Al Johnson wrote:
>Curt, a few years ago, the tech tips pages of CAT were loaded with
>alarmist reports about "exploding ball joints."
>[SNIP],seems to be that Q&H ball joints-which are the
>only ones still commonly available--are for Alpine only, and not
>suitable for Tigers, where they invariably fail.
a) I'm sure that I am running on Alpine units-- I bought 'em originally
for an Alpine anyway. I'd be nice to get them out.
b) What's the difference? Ball diameter? Quality of metal?
> There was even a CAT tech tip on converting to early T-bird balljoints.
Which looked cool except for having to cut into the stock lower control arm.
Don't wanna do that.
> I know my Volvo 240 has Girling brakes,
>so that company is probably still in business. Perhaps they would run
>off some balljoints for the hobbyist
(Dang, Al-- it's hard to resist asking if some of our buddies don't want
reproduction bj's as they might devalue NOS ones. Sorry, cheap shot.)
And they are not the only maker of bj's, right? I have in front of me the
Thomas Register, looking at "Joints: Ball"; lots of listings, but many seem
to make the little bj's that one finds in linkages. I looked in the catalog sec-
tion at Wescon, Midwest and Valley Tool's listings, no go (although there
are what look to be some nice HD cables that might be cool for bonnet
release and choke cables). TRW and Au-ve-co are in there but w/no catalog
section.
I guess what is needed is a bj of the right ball size, strength and travel
angles, the right mounting 'taper', with a big enough "foot" to be cut down
and drilled to mount a Tiger. Don't know, but I assume the T-bird set-up
went down this road. Is that the closest fit available? Seems hard to believe.
You'd think some industrial application uses a monster bj just perfect for
us, after some "tweaking". Problems with that:
a) I have no idea what I'm talking about. I know there's some engineers
out there. Guys? Well?
b) Who knows what the original specs were?
c) What's the market? Big enough to entice a mfgr to at least talk?
d) Responsibility-- like in don't expect any. Taking one Co.'s product
and cutting it up, then sticking it into an unintended application-
good luck!
> Another related curiousity. I still am a regular reader of various
>Streetrodding magazines, and that hobby has seen fit to adapt the
>Mustang II front end
Ever auto-x in a Boredom Zero? Hoo, boy! A car in roughly our weight
and wheelbase class, and newer enough to expect some improvements
in suspension technology. Nope. What a pig. Perhaps the T-bucket crowd,
running around on big-'n-littles, likes the handling. OTOH, the hotrod
mags _do_ show some completely aftermarket suspensions _based_ on
the Mustang II; I have no experience w/those, might be a place to explore.
Also, one might not care about handling so much in light of safety and
availability issues; and the M II's handling woes, to be fair, might not be
all due to the front suspension.
to virtually every sort of Rod. They are commonly
>adapted to all sorts of kit cars and Cobra replicas too, many of which
>are the performance equals or betters of the Tiger.This seems a natural
>prospect for Tiger. Has anyone looked into this???????
> Al Johnson (B9472024)
IMHO, the key point here is that looking farther afield is sometimes
needed to resolve our specific problems. Tiger "veterans" have been working
on this for some time, but breath-of-fresh-air discussions might bear
fruit. I think I'll walk out to the warehouse and see what the fork lifts
use for bj's...
... never mind. Just got back, under all of the filth, our's seem to use
what looked like kingpins. Big suckas, though.
Larry Wright, Maryland "I can't get no-- Satis-traction"
1964 Sunbeam Tiger Mk 1 (302/285, T-5, Revolutions)
1996 Nissan 200SX SE-R ($TB, 17d BTDC, +25 MIR hp, Yoko AVS coming)
1992 Toyota pick-up (Bilstein, Yoko AVS, Concordes)
ph 301.386.7979 fax 301.386.5333
and e-mail at home now! Larry.Wright@mail.wdn.com
|