So whatever version you have now, make sure that the replacement passenger side tie-rod end has the taper in the correct direction.

And it doesn't hurt to have Ruff-Stuff's "The Cure" on hand either.
I hadn't heard that they were having troubles, Sorry to hear that now. Lots of good stuff they offer. Hopefully anything you need is still in stock and there is someone there to ship it.
Anyone know what's going on?

Paul
 

1969miller

Contributor
Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2022
Messages
360
Loc.
Elk Grove
The part numbers listed above are correct, i have them memorized from when i was in sales there. For the high angle drag link you have a few options ES2026R is slightly longer than ES2027R, but thread size and taper is the same. Also worth noting if you buy a regular ES 2233L from the parts store, the hole in it is straight through, not tapered. Originally designed to just hold a steering stabilizer on the chevys, they can be reamed to accept a tie rod. Reaming from the front or back determines if it is made for OTK or UTK tie rod use.
 

jamesroney

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
2,597
Loc.
Fremont, CA
The part numbers listed above are correct, i have them memorized from when i was in sales there. For the high angle drag link you have a few options ES2026R is slightly longer than ES2027R, but thread size and taper is the same. Also worth noting if you buy a regular ES 2233L from the parts store, the hole in it is straight through, not tapered. Originally designed to just hold a steering stabilizer on the chevys, they can be reamed to accept a tie rod. Reaming from the front or back determines if it is made for OTK or UTK tie rod use.
Are you 100% on this? Every 67-87 (91) GM solid axle steering stabilizer that I have ever seen uses the tapered stud.

It's way smaller than the 1-Ton TRE taper, so you can ream the hole either way, but I've never seen one straight thru.

If you don't have a tapered reamer, I have put the ES2233L in my lathe with a 4 jaw and cut the taper with the compound rest. It's a bit of a cheat...but sometimes you loan out your tapered reamer, and forget who you loaned it out to...
 

Attachments

  • steering_stud.jpg
    steering_stud.jpg
    62.9 KB · Views: 70

1969miller

Contributor
Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2022
Messages
360
Loc.
Elk Grove
Are you 100% on this? Every 67-87 (91) GM solid axle steering stabilizer that I have ever seen uses the tapered stud.

It's way smaller than the 1-Ton TRE taper, so you can ream the hole either way, but I've never seen one straight thru.

If you don't have a tapered reamer, I have put the ES2233L in my lathe with a 4 jaw and cut the taper with the compound rest. It's a bit of a cheat...but sometimes you loan out your tapered reamer, and forget who you loaned it out to...
I am not 100% sure. But the aftermarket ones we used to get and ream in house were straight through. Not exact Chinese copy? Probably
 

DirtDonk

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
51,619
Might have been a special order item. Or someone gave a good deal on defective parts!
Otherwise I'll confirm what James said, that every one I ever saw or sold was already tapered. Correctly for the steering stabilizer, but not always for the steering system, depending on the orientation, as you noted.
Because it was never intended as a draglink mounting point, most of them neck down a bit there and are prone to bending right at that spot.
Many members here say they've never had a problem with that, but I know of many more that found bent rod ends after a hard trail ride. Friend Jerry's bent on his first outing after changing over to this style linkage many years ago.
It's pretty bullet-proof, but apparently not fully bomb-proof!

Speaking of tapers and angles though, James, what would it take to "twist" these things to mimic the factory angle of a Ford draglink? And would it be safe, or would it weaken the part? Are they forged, or cast, or what?
I've always been curious about that, because I've always tried to reduce tie-rod roll whenever possible. So far I've not found an off-the-shelf factory replacement part with the proper angle.

Thanks

Paul
 

jamesroney

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
2,597
Loc.
Fremont, CA
Might have been a special order item. Or someone gave a good deal on defective parts!
Otherwise I'll confirm what James said, that every one I ever saw or sold was already tapered. Correctly for the steering stabilizer, but not always for the steering system, depending on the orientation, as you noted.
Because it was never intended as a draglink mounting point, most of them neck down a bit there and are prone to bending right at that spot.
Many members here say they've never had a problem with that, but I know of many more that found bent rod ends after a hard trail ride. Friend Jerry's bent on his first outing after changing over to this style linkage many years ago.
It's pretty bullet-proof, but apparently not fully bomb-proof!

Speaking of tapers and angles though, James, what would it take to "twist" these things to mimic the factory angle of a Ford draglink? And would it be safe, or would it weaken the part? Are they forged, or cast, or what?
I've always been curious about that, because I've always tried to reduce tie-rod roll whenever possible. So far I've not found an off-the-shelf factory replacement part with the proper angle.

Thanks

Paul
Well, I don't want to get Morgan mad at me, but yeah.

