Very simple fix......

-
mycuda

mycuda

FABO Gold Member
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
3,490
Location
Chicago/ Metro
Dont know why people shy away from a future maintenance problem..........
IMO.

No Brainer here. No slop.
Just cut shaft about 1.5" drill hole if need to or allen key and lock nut provide stability.
$30 part
D

stcolumn.jpg
 
Last edited:
xLURKxDOGx said:
What’s the part number?

Jake
Click to expand...
This particular one was an aftermarket one for 28 bucks I have to grind down the shaft a little bit to get it to fit but I flaming river has them with longer slip joint for easier install
but youll pay for it but still worth it.

Dave
 
Agree. U joint never side to side(steering play) slop and a lot easier to put on take off and even adjust if need be.
 
Charrlie_S said:
Factory pot joint has provision for in and out movement, U-joint does not
Click to expand...
However, the design of the steering shaft allows for movement. It is not one piece, but two pieces which allow enough movement. Rod
 
rklein383 said:
However, the design of the steering shaft allows for movement. It is not one piece, but two pieces which allow enough movement. Rod
Click to expand...
Depends on the year. All my "A" bodies are 64-66, and have a solid shaft. Forget what year they went to the 2 piece shaft, but you are right about that.
 
rklein383 said:
However, the design of the steering shaft allows for movement. It is not one piece, but two pieces which allow enough movement. Rod
Click to expand...

Except the guys that engineered the system still used a steering joint that allowed for slip even with the 2 piece steering shaft. Because despite being 2 pieces that are supposed to collapse in case of an accident, it's not designed to take up that slip.

A simple fix isn't always the best.

This is what I did with mine. Not saying it's the best way to do it either, but it does account for the same movement that the factory joint can handle and a simple u-joint can't.
Steering shaft upgrade
 
72bluNblu said:
Except the guys that engineered the system still used a steering joint that allowed for slip even with the 2 piece steering shaft. Because despite being 2 pieces that are supposed to collapse in case of an accident, it's not designed to take up that slip.

A simple fix isn't always the best.

This is what I did with mine. Not saying it's the best way to do it either, but it does account for the same movement that the factory joint can handle and a simple u-joint can't.
Steering shaft upgrade
Click to expand...
Agree.
I guess I should have stated for a car that's driven a few hours a week or so. In my case

Between that and already outdated safety issues on the vehicles construction
compared to today.
I guess everybody enjoying the older cars has to think about that at some point.
 
mycuda said:
Agree.
I guess I should have stated for a car that's driven a few hours a week or so. In my case

Between that and already outdated safety issues on the vehicles construction
compared to today.
I guess everybody enjoying the older cars has to think about that at some point.
Click to expand...

It's true, you can get away with a lot if you're not driving the car all that much. Doesn't mean it's the right way to do it, but a lot things won't ever catch up to you on a car that doesn't see much mileage.

The factory was planning for a car that was seeing service as a daily driver, and was going to see a whole lot more miles than most of these cars do now.
 
72bluNblu said:
Except the guys that engineered the system still used a steering joint that allowed for slip even with the 2 piece steering shaft. Because despite being 2 pieces that are supposed to collapse in case of an accident, it's not designed to take up that slip.

A simple fix isn't always the best.

This is what I did with mine. Not saying it's the best way to do it either, but it does account for the same movement that the factory joint can handle and a simple u-joint can't.
Steering shaft upgrade
Click to expand...

I can visualize the engineers at Chrysler back then....crap we have thousands of these steering joints still, I guess we will keep using them. I greased up my 2 piece steering column and it moves in an out with little effort, especially the small amount that is necessary. I really don't see why the setup won't work for the long haul.
 
rklein383 said:
I can visualize the engineers at Chrysler back then....crap we have thousands of these steering joints still, I guess we will keep using them. I greased up my 2 piece steering column and it moves in an out with little effort, especially the small amount that is necessary. I really don't see why the setup won't work for the long haul.
Click to expand...

rklein383 said:
I can visualize the engineers at Chrysler back then....crap we have thousands of these steering joints still, I guess we will keep using them. I greased up my 2 piece steering column and it moves in an out with little effort, especially the small amount that is necessary. I really don't see why the setup won't work for the long haul.
Click to expand...

Guess you'll find out one way or another.

The two piece steering shaft wasn't supposed to move like that, which is why it was held in place with those plastic "shear pins". It was only supposed to move in an accident. When I disassembled my steering column and shaft they were still intact (which isn't always the case), that motion was taken up by the steering coupler. I tried to replicate a system that would do the same thing, and the sliding section I used definitely slides easier than the factory two piece shaft. Or at least the one in my car at any rate.

I don't know that my solution works any better. I simply wanted to point out that there was a reason why motion in that direction was accounted for by the factory, whether it was overkill or not, and share my own solution to the "problem". On my cars I take movement in that plane into account, you're free to do whatever you like. Movement like that would be less in my car anyway, given the chassis reinforcement I've done. On a car without frame connectors, torque boxes, and "J" bars or firewall to shock tower reinforcements (ie, a factory car0, it would be more of a potential issue as there will be more flex.

I'm not a fan of drilling the steering shaft and adding a through pin. The tolerances on that need to be precise to prevent slop and wear, and I suspect that most people don't take the necessary level of precision. Again, that's something that might not immediately be a problem, but if you put enough miles on the car it will eventually show up and someone will have to deal with it. There's enough potential for play in the steering system already, without adding more from "simple fixes".

And not drilling a through hole for a pin is even worse, if you use a round-round u-joint and just drill a small recess for an allen screw and lock nut that's all that keeps the steering shaft from spinning in the joint. No thanks. All the modern stuff uses "D" shafts so nothing has the potential to spin, even with a failure.

I think some over-engineering in the steering, braking, and suspension components of these cars is healthy. After all, that's your control and safety equipment.
 
72bluNblu said:
Guess you'll find out one way or another.

The two piece steering shaft wasn't supposed to move like that, which is why it was held in place with those plastic "shear pins". It was only supposed to move in an accident. When I disassembled my steering column and shaft they were still intact (which isn't always the case), that motion was taken up by the steering coupler. I tried to replicate a system that would do the same thing, and the sliding section I used definitely slides easier than the factory two piece shaft. Or at least the one in my car at any rate.

I don't know that my solution works any better. I simply wanted to point out that there was a reason why motion in that direction was accounted for by the factory, whether it was overkill or not, and share my own solution to the "problem". On my cars I take movement in that plane into account, you're free to do whatever you like. Movement like that would be less in my car anyway, given the chassis reinforcement I've done. On a car without frame connectors, torque boxes, and "J" bars or firewall to shock tower reinforcements (ie, a factory car0, it would be more of a potential issue as there will be more flex.

I'm not a fan of drilling the steering shaft and adding a through pin. The tolerances on that need to be precise to prevent slop and wear, and I suspect that most people don't take the necessary level of precision. Again, that's something that might not immediately be a problem, but if you put enough miles on the car it will eventually show up and someone will have to deal with it. There's enough potential for play in the steering system already, without adding more from "simple fixes".

And not drilling a through hole for a pin is even worse, if you use a round-round u-joint and just drill a small recess for an allen screw and lock nut that's all that keeps the steering shaft from spinning in the joint. No thanks. All the modern stuff uses "D" shafts so nothing has the potential to spin, even with a failure.

I think some over-engineering in the steering, braking, and suspension components of these cars is healthy. After all, that's your control and safety equipment.
Click to expand...

You make some good points here. I also have all the chassis reinforcements as you described in my Barracuda. I believe in Mopar engineering for sure, but things can be better. I cut my shaft down and made it a double d shaft, no chance for spinning here. I believe I am in good shape here and am comfortable with it. Time will tell. Rod
 
72bluNblu said:
Guess you'll find out one way or another.

The two piece steering shaft wasn't supposed to move like that, which is why it was held in place with those plastic "shear pins". It was only supposed to move in an accident. When I disassembled my steering column and shaft they were still intact (which isn't always the case), that motion was taken up by the steering coupler. I tried to replicate a system that would do the same thing, and the sliding section I used definitely slides easier than the factory two piece shaft. Or at least the one in my car at any rate.

I don't know that my solution works any better. I simply wanted to point out that there was a reason why motion in that direction was accounted for by the factory, whether it was overkill or not, and share my own solution to the "problem". On my cars I take movement in that plane into account, you're free to do whatever you like. Movement like that would be less in my car anyway, given the chassis reinforcement I've done. On a car without frame connectors, torque boxes, and "J" bars or firewall to shock tower reinforcements (ie, a factory car0, it would be more of a potential issue as there will be more flex.

I'm not a fan of drilling the steering shaft and adding a through pin. The tolerances on that need to be precise to prevent slop and wear, and I suspect that most people don't take the necessary level of precision. Again, that's something that might not immediately be a problem, but if you put enough miles on the car it will eventually show up and someone will have to deal with it. There's enough potential for play in the steering system already, without adding more from "simple fixes".

And not drilling a through hole for a pin is even worse, if you use a round-round u-joint and just drill a small recess for an allen screw and lock nut that's all that keeps the steering shaft from spinning in the joint. No thanks. All the modern stuff uses "D" shafts so nothing has the potential to spin, even with a failure.

I think some over-engineering in the steering, braking, and suspension components of these cars is healthy. After all, that's your control and safety equipment.
Click to expand...
The ujoint couplers I use have D shaft hole for reason you said. Need to grind down both sides of shaft to allow entry into joint lockdown.
allen key and locknut cant possibly spin.
I'm just trying to show people other options out there.
basically all rack pinion use this

D.
 
Last edited:
This subject has been around a long time. One older post said to video the joint driving around to see if normal (not accident) driving shows movement in the joint. Someone posted a video and you will be amazed how much flex there is in the body requiring this joint to flex in/out.
 
mycuda said:
The ujoint couplers I use have D shaft hole for reason you said. Need to grind down both sides of shaft to allow entry into joint lockdown.
allen key and locknut cant possibly spin.
I'm just trying to show people other options out there.
basically all rack pinion use this

D.
Click to expand...

Right, but rack and pinion steering shaft's have sliding sections like the one I installed, making the sliding joint unnecessary. Installing a u-joint into the old system changes the ability of the steering shaft to deal with that motion. And the older unibody cars flex a lot more than the new ones do. So just because a modern car with a rack and pinion runs a plain u-joint doesn't mean an old A-body can do it the same way, there are different problems to address.

StephenShaw said:
This subject has been around a long time. One older post said to video the joint driving around to see if normal (not accident) driving shows movement in the joint. Someone posted a video and you will be amazed how much flex there is in the body requiring this joint to flex in/out.
Click to expand...

Yeah there's a TON of flex in these cars. And one of the worst places for it is the front end of the car ahead of the firewall. Because all the suspension loads are carried by the crossmembers, there wasn't a lot of reinforcement added to keep the rails from flexing up and down. That's why the firewall to shock mount/frame rail stiffeners are such a good addition.
 
mycuda said:
Dont know why people shy away from a future maintenance problem..........
IMO.

No Brainer here. No slop.
Just cut shaft about 1.5" drill hole if need to or allen key and lock nut provide stability.
$30 part
D

View attachment 1715181660
Click to expand...

Future maintenance problem?
Huh? Needing grease or a rebuild every forty years is a maintenance problem?

Drill for a grease fit at the bottom of the coupler, blow a load in it once a decade. No big whoop, and doesn't leave those of us that have seen the chassis flex in these cars shaking their heads.

I love watching people solve non problems. If you want to solve future maintenance problems, go after something like rod bearings next time.
 
jos51700 said:
Future maintenance problem?
Huh? Needing grease or a rebuild every forty years is a maintenance problem?

Drill for a grease fit at the bottom of the coupler, blow a load in it once a decade. No big whoop, and doesn't leave those of us that have seen the chassis flex in these cars shaking their heads.

I love watching people solve non problems. If you want to solve future maintenance problems, go after something like rod bearings next time.
Click to expand...
I never would drive one of these cars modified more than 75 miles an hour without frame supports that's silly
 
mycuda said:
I never would drive one of these cars modified more than 75 miles an hour without frame supports that's silly
Click to expand...

The factory had no issue with it.

The speed is less of an issue than the tire type. If you run bias ply's, you don't need much in the way of chassis reinforcement because the tires won't transmit all that much force to the chassis before they let go of the road. Meanwhile, with a good set of modern tires you can translate a whole lot of suspension force to the chassis even at low speed, ie, an autocross.

Like anything else, it depends on application.
 
mycuda said:
I never would drive one of these cars modified more than 75 miles an hour without frame supports that's silly
Click to expand...

You'd need a full tube chassis to solve the flex that the pot coupling deals with
 
mycuda said:
Maybe need to look at post #12
for street use overall....
Click to expand...
Better yet start your own safety thread and start by bitching at people putting modified Big Blocks in early a bodies with a single peashooter master cylinder with drum brakes.


Id be much more worried about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top