i have a milodon pan for auto cross,for 69 gtx. centerlink rod hits the pan on full swing side to side. no quick steering arms. what have you done to resolve, clearance pan? pan already on the motor. thanks for any help

As the man said "Hammertime".

hoping would not have too but i guess hammer down thanks

Before taking a hammer to it, I'd recommend lifting the engine and playing with the engine mounts a bit. While there is not a lot of slop in the various bolts and brackets, there is some and it could add up enough to allow the engine to sit low enough to interfere. For that matter, you could consider shimming the isolators to lift the engine up slightly to provide the necessary clearance.

Bad mounts?

I guess I made the mistake of assuming he'd done all the easy stuff first.

It shouldn't hit so I would suspect that your motor mounts are shot or have moved. See if you can lift the engine up and retighten everything. While you're under there inspect the rubber mounts and replace if necessary.

new mounts, relay rod is hitting the kick put at the rear of the pan? tryed to lift still hits at the rear on the right side at full travel?

If you put a 3/8" bolt in a 1/2" hole, you have slop. Allow enough slop, and even new mounts can have different clearance than the old mounts. There is also the possibility that the thickness of the new mounts is not as much as it should be, so they allow the whole things to sit lower in the frame than designed.

IIRC, pre '70 big blocks have a steel mount that bolts to the block, an isolator that bolts to the steel mount which then bolts to the pad on the k frame. You have variation in the mounts. You have variation in the location they bolt into the mount (not much, but some) and variation where they bolt into the pad (I believe this may be a slot, not a round hole, but its been a while since I've worked on one). That's four possible variation points, per side, for a simple bolt in engine mount.

Relay rod I assume is the center link. If the center link is hitting a corner of the pan with the engine lifted, your engine is not level or your linkage is not moving in a flat plane. There may be a difference in the assembly of the mounts from one side to the other. The engine may not be set into the mounting slots equally.

Alignment of the steering linkage itself could also be a factor. I have found numerous Mopars over the years that had shims behind the steering box where it bolts to the K. You can alter the plane the linkage operates in by shimming the box to move this plane up or down. There also is the possibility of idler arm and its bushings not duplicating factory position, or the bushing is worn/bad and allow unwanted motion, or its specific mounting location is just slightly off. Or, in the case of ultimate tolerance stack up, a little bit of everything above is off, just a hair, but add them all together and now something hits.

Personally, I'd much rather install a 1/4" shim into an motor mount or try moving some other pieces of the puzzle around to create the necessary clearance before I'd hammer on a $400 oil pan.

shimming engine up will not help the centerlink from rubbing the middle of the pan kick out? i don't have the number on the pan but it is for auto cross and the pan is not like stock. it is way wider and thicker where the rod rubs. i thought a few years back there wasn't a fix for this, just hoping by now someone had come up with something? i know the headers won't fir with the quick ratio arms? thanks for all the suggestions.

I realize the autocross pan is configured differently than a stock pan and the sump is much larger. It also has the corners cut at an angle to allow for movement of the steering linkage, but because of its size, requires everything to be assembled with more precision on location for it to all work well together. With a 50 year old car, this may mean shifting some things around, possibly even cutting and correcting things at the far end of tolerance that has been there since it was built.

Does the center link drag across the sump constantly or it it only hitting as the steering reaches full lock and it it only in one direction or both? Is it just the center link or is the idler or pitman also hitting the corner notch? Again this could mean your mounts allow the engine to sit too far to one side or the other if it is only one corner or one part that hits. Although, it could also be your overall engine location is too far back in the chassis. If it moves forward so the front of the pan is closer to the K frame, that may create the space necessary on the steering linkage side. to move without contact.

If this is the case, then the loosening of mounts and brackets, including the transmission, would be necessary and then the whole thing would need to be pulled forward. Washers or shims between the engine block mounting ears and the mounting bracket may produce enough space to eliminate the contact.

This is a case where the longer quick ratio arms would prevent pan interference with the steering by moving all the linkage rearwards, but if you have confirmed they won't work with your headers, this may not be an option. Since it all together, have you physically confirmed you do not have the space for the longer arms?

The instructions in my 70 Charger headers from TTI listed that the fast ratio arms would not fit. They DO fit with 3/4" of clearance. I have even switched K members and they both allowed the same clearance. I think TTI just covers their ass by stating this.