There are a couple of vendors out there that create their own lingo for what they wish the part would be. And then there are vendors that are big enough to create their own part numbers...and over time those part numbers become unicorns. Ruffstuff and WFO order enough of them that they can get a Moog ES2027L in a 7/8 Right hand thread configuration, and call it an "ES2027R" which does not exist, and is used on no factory application. Moog does not list it in their catalog. There are no drawing, specifications, or OEM applications. But I will guarantee you that EVERYONE at Ruffstuff knows exactly what an ES2027R is. Google will tell you exactly what it is. (But it isn't...)

Now lets talk about "1-ton" tie rods ends. There is no such thing. This language is a direct result of the General Motor 1969 to 1987 K series trucks. (or 69-90, or 69-92, or 73-87) It all depends on whether you want disc brakes, and if it's a K20, or a K30, or a K30 crew cab. Whatever. It's the solid front Axle Dana 44, Corporate 10 bolt, or Dana 60. They ALL used a tie rod, with low angle, small end balls, and they used a drag link, with high misalignment angle, bigger ball ends. The tie rod on a Chevy 1 ton K30 with a Dana 60 is always about 4 feet long. So nobody ever actually uses a "GM 1-ton TRE." But the GM 1 ton Tie Rod End DOES have a standard taper. Mercifully, it is exactly the same taper as the drag link, AND the same taper as Dodge. So you can use a GM left hand tie rod end with the extra hole for the stabilizer, along with a DODGE right hand TRE, and install it backwards and use it for crossover steering. Or you can intall it upside down and backward, and use it for Tie Rod Over, high-steer crossover steering.

So we need to talk about three things. Vertical angle, (or drop angle) vs Flop angle (twist) vs flop location.

In a perfect world, there would be a distinction made between a Tie Rod End (TRE) and a Drag Link End (DRE). (And yeah, I'm making up my own lingo, at the risk of triggering @ntsqd ) That being said, there are many applications where a DRE is used as a TRE. Pretty much every IFS front end. The distinction being that a Drag Link End has a very high allowable angle in the vertical plane, and a Tie Rod End has a very small allowable angle. The less the allowable angle, the smaller and lighter the ball socket can be. This language is a direct result of the General Motors 1969 to 1987 K series trucks. It's all the solid front Axle Dana 44, Corporate 10 bolt, or Dana 60. They ALL used a tie rod, with low angle, anti-flop balls, and they used a drag link, with high angle, bigger ball ends. The drag link on a GM K-truck is a turnbuckle with a L-R threaded sleeve made for high misalignment.

Back in the 1980s, before selectable lockers became available...the off road community figured out that you need articulation to keep the wheels in contact with the granite to maintain forward traction. So every idiot with a toolbox and a hammer started putting soft, flexy springs in their Jeep / Toyota. The Flat YJ leaf, and by 1988 the long 63 inch Chevy leafs were very popular. Axle articulation and Ramp Travel Index (RTI) became a "flex." You might see upwards of 16 inches of wheel travel as if it were a good thing. Fast forward to the ARB air locker, and that pretty much nullified all of that nonsense. But there was money to be made in aftermarket suspension travel. And money to be saved if you could get that travel without snapping steering components. And off road race trucks had lots of wheel travel. So for a while, every off-roader carried an extra tie rod.

Well, all that travel comes with a limit. So Drag links needed to get longer. So the popular solution was to solid axle swap your Chevy, or Toyota...and use a Drag link end at your pitman arm, and a Left side Chevy tie rod end with the stabilizer hole on the right side. @DirtDonk The whole point of having a horizontal ball attachment was to allow unlimited articulation without snapping the socket off the ball. This worked GREAT, until someone figured out that a horizontal stud in a tie rod results in a moment applied at the drag link. Force times radius results in torque. All of that torque resulted in "flop." So one way to eliminate flop is to put the drag link ball in the exact same plane as the tie rod balls. Imagine a giant sheet of cardboard, going thru the tie rod end balls, AND thru the pitman arm drag link ball. If you can get your passenger side drag link stud in that same plane, it will eliminate flop. Ford figured this out in 1966 with the Bronco. That's why the drag link on a Bronco is at that weird angle. Dodge figured it out by adding a small rubber encased donut on the tie rod end. Later Ford figured it out better by running the drag link directly to the knuckle. And later, Jeep copied Ford. Toyota went IFS, and GM became irrelevant.

Now, if you wanted to change the pin angle of the FORGED tie rod end ES2233L, you could certainly heat the forging, and twist it. If you heated it cherry red, and quenched it slowly, it would be fine. Problem is that if you heat it hot enough to twist it, you will destroy the ball socket, and set it on fire. And most people don't know how to anneal a hot forging...so probably best if you don't. If you want to eliminate the flop, use the Dodge driver's side TRE, and find an anti-flop bushing with the two thin cup washers and the rubber insulator.

Or you can do what everybodyd else does, and buy the Reid flat-top knuckle and run a high steer arm. Of course you can run Chevy/Wagoneer flat tops, but they are all 6 bolt, and you will never get an RCV ball in that stupid spindle hole.

Oh, and remember that you ALWAYS want a high misalignment ball on the pitman arm side. I'll see if I can post the pic of the Heim from another thread. You can see that the joint is ready to bind, and the first time the passenger side drops into a hole, that heim stud will snap right off. (or it might just act as a very expensive limit strap...) Gotta go now.

Pic copied from @the74bronco thread. Note how the heim at the pitman arm is out of down travel. When they break off, it is really scary and noisy. Scary, because you can't steer, and noisy because the driver is screaming so loud.
 

Attachments

  • steering_heim.JPG
    steering_heim.JPG
    53.2 KB · Views: 59
Last edited:

ntsqd

heratic car camper
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,953
Loc.
Upper SoKA
Why would that trigger me? The logic is sound, and I've wondered about that exact thing so thank you for sorting it out and clarifying it. There are way too many examples of poorly chosen names etc. for things, but that are now so ingrained that changing them is swimming upstream in a 100 years flood. Like also calling camber compensated TTB beams "Cut and Turned." Whomever put that one in place should be shot.
Oh, now I see why you were worried...... :)

I can see it now though, "Are those Big Ball DREs or small ball TREs?" and NO guy is going to admit to using small ball anything. Even if they are specifically what should be used in certain locations.

I fail to understand the continued appeal of SREs used in steering. Sure, they're "race car" parts. I'm not impressed, just the opposite. But my opinion is worth what you paid me for it.

Exactly.
 

jamesroney

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
2,597
Loc.
Fremont, CA
Why would that trigger me? The logic is sound, and I've wondered about that exact thing so thank you for sorting it out and clarifying it. There are way too many examples of poorly chosen names etc. for things, but that are now so ingrained that changing them is swimming upstream in a 100 years flood. Like also calling camber compensated TTB beams "Cut and Turned." Whomever put that one in place should be shot.
Oh, now I see why you were worried...... :)

I can see it now though, "Are those Big Ball DREs or small ball TREs?" and NO guy is going to admit to using small ball anything. Even if they are specifically what should be used in certain locations.

I fail to understand the continued appeal of SREs used in steering. Sure, they're "race car" parts. I'm not impressed, just the opposite. But my opinion is worth what you paid me for it.

Exactly.
And yet, the link that falls off the worm and sector box in your Model T will drag on the ground. It runs longitudinally from front to rear. It is a link that drags on stuff.

But when located transverse, and incapable of dragging, Is it still a drag link? Just wait until I ask you why a 4.00 bore x 3.25 stroke engine in a Chevy is called a 327, but when it's in a Ford, it's a 331? And why is a Ford called a 351 when it displaces 352 cubic inches? Or why is a 302 called a 5.0 when it displaces 4.9L? And why is a 400 crank in a Chevy 350 not a 377? And how many different LS motors actually exist?

Turns out your opinion is worth plenty. It will get you free beer if you are ever in Fremont. But: "Free beer" does not always mean it's free to you. But it was free to me.
 

ntsqd

heratic car camper
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,953
Loc.
Upper SoKA
I thought parts only fell off of Brit cars? It happens to Fords too?

A .030" over 327 SBC is a 331, but the Ford size originates in CHP's marketing dept. Likely because they bore all of their block's .030" over and they were the first to really offer the 3.25" stroke en mass, and I'll bet GM has some sort of legal hold over "327". The 302 is more of a 4.95L when the 300 six is closer to being a true 4.9L Imagine the confusion of two engines of the same labeled displacement! Who was that guy at GM who decided that the 350's stroke should be 3.48" instead of the more logical 3.5" so that it would truly be a 350? At least the Ford did that part right. A 400 crank in a std bore 350 block is a 377, it's only when they're bored .030" that become the more commonly known "383". Odd that the Mopar 383 has a shorter stroke.

I've long assumed (yes, I know!) that a "Drag Link" was named such because it 'drags' steering stuff around. Never mind that it also pushes stuff around. Politically correct labeling? Whereas a 'Tie Rod' merely ties the two sides together. Why the drag link gets to be a link and the tie rod is only a mere rod I don't know. They look pretty much the same to me. I bet the lowly tie-rod has an inferiority complex.

Used to be a band playing the local club scene called "Free Beer". They didn't last very long, their would-be fans were mighty upset at having to pay for it. Well, in that setting more like renting it.....
Last time that I was in Fremont I met an exceptional young lady who I *think* was about to follow her dad's foot steps when she started college that following Fall.
 

jamesroney

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
2,597
Loc.
Fremont, CA
Speaking of tapers and angles though, James, what would it take to "twist" these things to mimic the factory angle of a Ford draglink? And would it be safe, or would it weaken the part? Are they forged, or cast, or what?
I've always been curious about that, because I've always tried to reduce tie-rod roll whenever possible. So far I've not found an off-the-shelf factory replacement part with the proper angle.

Thanks

Paul
Hey Paul,

If you are worried about tie rod flop, and you are not made out of money...it turns out that you get what you want without twisting the E2233L.

As long as you are going tie rod under, (castle nuts on top) you can use the factory RH tie rod end from the 77 Ford F150. I just happen to be shortening a High Pinion 44 today for an early bronco, and it occurred to me that the passenger tie rod end has the exact roll that you want. I'm not 100% sure on the taper, but I'll check it. Obviously it will be 6-5/8 inches too long, but it's plenty long enough to cut down and re-thread. I might even build one this weekend and see how it works.

Turns out that you actually peddle this part in your catalog for the 78-79 Bronco. It's the Mevotech MS40642 or the Wild H SKU# 792023.

Sure it's 4 feet long, and it has the TRE formed into the longest part of the truck...but it's actually not too expensive, and seems to be serviced in the aftermarket. It's pretty stout, much heavier than the GM part. I need to figure out what is different about the 76-77 F150 one, since my axle is from a 77. But it looks the same. The 76-77 uses the same knuckles as the 78-79 so it's either length, or taper, or thread. I'll figure it out and post later.

Time to go cut and turn!
 

toddz69

Sponsor/Vendor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
11,206
Hey Paul,

If you are worried about tie rod flop, and you are not made out of money...it turns out that you get what you want without twisting the E2233L.

As long as you are going tie rod under, (castle nuts on top) you can use the factory RH tie rod end from the 77 Ford F150. I just happen to be shortening a High Pinion 44 today for an early bronco, and it occurred to me that the passenger tie rod end has the exact roll that you want. I'm not 100% sure on the taper, but I'll check it. Obviously it will be 6-5/8 inches too long, but it's plenty long enough to cut down and re-thread. I might even build one this weekend and see how it works.

Turns out that you actually peddle this part in your catalog for the 78-79 Bronco. It's the Mevotech MS40642 or the Wild H SKU# 792023.

Sure it's 4 feet long, and it has the TRE formed into the longest part of the truck...but it's actually not too expensive, and seems to be serviced in the aftermarket. It's pretty stout, much heavier than the GM part. I need to figure out what is different about the 76-77 F150 one, since my axle is from a 77. But it looks the same. The 76-77 uses the same knuckles as the 78-79 so it's either length, or taper, or thread. I'll figure it out and post later.

Time to go cut and turn!

The 76-77 F150s are analogous to the 76-77 Broncos in that they use the inverted-Y/Haltenberger linkage so the tie rod won't work, in my opinion. The 78-79 stuff is good and has the "twist" in a good spot and at a good angle. I've been running a shortened 78-79 tie rod setup in the TRO configuration for over 20 years with the 78-79 F150 knuckles and really like it. BC Broncos used to sell this setup many years ago. Two photos here showing the stock '77 linkage and a '77 with the '78-'79 linkage retrofitted to it.

Todd Z.
 

Attachments

  • 77 78 linkage.jpg
    77 78 linkage.jpg
    257.6 KB · Views: 72
  • 77 linkage.jpg
    77 linkage.jpg
    164.9 KB · Views: 60

jamesroney

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
2,597
Loc.
Fremont, CA
The 76-77 F150s are analogous to the 76-77 Broncos in that they use the inverted-Y/Haltenberger linkage so the tie rod won't work, in my opinion. The 78-79 stuff is good and has the "twist" in a good spot and at a good angle. I've been running a shortened 78-79 tie rod setup in the TRO configuration for over 20 years with the 78-79 F150 knuckles and really like it. BC Broncos used to sell this setup many years ago. Two photos here showing the stock '77 linkage and a '77 with the '78-'79 linkage retrofitted to it.

Todd Z.
Well, thanks! I do appreciate that info, and it makes perfect sense.

The axle I just bought off facebook was a SAS leaf spring swapped "73-74 high pinion from an F150." But the picture showed the 5 lug disc brakes and smooth tubes. So I knew it wasn't what the seller said it was. But for me, it was worth it just for the knuckles and brakes. Turns out it was a Dana 610024-1 which is a 77 F150 3.50 open. But it had the inverted T tie rod.

I'm going to go ahead and narrow it for an EB and do the caster correction for a 3.5 lift. Not 100% sure why, but someone will want it eventually. They are getting harder to find.
 
Top