http://www.loufegersracing.com/products/7-degree-3-piece-amc-pacer-spindle-l-r-plus-caliper-brackets" rel="nofollow - http://www.loufegersracing.com/products/7-degree-3-piece-amc-pacer-spindle-l-r-plus-caliper-brackets

Just wondering about their suitability for Street rod usage. I know the  control arms are a separate availability problem, and a Fox body Mustang rack can be adapted to the Pacer setup (for not a lot more dinero than Rare Parts gets for Pacer rack mounting bushings).

Thoughts?

Should be fine for a street rod. They look like standard Pacer parts to me, except for the ARGO in the steering knuckle. My guess is they are cast or forged specifically for racing, and used because of the flexibility of the three piece design (spindle, knuckle, steering arm). The steering arm is a bit different than the Pacer arm though. It might be longer for regular steering box use, can't tell from photo. They should be just as strong (more likely stronger) than stock parts.

I'm shocked to see someone making them, to tell the truth!!

 

You must've priced Pacer parts from RARE PARTS.

 

Just wonder about that "7 degree" thing...

Ya that's what I'm wanting to order as well. I have a rack I'm considering on my 71 Javelin. Let us know if they fit please! 

No worries, I will document and measure including tie rod taper etc.

For now I just have to chose where I drive because I can't get full lock, luckily I live in a rural area and not in a big city.

YES. All AMC spindles (the part that holds the bearings and hub, anyway, are the SAME from at least 1950 on. The lone exception is the 1975-78 front discs, which used a larger bearing spindle. Even those spindles interchange with others -- the four hole bolt pattern is the same.

The only difference in the spindles (with the one exception) is the thickness of the base. Drum bases are typically thinner than disc bases (except for the 66-70 four piston Bendix brakes, they used drum spindles, IIRC). There are 2-3 thicknesses of drum brakes. V-8 brakes were usually wider than six, and some have thicker bases to allow the drums to clear the steering knuckle (the upright)... but not all. Easy enough to use longer bolts and spacers (grade 8 washers.. they won't crush) with drum spindles, disc spindles may have to be machined thinner depending on what brakes you want to use. Most people don't have that problem, few go from discs to drum!

Thanks for the info. I figured something was up by using the rockauto catalog and noticed pacer rotors are different than 71 Javelins. Looks like one could use pacer spindles then on a Javelin as they have bigger bearings ( but smaller rotors)  but more important is availability and cost. Seems like only one manufacturer is making rotors for the humpsters and they are expensive.  Of coarse I figure this out after I bought new rotors LOL.  

In general anything but the 79-83 small  car rotors are expensive because they are unique to AMC. The 79-83 rotors are getting harder to find and higher in price also. You can still get Centric and Raybestos brand (probably same manufacturer) for just under $30 from RockAuto. Wagner and Bendix brands are over $50. Honestly, I was surprised to see the <$30 rotors at all, last time I bought one from a local store it was around $40, and that was 8-10 years ago. Probably a Wagner or Bendix though.  This is the main reason I always recommend the Scarebird kit if replacing drums for a driver. Cheaper, easier to find parts for the next 20-30 years as the original style AMC parts continue to get scarce and expensive.

Calipers are cheap because they are the same, regardless of year, as many other makes used. Just the caliper mounts are AMC unique, and maybe hoses, though you can use generic/other make hoses as long as the ends and lengths are close. The old Bendix four piston calipers are a little pricey, but there is a Chinese made new part available now that is a bit cheaper. Couldn't find pricing, but they have been reported in the $50-100 range. The old Bendix design has the seal on the piston, so the body wears. Newer calipers all have the seal in the body so that the easy to replace piston wears.

unless originality is important, consider that an entire Scarebird setup might be cheaper and brake just as well. and maybe preserve your original parts for later.

I already purchased the rotors so I might as well use them. Thanks though! 

My concern was more with the steering arms. On paper the 5 3/8" steering arm centre to centre works.... With a rack with a total of 6 inches throw. Ends up at around 30 degrees steering which is further than the stops on a '64 classic at least. I can't confirm with a upper ball joint front end because I don't have one here with me to measure the offset. But evidence from several threads on here convinced me to purchase. I will confirm and show my working out later.

I definitely would appreciate your input/findings. I'm on the fence with what way to go in my 71 Javelin. I have a brand new flaming river rack that I didn't end up using from a previous project. Undecided which way I'll go,  the rack or an upgraded/updated  faster ratio steering box. 

Is the pacer rack steering arm straighter than the Javelin steering arm? It appears to be straighter in the picture..... thinking about bump steer/geometry....

Also curious with the Argo is it set up for a tierod taper ( if so which one?) or is it a hole for a bolt and a rod end? 

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fla-fr40022" rel="nofollow - https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fla-fr40022

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

  https://howeracing.com/index.php/store/steering/howe-quick-bump-tie-rod-ends.html" rel="nofollow - https://howeracing.com/index.php/store/steering/howe-quick-bump-tie-rod-ends.html

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.

That's over simplified though. Whether the arms are angled out or in is mostly due to the position of the rack or steering box. With the rack in front the arms will be out some, so will normal steering arms.

