Slant *        6        Forum
Home Home Home
The Place to Go for Slant Six Info!
Click here to help support the Slant Six Forum!
It is currently Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:12 am

All times are UTC-08:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:13 pm 
Offline
TBI Slant 6

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:34 am
Posts: 107
Car Model:
OK, so it looks like I should have gone with the old style tie rod ends.

New question: In 1965, the stock tie rod ends, inner and outer, were both bent style. Right now I have two straight ones. The inner tie rod ends look to be squarely seated in their bores on the center drag link. If I change the outer tie rod ends to the older bent style, do I also need to change the inner ones to match? The reason I ask is that the bent style is, for some reason, double the price of the straight ones.

Photo: Looking from the rear of the car, you can see that the outer tie rod end is not square with the arm on the lower ball joint.


Attachments:
10 In Brake Conv Tie Rod End.jpg
10 In Brake Conv Tie Rod End.jpg [ 130.62 KiB | Viewed 1442 times ]

_________________
1961, 1962, 1963 and 1965 Valiant 200. The `65 is a `vert.
Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 5:29 pm 
Offline
TBI Slant 6

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:34 am
Posts: 107
Car Model:
I guess I am the only one on here who has ever tried to do this. That last picture has 32 views and not a single comment.

Sadly, this project is turning out to be a disaster. Not only am I left to guess about the correct tie rod ends but now I discover that the shop that installed my lower control arm bushing decided to get lazy. Instead of pressing the pin back into the bushing, like it was originally, they decided to grind down the pin with a wheel so it would fit in easier.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that pressed in pin basically holding pretty much the whole front end together? You have to torque it to 180 ft lbs, so I assume it is holding quite a bit. But now, thanks to them grinding the pin, the only thing that is really holding the lower control arm in is the strut, the weight of the car on the torsion bars, and that paper clip looking thing that holds the torsion bar in place.

I discovered this after I assembled the driver side. Now I need to tear that down at least somewhat, so I can inspect to make sure they didn't grind that pin too. If they did, I will have to dismantle pretty much everything you see in that picture, possibly ruining my brand new parts in the process.

Disaster seems too mild a word for this mess.

_________________
1961, 1962, 1963 and 1965 Valiant 200. The `65 is a `vert.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 3:33 am 
Offline
Board Sponsor & Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 11:08 am
Posts: 14659
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Car Model:
Ack. Sorry to hear about the strife. That interference fit is not strictly necessary, but they shouldn't have done that. Doug Dutra has drilled the end of the pin on the tbar end for a 5/16" (IIRC) bolt and washer, when using poly UCA bushings, since they let things float fore-aft (unlike the factory rubber, which I always use).

I would not use some kind of non-stock "straight" tie rods as they might put the ball-and-sockets of the tie rods close to their limit of rotation/swivel. However, yours do not necessarily look wrong as they have an offset to them. You have the susp at full droop, so they will look weird in terms of angles. Look in the FSM on setting ride height and adjust your tbars to attain that.

Personally, I just do not deal with drum brakes anymore. They are hard to get good parts for, and they are inferior in performance. I just bought a 62 Valiant last summer with 4" bolt circle rear drums, and I just replaced them with 4.5" bolt circle axles and discs. If you want to drive much on the road these days, you really want good brakes. New cars can stop almost twice as fast as these old cars from highway speeds.

2 cents...
Lou

_________________
"You mean you still have a Slant 6 in that thing?"


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 5:43 pm 
Offline
Turbo EFI
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:00 pm
Posts: 1924
Location: kankakee IL
Car Model: 80 volare, 78 fury 2 dr, 85 D150
jcc wrote:
Just to be clear, the reservoir "size" itself, has no bearing on brake pressure/effectiveness.

right. as long as the smaller front reservoir don't run dry as the pads wear and that piston pops out.

all dual master cylinders that I know of are set up "backwards"// front brakes off the back reservoir, back brakes off the front reservoir. and most reservoirs for the front brakes are bigger because the back of the caliper fills up with fluid as the piston protrudes farther as the pads wear...
and I don't remember what exactly, but there is something about the valving being different between chambers... SSDan can probably expand on this?refresh my memory.
I do know that cars have a heavier bias toward the front brakes, that's why often front drums would be bigger than rear drums.... fronts designed to do more worn than the backs....


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 5:49 pm 
Offline
Turbo EFI
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:00 pm
Posts: 1924
Location: kankakee IL
Car Model: 80 volare, 78 fury 2 dr, 85 D150
valiant_200 wrote:
OK, so it looks like I should have gone with the old style tie rod ends.

