TIE-ROD SLEEVES -- STEEL VS ALUMINUM

Does anyone know the weight difference between, say, Firm Feel's solid steel sleeves vs, say, PST's solid aluminum sleeves? I've already purchased the FF 11/16" c-body setup (solid steel sleeves, along with the 11/16" larger tie-rod ends). But, I should've looked into this question earlier... re-assembly still lurking ahead for me... a few months away.. The "light-weight" aluminum (solid?) sleeves, say, from companies such as PST, maybe others, might be in my better interest. I'm always looking for weight reductions.

T/Anks ahead!

IMO, weigh reduction via aluminum adjusting sleeves is not where I'd go.

http://www.aluminiumdesign.net/design-su...m-and-fasteners

Doesn't take much for the aluminum sleeves and the iron ends to start corroding. If you are worried about weight step down to the A body tie rod assemblies.

My first of alum TR sleeves was 20? years ago, they stripped out before getting them on the car, that's likely a fluke, as I have not heard that complaint since or elsewhere, but it made a big impression on me. I still have them if anybody needs a pic.

For what it's worth, I had an aluminum tie rod on my ~5000lb Jeep that was turning ~260lbs worth of front tires at 4psi with the assistance of a hydraulic ram...it was hammered on without issue.

You must use anti-seize, lots of it, on the rod ends. That being said, I am using Hotchkis' aluminum tie rods without concern.

Pick some up from Coleman's, just figure out how long you need them. Mike

http://www.colemanracing.com/Tie-Rod-Aluminum-P4199.aspx

Unless the tierods are made from 7075 ally, steel is way stronger by weight - the a-body ones would be worth weighing vs the ally
This is definitely a weight vs strength question - its a regular thing to do the c-body upgrade, but is it actually necessary? yes the thicker tierods would deflect less, but has anyone measured the difference? I would like to think that if a tierod was going to deflect more than 1/2 an inch it would just fail
After googling bent and failed tierods, pretty much everything that comes up is newer solid bar stuff or on a 4x4
Has anyone who has done -only- a tierod upgrade noticed much of a difference? please chime in!

I have brought up this exact issue many times for over a decade, you get two responses, "it can't hurt" or crickets.

Now you can add three, don't.

"I have brought up this exact issue many times for over a decade, you get three responses, "it can't hurt", "don't" or crickets.

Rick E and the Green Brick are where the 11/16" tie rods started, AFAIK. The mod was cheap and stronger than the 9/16" A body parts. That was long before you could buy solid aluminum or steel sleeves. The bigger tie rods should wear longer under the higher g-loads, so that could be a plus for the street car that gets occasional track/ Auto X. The smaller solid 9/16"sleeve (or welded OE) is probably as strong as the split larger part, I haven't seen any tests . I'm not sure if the weight difference is really all that noticeable in the street/weekend warrior. If someone has done a comparison I'd like to see it. Just to be clear, I opted for the solid 9/16" sleeves on my car, but it now has the Hotchkis kit on it and at this point I'm not going to get it going, then tear it down get it aligned, and switch it all back to do an A-B-A test.

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/QA1-52325-Heavy-Duty-Tie-Rod-Sleeve-Mopar-A-B-E-Body,258463.html

"The bigger tie rods should wear longer under the higher g-loads"

That right there I think sums up the herd instinct on this topic. First I suspect the robustness between the two choices, shooting from the hip, I bet approaches 40%. But I think it it is a pretty big misconception TR's take any significant cornering loads (g-loads) in the first place. And oem size TR's last for quite a few miles on the street, pot holes, curbs, slow speed parking ( highest loads on TR's likely, without a, IMO, a high wear concern, so extending it, if we use the 40% factor, and not sure if that would be linear, we really don't have any need to for longer wear cycles. I could go on.

I'll add lastly, because invariably someone will, "it doesn't hurt"

Good troll JCC but you aren't "shooting from the hip" you are blowing smoke out your backside. The smaller part will wear out faster than an = larger part given the same load. It's up to the individual to decide what is acceptable, save a few pound VS shorter service life. My car is far from a daily driver, so I'll save a few pounds. Really, what does it hurt if someone puts bigger tie rod ends on their car- seriously. Most people don't need the power their engines are capable of, nor the ginormous brakes that are so popular. Don't get your panties in such a bunch about it. Nobody is going to force you to put big tie rods on your car.

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned going with the 11/16" and then partially gun-drill them to save a few grams again...

For what it's worth, the rod ends and shim pack at the knuckle allows for bump steer correction on the Hotchkis parts. They come recommended to complement their upper control arms, may be sales jargon, but they seemed sincere when I discussed it with them at SEMA.

Irrelevant to the alum vs steel argument, but you can't really do that with tie rod ends.

That's not entirely true, it is just more difficult than using shims to correct. The MP chassis book details it.

Nice attempt at taking the high road. After over a decade on this topic on Moparts, they usually take this course, unilaterally. I can go back locate/link them if needed Other then stating the obvious , what is your point?
Other then stating the obvious, what is your point?
And who here has worn out a TR in under say 50K? on one of our maintained not abused cars?
I doubt It
I clearly addressed that, "what can it hurt?"
Yes, a prime example of the Herd
That would be counterproductive for "blowing smoke" that's great, and likely means nobody can make a solid case for doing so.

Regarding hollow drilling, I assume most of loading on a TR in the shank is direct compression or tension loads, little bending, the math on CSA which is directly proportional to the items strength in this application, between a 11/16" and a 9/16", not using root thread diameter, is an approx 52% difference. Using the thread root diameters that will lower slightly, but i don't have that data at my fingertips, and am satisfied with my shooting from the hip 40% guess.

Attached is a typical Mustang TR with adjustable bump steer adjustability. Guess they have not heard about all the Mopar defection issues with the 9/16" TR.

I apologize I don't have better pics for you mitch. I'm running longer aluminum tie rod sleeves (from brads70) for 11/16" extended tierods (now discontinued by howes) welded on a spacer to the balljoint to combat bumpsteer. Running boregson box, fast ratio arms, with drop spindles. Been running this the last 2 years, autox a few times, no issues so far, no erratic steering either...



this photo show the arms with the old sleeves which I had to abandon as they were too short:



The best pic I can find right now on the car, you can see how much lower they sit than stock

can't see the pics, photobucket wants you to pay up

Found my old list of shipping info from my retail days. 11/16 steel tie rod sleeve shipping weight was 4#. 11/16 aluminum tie rod sleeves were 2#. This was the whole shipping package, box, packing, tape, parts. Actual weight may be less.

IMO, any flex that occurs in tie rod sleeves is due to the OEM split end design, which means its pretty marginal to begin with. Also, looking at pure lateral loading on the threaded portion of the tie rod stud, which is the same size regardless of the threaded shank size, its something like 5G's worth, which is far and away more load than any of our old heaps can corner at.

Now, if you race oval track where you are constantly being leaned on or bouncing off other objects, then yea, bigger sleeves might make sense.

ah damnit I forgot they did this BS, If I have to upgrade my entire photo library, I'll do it on another website SOB's! anyone recommend a good one?(sorry for the thread jack)

Reg sleeve flex, I calculated a number years back for a thread on this same topic, and it was something like the sleeve would have to bow a 1/4" (???) to get a change in toe of .030". I don't see how this "phantom" flex on OUR cars is an issue worth much discussion.

Check that calc. I may have it somewhere myself. Maybe later I'll remember where..
The reason I suggest double checking is that one quarter, and certainly one half turn on the tie rod sleeve makes a measurable change of the toe.
And a 1/2 turn shouldn't be 1/4".
If my calcs are correct 18 TPI would result in .11" change in steering linkage for every full rotation of either sleeve.
The resulting toe change will be some ratio larger than that.

All that aside, IMO the main reason for larger sleeves and tie rods were (a) endurance especially for high shock load on the ball joints (b) maintain a stock appearance.
Plenty of classes where the rules didn't or don't allow welding of suspension and steering components.

There was a time when even sub-frame connectors were not allowed to be welded in SCCA Street Prepared. My recollection is that welding the sleeves may have been a no-no as well. I was already out of catagory due to the frame connectors, so welding the sleeves was an easy decision.
The only caveat to welding the sleeves is keeping splatter off the threads - especially the lefties. Not a job for any old hack welder.

I need to be clearer, if for example, the TR assembly was say 12" long, and a compression force was applied axially with enough force to cause the center of the 12" span to bow outwards, off axis a 1/4", the member would also shorten approx .030" (???), and toe would change .030".

I have not checked these actual numbers yet, just a rough guess from what I calculated in a past thread. But the point is still valid, our sleeves are not bowing a 1/4", and if they were, they would soon fatigue and fail, and they aren't and .030" ain't that much anyway.

[quote=Supercuda]can't see the pics, photobucket wants you to pay up


Thanks for the update,,,,had wondered what that cr*p was.