Rack arms aren't out as much because they are generally shorter to make up for the more limited left and right movement of the rack, so they don't APPEAR to be angled out much, but in reality are angled the same as a regular steering box arm would be. If you have a rear steer rack, or steering box, the arms will be angled IN for the correct Ackerman Angle. The illustration below shows a rear steer chassis. A front steer has to have the tierod ends OUT, following the same lines through the ball joints. Doesn't matter what kind of steering system is used. With a steering box the length of the pitman arm is also taken into affect. It's usually the same length as the steering arms -- the idler arm also. Just a few more parts than a rack and pinion setup.

We are in agreement though -- the rack should be as close to straight across when the wheels are forward -- assuming the steering arms are the correct length. If you're using a kit or the arms from a rack setup suspension they will be close -- hence why I used Pacer arms and they are "close enough" on my Classic (I was given that hint from someone on here who used Pacer arms on a Javelin for a home made rack conversion). A little set back or forward won't affect things enough to notice, but I'm talking about only 1/4" forward or back though. Much more than that and it might be noticeable. Depends on the car and the driver.

Frank is making a fine point here... and there's a good description and drawings of Ackerman on wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry

With the OEM Pacer arms on my 63 there is less Ackerman than the arms I had fabricated. In fact, it appears that the wheels are turned about the SAME angle at full lock. I've experienced no adverse effects from this, and have driven the car on a four hour road trip. I've got power steering, so that may help in parking lots. I can hear a little scrub (with windows down) in a parking lot, but just a bit, and only after about 45 degrees or more. Driving down the road there isn't a difference, but you're turning less than 45 degrees unless turning into a driveway, so there shouldn't be. The outside tire may indeed be turning a little sharper than the inside, it's hard to tell, but it's close enough not to be a big issue.

My fabbed arms weren't strong enough. They were made from thin wall 1" square tubing with a 1/8" thick reinforcement welded to one side. You have to notch the tubing to fit around the steering knuckle -- that or space it back further and change the angle of the arm... I notched. They worked just fine from 2003-2018!! I had an issue where I had a weld that didn't penetrate well and broke loose after a couple years when I bumped a curb a bit hard, but that wasn't a material fault -- just a faulty weld where I welded premade tie-rod end bungs on (rather than buy a reamer -- Speedway Motors has them). The bungs are solid, harder to penetrate them and not burn up the thinner portion of the arms. A piece of solid 1" square would be better. I don't think you can get a thick walled 1" tubing.

What bent one in 2018 was coming OFF a curb!! It was a tall curb, I knew I was going to hit it, so I just eased up on and off. Just hit it with the right tire. went up on it with no problem, but coming off the height and angle combined put enough pressure on the REAR of the tire that it pushed the rear of the tire IN, which put pressure against the arm at that notch and it bent (at the notch)!! No in a million years would I have expected it to bend coming OFF a curb!! Just the right conditions. If there's a one in a million chance of something it's all good... until YOU'RE THE ONE!!

Stock Pacer arms, tried to show the tie rod "twist". There is a left and a right because of this "twist"
 

Sometimes you just have to bolt it all up and try it! I did that when I first put a T-bird rack in my car back in 2003. With the stock steering arms (1963 Classic) it worked great, but had the turning radius of a school bus (due to the ~7" steering arms). I could turn into a driveway on the left with no problems since I had the left lane to cross, but turning into a right driveway meant going into the left lane (and I mean ALL THE WAY over) or making a three point turn. Well, could have run over a lot of grass...

Step two was to measure some T-bird arms and make STRAIGHT arms to replace the stock ones the correct length. Well, that looked good straight ahead, but reversed the Ackerman -- outside wheel turned much sharper than the inside -- undriveable sharper.

Step three -- Read up- on steering geometry!! Once I did that and now knew about Ackerman Angle, I shortened the arms I'd made by a couple inches and made short angle iron extensions that pivoted at the end. I drilled three holes out so I could change the location of the tie rod end. This was temporary and only for mock-up to find the correct position, NOT driven with this! I didn't have an alignment rack or turntables for the tires. What I did was put jack stands under the lower arms as close to the outer ball joint as possible and make two plywood triangles that bolted in place of the front wheels. I made them so that they were about 1/8" above my concrete driveway. Turned steering wheel straight then adjusted those arms so that the wheels were straight. I got the turning angles from the TSM, which give the angle of each wheel at left and right lock. I turned each way and adjusted until I was close to the correct angles. I turned each way and chalked a line, then measured angle from the straight line. Colored chalk (not fat sidewalk chalk) helps keep track of things! I adjusted until I got something close -- couldn't quite get the factory angles -- partially because where I measured, partially because the rack moves a bit differently than a steering box setup. At this point I tightened the pivot point and took the arms off, using them as a template to make new arms. Worked like a charm! I was careful to make one arm a mirror image of the other.

One note -- while doing the math for Ackerman Angle I discovered that the factory angles weren't exact either -- they were 3-4 degrees off! Doesn't have to be perfect, just close.

My plan is to block the car at ride height with the front springs removed and figure out where the rack "needs" to be,I check using 3" of suspension upward travel.  I have turning plates, caster /camber gauge and a bump steer gauge which really helps but they are not cheap. I was involved with circle track racing for 25 years, that's why I have some of these tools.   I did this with my 70 Challenger and used combinations of "stock" parts from other Chrysler cars till I optimized the geometry .  I used C-Body spindles, A-Body lower control arms etc.. Only non-stock parts used were the Howe quick bump kit and aftermarket upper control arms.  It took many hours of trial and error till I was happy. Most of the time was spent waiting on parts to arrive, it took months finding the original parts to experiment with, and a lot of them ended up in the corner or on a shelf , likely never to be used again. It's never perfect there are always compromises , but my Challenger handles 10x better now than it did in stock form. My Challenger in stock form was by far the worst handling and braking car I have ever owned.  You have to remember these cars were  likely designed for bias-ply tires, never had enough adjustment for  caster for today's modern radials. That and the fact that handling/braking was not exactly high on the list of " must haves" as compared to today's cars. If you use "factory alignment specs" to align the front end of these old cars with modern radials they will handle horribly! Or take a new driver used to modern cars then put them behind the wheel of a " classic" . They likely  will need a change of underwear in short order. 

Drawing it out on paper or a computer screen is great and all but there is no substitute for the real car as even the smallest mistake on measurements can really effect the outcome. Tolerances in things between different manufacturers of components, such as tierods , ball joints, factory frame tolerances , accumulative tolerances, etc... all factor in. Might " look good on paper" but when implemented on the actual car being used often fall short of the desired outcome. IMO there is no substitute for "rolling up your sleeves and getting dirty" on the actual car.  

Just my 2 cents, hope it helps.    

I missed that post, Thanks! Nice job on the mounting crossmember! Looks easy enough to slot holes/shim rack for adjustments. You could use washers tack welded in position when you get it where you want it so you don't lose your settings if you ever need to remove it again down the road. 

I noticed shims on the frame rails, is it centered in the chassis? 

I found this , maybe helpful for the pictures?  https://pacertruck.wordpress.com/category/pacer-pickup/" rel="nofollow - https://pacertruck.wordpress.com/category/pacer-pickup/

I suspect the Argo Pacer arms were made slightly different from the factory Pacer arms to make them work better in a dirt track chassis. My guess is they use the Pacer (or rather AMC) steering knuckle and spindle only, mainly because they are two piece and can be adjusted with spacers, and the slightly different arm fixes the steering in the dirt track chassis being used.

As you can see, moving the rack back doesn't make a lot of difference. In actual driving you wouldn't notice the difference shown.

Lucas, what makes the tires turn at different angles is the position of the outer tie-rod end. Both the angle from the ball joint and the length. Again, the easiest way to find the position is to make a temporary arm with moveable ends.

I wonder what it would cost to just send you one of the arms I made (and not suing any more)? The other option is to get standard Pacer arms since they work "good enough" on the 63-66 big car (and Javelins).  You should be able to find someone in the US to send you some.

Other than that, position and width of the rack is critical. The tie-rods can be at a slight angle and not have enough of an effect to be noticeable. The inner pivot points MUST be very near the pivots points of the lower arms though. I think you can be as much as 1/4" in or out (on both sides) and have it work fine. The illustrations 304-dude posted indicate you can be offset a bit without a lot of change, but the inner tie-rod pivots STILL need to be the width of the distance between the lower arms pivot points. Ford racks are front steer and come in three different widths -- Mustang II/Pinto is the narrowest, Ford Contour (and I think later Mustangs) the middle, and the 80s-90s T-bird the widest. Come to think of it, the racks might be close to the same width, the tie-rods ends are short to long like that. It's so popular that you can get extensions that screw between the tie-rod end and rack to make it wider. Can be used on both or one side. Use on one side to offset the rack and still have the pivots in the right places.

It looks like the GM rack might be a bit too wide from the photos in your rack install thread. The outer tie-rod pivot points look to be further out than the lower control arm pivots. That will cause some bump steer issues once the geometry is corrected, but if only a little longer it may not cause enough to be noticeable. Could just be the angle of the photos though.

http://www.argo-pace-rapco.com/assets/amc-pacer-spindle.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://www.argo-pace-rapco.com/assets/amc-pacer-spindle.pdf

You can fit a later model AMC rotor or hub on the 71-74 spindle. All AMCs EXCEPT the 75-78 models use the SAME spindle length and bearings, even drum brakes models, from at least 1952-1983. The 75-78 models (regardless of car size/model) use a bigger bearing Bendix spindle. Don't know why they went that route, may have just been price from the supplier (Bendix). The rotors for those are a bit pricey, so I'm pretty sure they don't cross reference to any other makes.

You can use a hat type rotor with a drum brake hub, just remove the drum. That's what Scarebird does in their kits -- or you can cut the worn rotor off a hub/rotor and use that as the hub (turned off on a lathe or brake lathe). You just have to get the right depth hat rotor, or shim the caliper bracket. You may be able to find a Wilwood or other aftermarket hat rotor with the correct offset to replace a K-H rotor.