New question: In 1965, the stock tie rod ends, inner and outer, were both bent style. Right now I have two straight ones. The inner tie rod ends look to be squarely seated in their bores on the center drag link. If I change the outer tie rod ends to the older bent style, do I also need to change the inner ones to match? The reason I ask is that the bent style is, for some reason, double the price of the straight ones.

Photo: Looking from the rear of the car, you can see that the outer tie rod end is not square with the arm on the lower ball joint.

but the suspension is also "hanging" the weight of the cars isn't on the suspension. and if the bent ones are older then it will be even a lower demand from the parts sales standpoint, so maybe less in warehouse/ harder to get? If your year/make/model/Kframe configuration/spindle/lower ball joint configuration calls for the bent ones, that is what should be there.... if they are not n an even plane it can cause bump steer, binding, and other issues... maybe the taper doesn't match between them, meaning the stud could work loose within? the "double the price" will still be cheap, if they are the right parts for that car if it keeps you from a wreck.... is that price comparison among the straight/bent versions of the same brand? from the same source? run the pat number of the right ones thru Rock Auto, Ebay, etc and see what that comes up with.....


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 12:21 am 
Offline
TBI Slant 6

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:34 am
Posts: 107
Car Model:
Dart270 wrote:
Personally, I just do not deal with drum brakes anymore. They are hard to get good parts for, and they are inferior in performance. I just bought a 62 Valiant last summer with 4" bolt circle rear drums, and I just replaced them with 4.5" bolt circle axles and discs. If you want to drive much on the road these days, you really want good brakes. New cars can stop almost twice as fast as these old cars from highway speeds.

2 cents...
Lou


I would love to put discs on this car. In fact, I have a complete disc brake front end from a 74 Duster just hanging around here, waiting to be installed. I also have a 62 Valiant which I did put discs on, but that ended up mismatching the lug circle 4" vs. 4 1/2". I would like to know more about how you dealt with this problem with your car.

_________________
1961, 1962, 1963 and 1965 Valiant 200. The `65 is a `vert.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 12:27 am 
Offline
TBI Slant 6

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:34 am
Posts: 107
Car Model:
volaredon wrote:
jcc wrote:
Just to be clear, the reservoir "size" itself, has no bearing on brake pressure/effectiveness.

right. as long as the smaller front reservoir don't run dry as the pads wear and that piston pops out.

all dual master cylinders that I know of are set up "backwards"// front brakes off the back reservoir, back brakes off the front reservoir. and most reservoirs for the front brakes are bigger because the back of the caliper fills up with fluid as the piston protrudes farther as the pads wear...
and I don't remember what exactly, but there is something about the valving being different between chambers... SSDan can probably expand on this?refresh my memory.
I do know that cars have a heavier bias toward the front brakes, that's why often front drums would be bigger than rear drums.... fronts designed to do more worn than the backs....


If I can get the front end to work out, the front drums will be much larger than the rears. As far as I can tell, the MC is plumbed up properly, with the rear chamber feeding the front.

_________________
1961, 1962, 1963 and 1965 Valiant 200. The `65 is a `vert.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 12:34 am 
Offline
TBI Slant 6

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:34 am
Posts: 107
Car Model:
volaredon wrote:
If your year/make/model/Kframe configuration/spindle/lower ball joint configuration calls for the bent ones, that is what should be there....


My year/make/model and Kframe all take the bent variety. The spindle and lower ball joint configuration (`71 Duster) would take the straight type, so that is why I was unsure which type to order. I now believe I should have the bent type, but I am going to wait and see how it behaves when I get the wheels back on it. If I notice anything wonky about the steering, I will replace these straight ends with the bent type.

Quote:
if they are not n an even plane it can cause bump steer, binding, and other issues... maybe the taper doesn't match between them...


The studs are the same. The difference is in the threaded shaft. On one it is perpendicular to the joint, on the other, it is bent upward at a slight angle.

_________________
1961, 1962, 1963 and 1965 Valiant 200. The `65 is a `vert.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 12:41 am 
Offline
TBI Slant 6

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:34 am
Posts: 107
Car Model:
This is something I discovered when I got it together:

The lower ball joints have a nub cast onto the back of them on the arm side that bumps against a raised area on the lower control arm. These have the effect of restricting the turning radius of the front wheels to about two turns of the steering wheel either direction from center. This causes the turning radius of the new front end to be far less than it was with the stock arrangement. (It was three turns either side of center with the old system.)

I am strongly considering grinding these nubs down a little so the wheels can turn a bit more. Before I do though, I would like to know if any of you know why these nubs are present to begin with. Surely a 71 Duster had a wider turning radius than these things will allow.

This conversion has been much more complex than expected. It was easier to retrofit a stock 74 Dart disc brake front end in the 62 than it has been to make these 10" drums work on my 65.

