drag link fitment issue

I installed the Ford reverse power steering conversion with heavy duty tie rod/drag link from Herm. I have a 1957 CJ5 with a black diamond 3 inch lift and daystar 1 1/2 inch shackles. The drag link is supposed to fit behind the tie rod on Pass. side. However, there is a fitment issue as there is limited space between the tie rod and shock. Has anyone else had this issue? I used the old spring plates. Currently the drag link is attached to the front of the tie rod, which is being corrected. As I see it I have a few options:
1)move spring plate back a little so shock is closer to diff.
2) cut and weld shock mount on the plate further back (if I do this does the other shock also need to be moved?)
3)thinner shocks (reality??) I am using BD shocks.

Hopefully all possibilities are safe. Any help appreciated..

 

you can flip the shock over so that the boot is facing down this should give a little more room.

 

I seem to recall another double hole tie rod end that kicks out the opposite way..
Herm should have knowledge of this
I think we've discussed it before here as well.

 

how about a tie rod flip? Is this much of an issue other than the work? No safety lost?

 

Tie rods on my 57 are exatly like your last picture, drag link wont fit on the backside.

 

I had the same problem. I welded another shock mount behind the axle. Just be careful if you move the top mount to far back and copress the suspension while turning right you will crush the shock with seal bolts on you knuckle.

 

I contacted Herm. He says to try and flip the drag link and tie rod (interchangeable). Shlink, what did you do to fix your set up? According to Herm, the drag link needs to be on the back side due to the position of the steering box. This problem is my last hurdle to get over in my rebuild.

 

Mines not ford but is Saginaw, not sure where your steering box is but assume that it is farther back than mine, all of the cross over steering conversions I have seen have been with the draglink on front of the tie rod, might not be "the way to do it" but its what I have experience with.

 

Herm's Ford Reverse steering box conversion puts the steering box behind the grill crossmember hence the issues he's having.
Saginaw is in front of that crossmember and behind the front bumper. Apples and Oranges comparison in this case.

I hate to say it but this type of issue is exactly why I don't like Herm's Steering Conversion.
Don't misunderstand, I like Herm, Known him much longer than probably 90% of the people on this board, and will be the first to say he takes care of customers and is a great guy. But am not a fan of this particular conversion because of the hurdles like this to overcome when Saginaw is tried, true, is much more "adaptable", and works with minimal hassles relatively speaking.

 

So with the drag link on the front side and the steering box back, will there be any issues with stress or safety? Herm mentioned the drag link is supposed to be attaching to the back of the tue rod, not the front as in my pictures. What about curving the drag link to better fit and not rub the long tie rod? Trying to get it in this position has been quite a challenge. I have already had the steering fabricated for the current position of the steering box (an Ididit setup). ughhhh frustrating.

 

Herm's theory is that with the steering box behind the crossmember there is less/no flex of the frame where it mounts. That is sound as far as it goes but then you run into issues like you found. The problem with "curving" or bending the drag link is then you have created a weak point that will allow the drag link to flex to the point of failure. Not a good thing with steering. The round tube is only strong as long as it's straight, as soon as you bend it or "curve" it you've created weak points in the tube that're begging to fail. There is a tie rod end that is angled differently as mentioned, I want to say the tie rod end hole is tapered from the opposite end as well and this may take care of your problem if you have clearance behind the tie rod for the drag link and tie rod end. I think it's from a flatty but can't remember for sure....

 

I have seen curved drag links that one can buy (pre-bent). There is not enough room behind the tie rod without some mod for the drag link to fit (shock is too close). Also, the current tie rod is tapered on the backside so the drag link can't be mounted at that point without modification. I was able to drive it in this set up but I don't think it is the best orientation.

 

Uh huh, and anyone that knows anything about steering and suspension systems will tell you that it's a recipe for disaster. The ones built from the factory or some of the aftermarket solid ones that are forged like the Currie units are a far cry from bent tube or mild steel or cast bent pieces. That's why they are so expensive, because there is a tremendous amount of R&D, engineering, expertise, and liability that goes along with them.
I've seen people weld on knuckles too but I wouldn't do that except to get off the trail and to a trailer.
The people who build those are not "fixing" anything, they are trying to make a buck to the masses who find themselves in a quandary due to poor planning, poor design, lack of knowledge, etc. I'm not trying to be harsh here, just trying to A) save you money and headaches in the long run, and B) trying to help you be safe. Not just you but your passengers and the other people on the road as well.

 

I can't tell from the pic. If you moved the shocks to the rear of the axle would you have enough room to run the drag link on the back of the tie rod instead of the front? Might be an option although it's more work. With changing the tie rod end to one with the taper larger in the back then you could run the tie rod end in from behind and eliminate the "crossover" issue you are having. Again, I can't tell from the pic so don't know if it's an option.

 

Yes. I believe there will be enough room. I thought about that position change but wasn't sure if there would be an issue with the shocks (ie work right given the change in normal alignment). Would I have to change the upper shock mounts or just the position on the spring plate? Right now, the limiting factor (other than the taper in the rear of the tie rod) is the amount of room between the tie rod and the shock. Not quite enough room to fit the drag link. even with moving the shock back it will be tight. How much room is needed? I guess with flex and such the geometry changes. Are there any additonal pictures I can get for you?

 

If you move the lower shock mount to the rear the upper will have to be moved as well. IIRC this was a factory change in '72 anyway. Maybe someone will post up a stock pic or maybe post in the Intermediates section asking for a pic of the front shock mounting. There was a thread, maybe in the builds section, that people were discussing this at length. If you don't move the upper then the angle of the shock will be such that it hits the axle.
Maybe a pic from the side showing the clearance will maybe help? Maybe someone else has a different idea what to do but right now the only options I see to safely use what you have is to move the shocks behind the axle and change the tie rod end or go standard Saginaw steering. I think the path of least resistance if you can make it work is to move the shocks.

 

Bummer, my post in Intermediate CJ5 requesting photos was deleted.....

 

I restored it but edited the post so it was no longer cross posting.

 

How about this setup. The drag link is attached to the end of the tie rod and the long tie rod is attached to the more proximal hole. No binding in full range of steering. Plenty of room. Drag link is behind the long tube (as it was suggested by Herm).

[/IMG]

[/IMG]


[/IMG]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

I wonder if the 2 hole knuckle from a waggy would give enough clearance.....
but then, the tie rod and drag link tubes are all too short...