I had TTI's on my 65 w/440 and had no issues until I put in the FF stage 3 box with a new standard length pittman arm to replace the old p/s box and arm. The new arm was a little different than the old one and hit the tube. Bumped the tube in. There are differences sometimes, even on oe replacement parts, between manufactures.

it only hits the pan on the right side at full travel to the right. no i haven't bolted the headers on because of the disclaimer on the tti header instructions? thought i would get this issue with the pan worked out first. thanks moparts

Guess what you mean is the idler arm is hitting the pan at full swingto the right?

yes, that is what is going on.

These aftermarket idlers, pitmans, and lower ball joints all have different exterior configurations.

And I have some doubt they are 110% geometrically all identical.

The limit bump on the LBJ limits the movement/sweep of the idler. And how worn/smashed the lower control arm reciever for the bump will change the idler total sweep.

I’ve seen a big block car with a dent in one. I think I posted it here before.

Mine has a slight ding too.

This look familiar?:

https://goo.gl/images/Xvb5wG



https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/1914428/re-oil-pressure-on-the-brakes.html

As I said, Hammer time or it will self clearance at the most inconvenient and expensive time.

that is my pan story in a nutshell!

Looks like its down to three options; hammer in clearance to the pan, modify engine location within the engine bay through motors mounts or mounting pad relocation, finally, swap steering parts until you find a compatible combination of dimensions.

Don't shim or remove shims from steering box without checking bump steer, this will change things.

One of the gm suspension gurus used to reccommend limiting steering travel on road race f bodies.
He pointed out that for track use giving up a little travel was worth gaining oil pan, header, and tire/fender clearance.
I think he welded stops to the crossmember, might be a way to do this on your car.

found a answer. can someone tell me if it will hurt to use the quick ratio idler arm and not use the pitman arm with it? i measured the distance out from the hole in the frame and the idler is about a inch and a half farther out that the stock one. but the drivers side quick ratio is almost two and a half father than stock. if i used it too. but terrible interferance with the headers on drivers side. steering rod looks straight in line for steering rods from ball joints across to the other ball joint. it clears the tti headers too! someone please tell me if it will hurt on the alignment end of it. thanks moparts!!!

I'm not sure why but I know your suppose to match both - fast ratio idler and pitman, or stock idler/pitman

The AAR and T/A didn't match. the theory is that matching length's ensures consistent ratio in both directions. The E bodies had clearance issues and the engineers found that using the shorter idler made the needed clearance and the change in L vs R ratio was small enough not to matter.

Using the shorter pitman arm eliminates any benefit of a faster ratio.

I run the fast ratio pitman/stock idler setup, only because header massage would have been required to fit the longer idler.

I only notice anything during parking maneuvers (foreword or reverse) starting with the wheel ~1/16/turn from the lock in either direction. It seems to come around quicker, particularly turned almost all the way left in reverse.

I can't imagine it being a problem, even on a tight autox. That said, I haven't done an autox since installing the setup.

This is in an E body

i have the opposite problem. the pitman would require alot of header massaging and the longer quick ratio idler arm clears barely. guess i should be ok using the set up to clear my pan easily. might be an answer for all you others with the same problem. thanks moparts

Supercuda -- "The E bodies had clearance issues and the engineers found that using the shorter idler made the needed clearance and the change in L vs R ratio was small enough not to matter."

I find that hard to believe as there are no "clearance issues" with a factory setup, nor with the longer idler arm with a factory exhaust. I personally spoke with Chrysler engineers about this matter in the mid-70s.. They knew about it right away, but by the time it could be corrected by having to change the standard short factory idler arm to the longer and correct C-Body idler arm, whenever the Fast-Ratio power steering box was optioned for the car, it was too late in the production runs... and the overall cost factor was an issue. Furthermore, not that many cars were being ordered with the "Fast-Ratio ps option". The writing was already on the wall to kill the AAR/T/A and the Fast-Ratio ps option -- even for the early 71 E-bodies having that option made available... which hardly anyone, including the dealers, knew about. So, it was decided to move on and leave it alone... marketing the ps option as "Fast-Ratio" was cool and attractive, and needed at that time; too bad they screwed up. Bottom line: It would've been too costly to make that needed production line change.

Shame on MaMopar for ignoring the matter.

Also, remember, no-one "created" or "developed" what has become known and referred to as the "fast-ratio idler arm"... it is simply a ~70 C-body idler arm.

does the c body arm hang down any lower? it would clear my headers if id does? but if same arm, no good will happen for me on the arm situation?