_________________
1961, 1962, 1963 and 1965 Valiant 200. The `65 is a `vert.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 7:01 am 
Offline
Board Sponsor & Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 11:08 am
Posts: 14659
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Car Model:
The nubs are always too big on aftermarket LBJs, and particularly when using 73-76 LBJs. I always grind them down until I can hit the locks on the steering box. Annoying, but easy to fix with an angle grinder. Don't get them too hot or you might decompose the grease in the ball joint...

Lou

_________________
"You mean you still have a Slant 6 in that thing?"


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 8:36 pm 
Offline
TBI Slant 6

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:34 am
Posts: 107
Car Model:
Thanks for all the advice. I ground them down today. I had to pretty much grind them flat to give them the full range of the steering linkage.

What is the point of those nubs anyway? It takes additional material, so I assume they must have a legitimate purpose in some application?

For anyone else who might be thinking of trying this conversion, know that there is something afoul with the parts databases pretty much everywhere that ends up specifying the incorrect inner bearing set and grease seal. Both parts have come up incorrectly at multiple parts stores and it has been one of the most frustrating elements of this project.

We are currently waiting on the correct seal to come in. Otherwise it would be back on its wheels right now.

_________________
1961, 1962, 1963 and 1965 Valiant 200. The `65 is a `vert.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 10:42 pm 
Offline
Supercharged
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 7696
Location: SW Washington
Car Model: 1965 Plymouth Barracuda, 1954 Dodge C1-B8
Later lower control arms don's have the bump. The bump was essentially moved to the ball joint. The problem is you're using late ball joints and early control arms. If you'd swapped in the late control arms you wouldn't have created or noticed a problem.

_________________
Joshua


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 12:44 am 
Offline
TBI Slant 6

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:34 am
Posts: 107
Car Model:
I really appreciate everyone's input. I am only now coming to know that there is a difference between early and late control arms. I know there are early and late UPPER control arms. But I have always thought that, aside from the sway bar bracket when so equipped, all lower control arms were alike.

Had I known, I probably have the correct Lower Control Arms around here someplace.

I would really prefer this car have discs, but I haven't gotten by the mis-matched bolt pattern thing and, until I have a suitable matching bolt pattern rear end in hand, I will not consider discs for this one.


Attachments:
File comment: The ball joint before I ground the nub down. The nub is hard to see, but is just below dead center of this photo.
10 Brakes Lower Ball Joint - Pre-Grind.jpg
10 Brakes Lower Ball Joint - Pre-Grind.jpg [ 147.01 KiB | Viewed 1236 times ]
File comment: Where's the nub?
10 Brakes Lower Ball Joint - Post-Grind.jpg
10 Brakes Lower Ball Joint - Post-Grind.jpg [ 172.93 KiB | Viewed 1236 times ]
File comment: All assembled except for connecting the rubber line to the metal line. A thing of beauty.
10 Brakes - all together.jpg
10 Brakes - all together.jpg [ 146.52 KiB | Viewed 1236 times ]

_________________
1961, 1962, 1963 and 1965 Valiant 200. The `65 is a `vert.
Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 4:16 pm 
Offline
TBI Slant 6

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:34 am
Posts: 107
Car Model:
I think I have figured out what is going on with the problem of locating correct inner bearings and wheel seals and it is my mistake.

When I pulled the front end out of that Duster, lo those many years ago, I also found an owners manual in the glove compartment which I still have. The book is for a 1971 Duster, so I have long assumed that the parts I harvested that day were for a `71.

Once again I have proven that it is poor policy to assume.

What turned the trick for me was when I was doing some cleaning on the drums prior to installing the races. I happened to notice some numbers in the casting. They looked something of an afterthought and were very hard to read, but when I brushed them lightly with the broad side of a sharpie, the digits became clear. "SE 1073"

Was this a date? Mother MoPar usually isn't that clear about her markings, but it definitely got me thinking in another direction.

I looked up the inner seal for a 1974 Duster and, lo and behold, National 6815 jumped out at me. It has all the correct dimensions and matches the appearance of the part that I dimly recall prying out of the hub when I started this odyssey.

The inner bearings matched too; Set 17.

So.., duh.., the only thing about that car I stripped that was made in 1971 was the owners manual! Fortunately for me, most of the other parts were the same between model years or I would really be screwed.

Anyway, I have a brand new set of inner wheel bearings and seals for a `71 Duster if anyone needs them.


Attachments:
File comment: Note the barely legible markings at the 8 O'clock position; "SE 1073".
10 inch drum.jpg
10 inch drum.jpg [ 137.6 KiB | Viewed 1185 times ]

_________________
1961, 1962, 1963 and 1965 Valiant 200. The `65 is a `vert.
Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4

All times are UTC-08:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited