XM757 steering

[cranetruck]

Good point, I'm currently looking for an NOS tierod end made for this truck. I still think that using a "standard" ball joint for comparison would be like the proverbial apples and oranges thing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking that the "sealed for life" design may have offered an improvement performance (=less resistance) also.

As always, I appreciate any feedback.

 

[Elwenil]

Good point on the comparison, but it might be closer than you think. Back in the mid 90's just about all the chassis component companies (Moog, TRW, etc.) went from the traditional all steel design for this type of joint to a plastic cup joint that was supposed to get rid of all the noise and binding of all steel joints which I for one, never noticed. What did happen is that while you might of had a vehicle 30 years and only replaced the ball joints once, now they don't last near as long. The theory is that the manufacturers wanted to make more money off of these joints and they were lasting way to long for them to sell many of them. At any rate, now it is common to find "sealed for life" joints on just about every new vehicle made today even though the joints are lucky to last half the time of the old steel greasable ones.

Just for kicks I pulled a ball joint off the shelf for a 90s Dodge Ram that is a sealed for life style and one for a 80s half ton ram pickup that is the old steel kind. I figure ball joints will be closer in size than a light duty truck tie rod end. The new one does move by hand, but it's not real easy, the old style one cannot be moved at all. I cannot keep a grip on it with both hands in order to move the stud. It may very well be that the joints on the 757 are supposed to originally be somewhat loose.

 

[cranetruck]

Checked the turning torque again this afternoon (3rd day).
No change on either side, same as yesterday.

EDIT (Dec 5, 06): 4th day: No change.....
EDIT (Dec 6, 06): 5th day: No change....
EDIT (Dec 9, 06): 8th day: No change....

 

[alphadeltaromeo]

You know...readin' all this makes me really want to come on up to VA and fiddle with it. I think with most of us we have that "troubleshooting" fixit attitude in a serious way. From the "replacing the headlight" to the "dman especial" and errything in between. I read the story of John Deere (large book) and the competition with CAT, etc...was great to read through how changes were made based on recommendations, the need to add value, etc. Was fascinating to see the minds at work.

A few years back my father-in-law and I invented a product called "Auto Diaper" (also patented) . It's a plastic composite material shaped like a cafeteria tray...has 4 bossed holes in the sides, a pad manufactured by 3M stuck to the tray. It can absorb over 1 quart of any oil based product, just like a diaper. It actually attaches to the bottom of a vehicle where the leaks are. To test the product he installed one on a NASCAR he was crew chief for...at Sears Point and it stayed with the car the entire race and did well.

Innovation is truly wonderful!

 

[cranetruck]

Andy, the biggest problem in problem solving is being able to define the problem properly.

 

[alphadeltaromeo]

I see the problem...it's ever so problematic...thus the problem.

 

[alphadeltaromeo]

But then again...there clearly are times where the problem hasn't been identified and the solution appears with persistence in trying this and that.

Fiddle some...fiddle some more and fiddle even more Some of the best inventions weren't really that...but someone stumbled upon something quite brilliant.

 

[cranetruck]

After nine days of soaking the tierod ends in CLP and "Heat Valve Lubricant" without any significant change, I'm now beginning a search for commercial replacements.
The stud part seems to have metric threads (24 mm, in this case), is metric standard for these parts?

 

[doghead]

Are there no other trucks with this type of tie rod end ,known to get a comparison on? Was the chassis built by Ford? If so where were they assembled? I have run into quite a few Ford parts, old and newer that are metric. I have a skid-steer that has an English Ford engine and it's all metric. Can't even get parts at a regular Ford place. Have you tried to or been able to pass air through the ball joint ? I am assuming the 1/8" holes are something you added?

 

[cranetruck]

The truck was built by Ford, "Tractor Division", so probably the chassis portion also.
Yes, I drilled the 1/8" holes in the caps to access the balls directly.

 

[cranetruck]

This is what the tie rod end looks like, removed one today.
The ones used for the 5-ton M923 and M39 series trucks are different.

The view of the cap shows the 1/8" hole I drilled to soak the ball, which had no effect after ten days. The ball is approx 1/4 inch below the cap. Because of the tightness and lack of lube channels, I don't believe a zerk fitting would do much good.
I'm on the hunt for a replacement...

 

[DDoyle]

Most of these trucks were sent to Europe during the height of the cold war (some to Korea) - so my inclination would be to check with the various large European parts vendors (commercial-oriented) for these.

Regards,
David

 

[jasonjc]

can you use a demel typ tool and cut/grind out the locking tab/ pinned over spots and press it apart. And then see whats going on inside of it???? If ford tractor made it maybe they used those on tractors too???? Just a thought.

 

[WillWagner]

Bjorn, I think you should get it running, put the tires on the ground and try it. Those are big arse joints, they don't move too easily. If you get it going and it lugs the engine down, you'll know you have an issue. I've done lots of steering ball joints on construction stuff, they are very stiff. Just an opinion.

 

[cranetruck]

Cutting them open would only expose the dry lube lining. This is what Masoner (Oklahoma) did with one. The image shows the lining, not much one could do with it. The penetrants didn't make it through after ten days.

NAPA may not have this size, but the ones I looked at were very similar, only smaller. I'll bring the sample piece next time, perhaps they can match it.

 

[cranetruck]

Will, I'm pretty sure they will be an issue. Two other owners of this vehicle has had or still have the problem.
I have seen spec for ball joints suggesting that they turn with only 5 to 10 ft-lb, these are ten times as stiff.
The power steering can probably handle it, but the wheels would almost certainly not return to straight ahead after a turn, which would make driving a chore(?).
As suggested earlier in this thread, by D-man and others, they may just be a stock item made by TRW or some other company.

 

[DDoyle]

Bjorn,
Find the NSN in the TM. Post it on this site - someone here likely has FedLog access and could PM you the manufacturer's name, and part number.

DD

 

[cranetruck]

David, the FSN is 2530-045-1949 as shown in image title above, and the NSN should be 2530-00-045-1949, since it was prior to Sept 30, 1974.

 

[cranetruck]

The image below shows all the joints in the steering system. There are 13 of them, of which only 2 are lubed with zerks. They don't all have to move the same amount during a turn, but they all resist movement and that's substantial in this case.
5 lubed for life joints are replaceable with what may be "off the shelf" tie rod ends, the others are made as part of the rod.

Rebulding the joints would be the most cost effective way, but how, is the question....
I will continue to let the one ball joint still attached to the tie rod, soak in CLP. Haven't tried heating it yet, will also find a way to exercise the joint, perhaps in a drill press with a vise and low enough "gearing".

 

[cranetruck]

YES! After cooking one of the tierod ends in motor oil for 4 hours at 275°F, it was loose enough to turn by hand!
Hope it stays this way after cooling down.
4 hours may be a little long, but I turned on the cooker with the thermostat set at 275 and went shopping, forgetting about it....