TheAMCForum.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > The Garage > Suspension, Steering, Brakes & Wheels
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Pacer Spindles for Racers?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Click for TheAMCForum Rules / Click for PDF version of Forum Rules
Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.

Pacer Spindles for Racers?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Message
tomj View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Jan/27/2010
Location: earth
Status: Offline
Points: 7522
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tomj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct/14/2019 at 9:47pm
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

At least you have the most expensive part on hand! Until you need new ones it's not an issue. ... Even then $200 for rotors is cheaper than replacing everything with something else


very wise observation, both! and is the shortest path to a reliable car. if all of your brake parts were worn out (or drum, wanting discs) Scarebird is likely the way to go. but even that can have minor issues, like having to turn down the O.D. of some drum hubs, or buying his.


1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto
1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5
http://www.ramblerLore.com

Back to Top
farna View Drop Down
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Avatar
Moderator Lost Dealership Project

Joined: Jul/08/2007
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 19611
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote farna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct/15/2019 at 6:26am
I've recently install Pacer steering arms on my 63 Classic with T-bird rack and pinion steering to replace the fabricated arms I'd been using. They were a little different as far as angle and slightly longer than my fabbed arms, but everything worked out great. As far as I can tell the turning angles are off a bit from factory (mine were closer, but still not quite), but radial tires are a lot more forgiving than bias ply and it drives and aligned well. I think there is a little outside tire scrub when at full lock, but nothing to be concerned about. Tracking and driving is near perfect. I got the idea they might work well because the Pacer used a similar rack. I had told one of the guys on here who was doing a rack conversion and they actual used some on a Javelin (hump fender) and reported that they worked out great. In general rack and pinion arms are shorter than steering box arms due to the smaller amount of travel - arms have to be shorter to make up for it.

I'd been driving with fabbed arms since 2003, broke one last year and decided to change to something that won't have much (if any) risk of damage.This is the second time I've cracked and bent one. Didn't leave me totally stranded, car could be moved, but I wouldn't have driven it far either time. First time I was a couple hours from home, had to get a ride and come back with a trailer. Second time was only 15 miles away and drove it home. First was due to a weld that didn't penetrate quite good enough. Drove it for about a year (5-7K miles) before a pothole broke the weld. Second time I hit a curb, but I eased up onto the curb with no issue, bent when coming OFF the curb, which was strange (had been driving it for many years, and hit curbs and pot holes before!), but the pressure on back of the tire was just the right angle to put pressure on the weakest part of the arm. I could have fabbed a heavier arm easily (I used rather light material for such an important part to begin with! ), but went Pacer arm instead.
Frank Swygert
Back to Top
Lucas660 View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted


Joined: Apr/16/2012
Location: Vic, Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Lucas660 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov/01/2019 at 5:55pm
I finally got the arms and will document the differences later, but the first problem is a 5/8 hole bored straight through rather than 7 degree tapered hole for a tie rod end. A bit disappointing as I will have to turn a reduction bush. A pilot hole or unfinished piece would be better. Stay tuned for measurements.

Back to Top
tomj View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Jan/27/2010
Location: earth
Status: Offline
Points: 7522
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tomj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov/01/2019 at 9:07pm
you could substitute good rod ends for the tapered jobs. even super-quality is cheap. i buy 'em from QA1.net. about a dozen in my roadster, 6 in the rear, four up front, even one as the clutch Z bar pivot instead of the fabric. probably replace the Rambler lower arm/trunnion setup with homebrew and more rod ends.

at that time i will likely drill out my steering arms for rod ends too. far more availability and less play than increasingly expensive originals. i wouldn't do that on a stock car if parts were available, but after my experience with them i wouldn't hesitate if they weren't available. just take care with the pin/bolt, probably AN bolts so i could get the shank right.

longevity: dunno. in the roadster, i'm using all open, one-piece, dry types. with the molded-in epoxy liners. i pound this car very, very hard. three years so far, and no detectable play. so if they last "only" five years (no reason to think that) at $15, $20 each, and all standardized, and so easy to work with, woldn't hesitate to use them again.

again they're not OEM and OEM are fine, and modifying thigns always has side effects.

1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto
1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5
http://www.ramblerLore.com

Back to Top
Lucas660 View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted


Joined: Apr/16/2012
Location: Vic, Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Lucas660 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov/02/2019 at 1:04am
I'm in two minds about which way to go because the rack ends I have are m14 and the hole in the arm is 5/8, so I would need to make a shoulder bolt or similar as the rod ends are usually the same size for the stationary and moving part. I don't have a 7 degree tapered reamer either to make a bush, but either way will be servicable. I will probably turn solid steel bushings unfinished and take them to a local shop to ream. I can't see myself using a $150 tapered reamer much.
Back to Top
Brad View Drop Down
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Avatar

Joined: Aug/07/2016
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 431
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov/02/2019 at 9:31pm
Originally posted by Lucas660 Lucas660 wrote:

I finally got the arms and will document the differences later, but the first problem is a 5/8 hole bored straight through rather than 7 degree tapered hole for a tie rod end. A bit disappointing as I will have to turn a reduction bush. A pilot hole or unfinished piece would be better. Stay tuned for measurements.


I ordered the ARGO steering arms and they are being shipped. I also scored a pair of Pacer  steering arms. The Pacer arms use a bigger diameter tierod as compared to the Javelin arms,  and mount at an angle that may or may not cause a bind if you don't use Pacer tierods. Now Pacer tierods are stupid crazy money so I'll look for alternatives.... The ARGO arms look to be straight in this regard. Pacer arms will also ( as compared to the Javelin) will require a bushing spacer when bolting up to the Javelin spindle assembly.   When I get them all I'll take some pictures and try and figure out how to post them on here. This site is not the best/easiest for posting pictures. 
I didn't realize the Argo arms had the tierod hole drilled out. Easy enough to make a bushing on a lathe to fix that. I'm luck that way as I have a mill and a lathe in the garage. 
The other way out with that other than using a rod end ( some countrys/area's won't allow rod ends on public roads) is to use a Howe quick bump kit. I used them on my 70 Challenger, came in handy to adjust the bump steer.  They have been on that car for almost 10 years now with no issues. 


Edited by Brad - Nov/02/2019 at 9:40pm
Back to Top
304-dude View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Sep/29/2008
Location: Central Illinoi
Status: Offline
Points: 9081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 304-dude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov/03/2019 at 6:22am
Brad, as for Pacer arm angel pointing towards wheel. That is for built in Ackerman angle. You do not want the tie rod to push the wheel any further than parallel with crossmember at wheel full turn. What will happen is steering lock. As the arm gets pushed too far out, it will arc away from natural turning radius. Thus when pulling back out of a turn, the wheel can lock into full turn position.

This is with all steering arms, not just Pacer.

The Pacer arm will allow proper geometery with a rack. As for the aftermarket steering arms, the pictures are not so clear as to how exact they are in reproducing such an arm. Once someone get down to comparing the two and posting, the big question will be answered as to proper fit and function for a standard arm replacement with rack upgrade, or a Pacer rack installation needs.

71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker
Back to Top
farna View Drop Down
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Avatar
Moderator Lost Dealership Project

Joined: Jul/08/2007
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 19611
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote farna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov/03/2019 at 7:28am
What 304-dude says is true, but that's not Ackerman Angle. What Ackerman Angleua the placement of the tierod end in relation to the center of the rear axle. It governs the turning radius of the inner and outer tire on a turn. The inner tire (left tire on a left turn) must turn a tighter radius than the outer (right tire on left turn) to prevent the tires from scrubbing on the pavement. Easy to see -- say the car has a front tread width (measured from enter of tire) of 5' wide. If the inner tire is turning on a 10' diameter circle, the outer will be on a 15' circle.

Ackerman is measured from the center of the rear axle. On paper, you would draw two lines, one for each side. Start both at the center of the rear axle, then go forward through the center of the pivot point of the front suspension (through the ball joints). The outer tierod end on the steering arm should be on or close to that line. I say close as I've measured my 63 Classic -- it's 3-4 degrees off where it should be on paper (outer tire turns 3-4 degrees LESS than it should on full lock). You don't have to be exact, especially with radial tires, but if too far off the tires will scrub on full lock. I mention full lock (turned all the way to one side) as the effect is most severe then. If you're off a good bit (say 10 degrees in or out) at full lock you won't really notice on turns under 45 degrees, at least not with radials. I'm running Pacer arms on my 63 Classic now. Since there is a big difference between tread width and wheelbase the arms can't be exact, at least I wouldn't think so (haven't tried it on paper). But they are close! I can feel a little tire scrub on full lock, but not much... definitely not enough to worry about. At full lock you're talking about maneuvering in a parking lot. Without power steering it would be harder, but not bad. With PS it's not big deal at all!  It would have to be really bad to make much of an impact on tire wear.

