Extended wheelbase - How to deal w/Steering Box

When installing a shackle reversal on a '74 CJ, according to the instructions, the wheelbase should have been extended by ~1". Well, that application was for '76 and up, and my CJ is a '74 (M.O.R.E. does not make a shackle reversal for pre-76's). Well, now that it's all installed, wheelbase is the same or shorter than stock. This is once again due to the kit being for a later model CJ. Since the work was completed, I have discovered a magazine article where they installed the exact same setup on a '73 CJ, and they had to extend the frame by 2" to properly mount the front spring mount. Well that explains the wheelbase issue. Here is my question: To rectify this, I also need to extend my frame by 2", but what do I do about the steering situation. If I move the axle forward, the drag link will come in contact with the tie rod. The steering box is already as far forward as it can be mounted due to the crossmember. What is the solution? Remove a portion of the crossmember? The magazine article did not go into this aspect. The Jeep rides great as is, but the wheelbase is causing two problems, first the front driveshaft will eventually bottom out and damage the transfer case, and second the front tires easily come into contact with my fenderwell headers (gonna go back to manifolds) and eventually the front fenders. These are the two reasons M.O.R.E. designed their setup to move the axle forward.

Any advice?

Thanks!

 

Considering the drag link and tie rod move at the same rate in the same direction I don't see that being much of an issue.

I moved my fron't axle forward about 1 to 1.5" when I converted to YJ springs. I have a slight interferance problem between the tierod and drag link when the driver side is stuffed. It has never caused a problem or even damaged either the tierod or drag link. The steering box is still in the stock location.

 

I agree that they move forward together, but the pitman arm stays in the same place, and with the dropped pitman arm, the tie rod and drag link are dead even (so much for 4.5" of lift from the RE springs....I'm guessing it's closer to 3.5"-4"). Given that, won't the pitman arm push the drag link into the tie rod? If I go back to the stock pitman arm, won't I introduce bump steer into the equation?

 

I've gotta be missing something, cuz I wax checking it out today, and I'm convinced it's gonna hit cuz of the pitman arm. I can go back to the stock pitman, but I think that will cause other problems.

Am I just confused?

 

No a dropped arm can cause that problem. I would go back to the stock arm (its what I am running) and see if that helps. The bump steer was not bad before I converted to high steer using heims. The steering stabilizer worked well. Now with High steer I dont even have a steering stabilizer.

 

Let me refrase that. Before I went to high steer. I used a stock pitman arm with the lift/axle move. I did not have any interferance problems with that set up other then at full stuff on the driver side and then it was very minor. There was a minor amount of bump steer but it was easily compensated by the steering stabilizer.

When I had to replace my bent tie-rod, I decided to go heavy duty and do a high steer with heims. This has completely corrected any bump steer issues and I do not even run a steering stabilizer anymore.

When the jeep is sitting on the ground witht the steering straight ahead how much clearance is there between the pitman arm and the tierod? This is the closest they will get when it is turning.

 

I will check the clearance this afternoon when I get home, but off the top of my head, I would say 1" to 1.5". However, if I move the axle forward, this distance will decrease, correct?

 

Yes it will but as long as they are not touching after the move you should be good.

 

Just checked - I've got just under 2" of clearance between the tie rod and the closest point on the pitman arm (which is actually the drag link itself, as the pitman arm is slightly higher than the tie rod, so the drag link rod end is what would contact the tie rod first).

 

Going back to the stock pitman arm will fix the interferance issue.

 

When I did my shackle rev. (M.O.R.E. on a '67 CJ5) I discovered that I needed a front driveshaft that had a lot more room to collapse into. With a standard front mounted shackle, your driveshaft gets longer when the springs are compressed. With the rev. the driveshaft gets shorter when the springs are compressed. I was present when a YJ that had a new shackle rev. broke the end of his TH350 tranny right off when the driveshaft bottomed out during a winching operation. The shop that did the rev for him had not calculated enough compression for the driveshaft and something had to give. Aluminum always yields to steel. By the way, the MORE shackle rev. I used didn't change my wheelbase at all.