Re: steering hitting pan, b body
[Re: TC@HP2]
#2635736
03/22/19 11:07 PM
03/22/19 11:07 PM
|
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 259 n.c.
geo.
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 259
n.c.
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
Re: steering hitting pan, b body
[Re: dangina]
#2653455
05/08/19 04:55 PM
05/08/19 04:55 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889 up yours
Supercuda
About to go away
|
About to go away
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
|
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.
They say there are no such thing as a stupid question. They say there is always the exception that proves the rule. Don't be the exception.
|
|
|
Re: steering hitting pan, b body
[Re: Supercuda]
#2653463
05/08/19 05:22 PM
05/08/19 05:22 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 403 Colorado front range
BcudaChris
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 403
Colorado front range
|
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
Last edited by BcudaChris; 05/08/19 05:23 PM.
|
|
|
Re: steering hitting pan, b body
[Re: Supercuda]
#2653674
05/09/19 11:44 AM
05/09/19 11:44 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442 NW Chicago suburban area
Mopar Mitch
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442
NW Chicago suburban area
|
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.
Mopar Mitch
"Road racers and autocrossers go in deeper and come out harder!"... and rain never stops us from having fun with our cars... in fact, it makes us better drivers!
Check out MOPAR ACTION MAGAZINE, August 2006 issue for feature article and specs on my autocross T/A!
|
|
|
|
|