Not that the pivot point should be measured at spindle height, not at the upper or lower ball joint. You can measure the distance between the ball joints with the car on the ground. Just use a plumb bob or framing square to get a straight line down from the top or up from the bottom and measure the distance between them. Take half that distance and you'll be close enough for distance between pivot points in the front.

come to think of it, I bet I was off a few degrees due to the way I measured my turning angles. I measured from the outside of the tires, which would throw the angles off a bit. I just turned the wheels to full lock while on a level concrete floor then laid a piece of 1x8 across the tire and floor, 8" side up against tire to have good contact with the wheel. That throws my pivot point out by a bit more than the width of the tire, but gives a good angle. I then just chalked a line on the floor, and made another line with the wheels straight. There is a bit of toe-in as well, but that doesn't throw it off much. Both sides should be within 2-3 degrees of each other. The TSM will give turn angles, measured on an alignment machine with tunrtables under the tires, so measured form the center of the tire -- which is still a few inches out from where the Ackerman Angle would be measured.
Frank Swygert
Back to Top
304-dude View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Sep/29/2008
Location: Central Illinoi
Status: Offline
Points: 9081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 304-dude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov/03/2019 at 10:13am
Frank, I should have explained more about the Akerman angle on rack systems. But I simplified the arm pivot a bit for the steering lock issue.

Because a rack system is more or less straight and direct in comparison to the center link design of using pitman arm, center link and tie rods to govern the action of steering. The angle between the steering arms and center link in the turning radius can change in how Ackerman angle is set.

Racks on the other hand, need some back set, not forward set, to allow better Ackerman angle characteristics. There are some who forward set and are doing well, for street use. But how the steering arms are set in their angle and lengths that effect how the rack will allow proper Ackerman.

I did not add that part, as to confuse the reason why steering arms for racks are pointed to the wheels, while standard steering arms are out board and staight to the wheel.

As for rack being inboard or outboard... meaning pushed out in front of the steering arm or backset from the steering arm is all about clearances and use of stock spindles or arms.

One may only be able to forward set their rack because of crossmember and arm length issues. With a shorter arm, it is easier (by overlooking) to mount a forward positioned rack, than with a longer arm. But the longer arm will effect Ackerman angle, by its multiplication on the turning radius.

For my build, the only way to have a good built in Ackerman angle was to shift the upper ball joint back toward the firewall, or to shorten my mounting brackets and inch in depth. Since I modded my suspension design, the upper ball joint shift is built in, thus no need to make furather mods.

Basically you want about 1" back set distance, between the rack's axle centerline and axle centerline of the two arms at dead center. So when adjusting tie rods at full stop in a turn the inner turn wheel will adjust Ackerman by the fact that the tie rod must move at a shorter distance to make the wheel pivot.

You can go to Woodward's site and read through their installation and troubleshooting manual, as it is downloadable, of their rack systems, to get a better grasp on the subject. I just wanted to point out without complicating the issue, since the question was about wondering why one arm seemed to have more angle than the other.

Oops! I only explained the half of my mod to adjust rack placement rearward. You can adjust the strut rod out as far as you can go, while keeping the lock nut threaded, if using 70 on up suspension. This will increase castor, but most won't notice much when using radial tires.

Doing the increased castor will set back the rack location in orientation to steering arm ends. Luckily there is just enough adjustment to correctly place the arm ends fare enough paseed the rack's centerline at each end when mounting about 2" from the crossmember... this is with a Mustang rack, other makes may vary, so be sure when mounting to check how much depth to the crossmember needs to be adjusted, if any.

Edited by 304-dude - Nov/03/2019 at 1:01pm
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker
Back to Top
304-dude View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Sep/29/2008
Location: Central Illinoi
Status: Offline
Points: 9081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 304-dude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov/03/2019 at 1:03pm
I added a few things at the end of my last reply here... I felt I needed to add this notice, as others may have read since posting, and will pass reading through it again to see the updated info.
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
All content of this site Copyright © 2018 TheAMCForum unless otherwise noted, all rights reserved.
PROBLEMS LOGGING IN or REGISTERING:
If you have problems logging in or registering, then please contact a Moderator or