Hey Paul your product is listed for up to 75. In 76 they changed to some other form I think it's y link. I hear though, that the 66-75 drag link setup is more desirable. So would it not make sense to just upgrade to the old style if you're replacing your setup? Hence just list the product up to 77.
Makes total sense actually. Especially if you have to replace any of your other components due to normal wear or damage anyway. No reason not to upgrade to the T-style.
I say "upgrade" because while the Y-setup is excellent especially on the street, it's only excellent when the Bronco is stock or near-stock. Some have good luck with the Y, but most run into steering woes above 2" of lift and/or larger tires. Even a stock height EB with 33's can mangle a Y-link pretty quick under the right/wrong circumstances.
Because the tapered holes and distances on a '76 or '77 are different though, you can't just bolt up an old stock T-style linkage and be done with it. We sell a distinct part for that, in the #2390 (
http://www.wildhorses4x4.com/product/Tie_Rod_Drag_Link_3way_Adjustable_7677yr) to address both of those issues. It's basically the same centerlink as Jon would use, but left a few inches longer. The rod ends are the same part number in fact, but they have extra long tapers and two cotter pin holes at different heights to accommodate the different size holes on the Broncos.
Same for the upper draglink rod end. The later pitman arms had smaller holes too, so that upper joint for yours is a different part than the one
Jon would use on his earlier model.
All in all WAAAAYYYYY beefier than the stock Y-linkage. Much less prone to flex with larger tires, and no more toe-in changes when the suspension cycles. In theory that should reduce tire wear too, but I don't remember hearing many complaints about tire wear on later EB's, so that might be a non-issue.
But for off-road, it fixes the biggest issue. Some might think "tacos" on the trail is a tasty trailside treat. But when that taco is your tie-rod's long end bent in half because of larger tires putting too much stress on things, well, you get the picture.
Some good reading here at the top of the page:
http://www.wildhorses4x4.com/category/Custom_tie_rods
I'm still debating on weather I should go with the GM tie rod ends, I want something a little beefy over the stock replacement parts. The Clydsdale setup I've seen is just to expensive for my set budget. Any thoughts?
I like that setup actually, and lots of members here using them to good effect. But just so you know, the ones I showed you above are already way beefier than stock. The rod ends themselves aren't quite as gnarly as the 1-tons, but the tie-rod link is fairly massive compared to what you have now.
I keep meaning to write it down, but I think it's 1 1/8" diameter, vs the stock just shy of 7/8" if I remember? Maybe someone using it can throw a tape on theirs. But it's pretty beefy.
Of course, the Clydesdale is larger still, but the GM setups will vary in tube thickness based on what you use. Might be anywhere from 1 1/8" to 1 1/2" generally.
As I mentioned to Jon too, ours is easier to convert to TRO than the standard GM 1-ton setup because the centerlink just stays in the same orientation, while the rod ends flip upside down. With the GM stuff, you have to re-taper the passenger side rod end as well. Not a huge deal, as you're tapering holes already, but one less step to take.
One thing that is both good and bad with the GM setup is that same rod end. The setup gives you a longer draglink, which in and of itself can be a good thing. But at the same time that fact is changing the very geometry of the steering system by mis-matching the lengths of the draglink and the trackbar. The best way to overcome that slight shortcoming is to lengthen the trackbar with a custom unit. Not an easy task.
The tradeoff is minimal though, as the longer link benefits are slightly more than the detractors of the mismatch.
That help confuse things even more?%)
Paul
