Nefarious Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 p.s. hurry up Tungsten.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowser Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) I'm pretty sure what he's getting at is that the shock loads are still present and hit the components with just as much force, the difference is that the stabilizer soaks up that shock AFTER it has already hit the components and lessens the effect at that point. The driver feels less because it has dampened it that is not the question. he's saying it masks the possible problems your steering may have because they will still wear out at the same rate because the shock hits those main steering components in question before the damper soaks the force. which he is correct about. he's talking about shock loading which is not to be confused with continual force. Think of it like taking a large stick and whacking it against a tree hard. The shock load of it will cause it to snap, vs applying pressure on both ends of the stick and trying to bend it until it breaks. He's right that the shock forces will still affect the steering components the same as they would without the stabilizer. The Dampener is not needed until that force is initially applied. Edited March 22, 2012 by Dowser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Thanks Dowser, that is what I meant. Nefarious: If I hit a rock with my driver's side tire, the tie rod ends, 2 connections on the centerlink, as well as the pitman arm, are all going to take the brunt of that force before the stabilizer. THAT is where the damage is done. The transfer of force across the centerlink would be minimal in comparison, even without the stabilizer. If the hit was hard enough to do that much damage across the centerlink, the steering wheel would be ripped from the driver's hand on the hit as well. In this case, yes, the stabilizer would help absorb some of that energy before it hits the passenger side components, but the driver's side would still have taken a far worse beating. Shocks do not dampen the stiffness of the ride of your vehicle, so your comparison is wrong. They dampen the bounce. Take your shocks out of the back of your truck, and go for a slow drive. The ride won't be more harsh. It'll be more bouncy. The springs do far more to determine ride harshness than the shocks. The shocks serve to stop the momentum of the bounce after you hit a bump. Ever seen an old Caddy going down the road? The shocks were set with such light damping (relative to the weight of the car) that the things would bounce seemingly forever after hitting 1 bump. Yes, a stiff shock can cause a harsh ride, as they dampen with more force (quicker) to stop the bouncing. But the stiffness is determined by the springs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pathybuilder Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) While I do like the look of this system, and feel that it should hold up better than the stock setup, I do agree with Simon 100% on the stabilizer issue. If anything a steering stabilizer will cause more force to be applied directly to the TRE that takes the hit. Think of it this way. Without a steering stabilizer, you're passenger side wheel takes a large hit. The force of that hit is transferred through the TRE, through the center link, through the gearbox, and up the steering shaft to the steering wheel, where the driver, manually dampens that force. In this case the force is applied to all steering components that it comes into contact with, including the driver. The driver side wheel simply moves as it's part of the linkage, however the only force applied to it's TRE is what's holding it back from turning (say if it's wedge against another rock there would be lots of force on it's TRE, flat ground, next to none). Now introduce a steering stabilizer. Same wheel takes a hit, the force travels through the TRE, to the centerlink, but the centerlink is dampened from moving freely, therefore minimizing the force seen by the gearbox and the driver. You can't make force go away, it's always going to exist, if you try to dampen it, you simply move it to the other side of the dampener, in this case, your centerlink, inner TRE, TRE adjuster, and outer TRE. I too am excited to see somebody wheel this setup, been following it for a while, just waiting to see how it works. I'm debating between this and the grassroots link. Definitely see the advantages to both, the only difference is that one has been tested by many. Edited March 22, 2012 by pathybuilder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamzan Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Agree with Simon 100% as well. All the stabilizer does take a lot of the feedback out of the steering wheel and keep it from wandering as much on rutted roads. I have driven my pathy with and without a damper, on and offroad. It sure feels nicer with the damper but my @!*% still wore out fast from wheeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5523Pathfinder Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 watch at 35 secs in... Anyway, what you guys are refering to is bump-steer. Thats all IM going to add here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunya Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 watch at 35 secs in... thats exactly what I thought of when reading the effects of having no shocks (having driven cars in the past that were of that manner) all I'm gonna ad is when I am checking my front suspension/steering I have been known to disconnect my steering stabilizer as it can mask issues that should be addressed... ...but I keep it because it's cool looking when there's no front skid on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 I have questions...... 1) How will a steering stabilizer increase the life of the steering system and/or make it stronger? The stabilizer does not help support the ball joints in any of the components at all. If, for instance, the passenger side tire hits a rock or other obstacle hard enough, or repeatedly, the ball joints on that side will all take the hit. The stabilizer MAY cushion the shock from the other side of the truck, that I'd even debate, as vibration, like anything, will take the path of least resistance. It can't do anything more, logically. The only thing a stabilizer does is mask steering problems. This is why I'm generally against them. 2) Introducing bent components into the steering system is asking for trouble IMHO. The steering system is designed to run in straight lines. Lifting creates "bends" in the system, which creates leverage, which screws up the stock centerlink. I can see how this CL will resist those forces better, as there's no "dogbone" to leverage up, causing the twisting, but the 2wd inner ends with the bend will become a weak point. I can see those folding up even worse than WD22 tie rods do. I don't see how this design is not just a matter of relocating the problem? 1. The stabilizer absorbs sudden impact forces of the steering. If you hit something, the load from the tie rod is transferred to both the center link and the stabilizer instead of being transferred into the center link and the tie rods. 2. Bent components are fine if they are ran at the correct angles and are not molded out of cheese. Note that the pitman arm and idler arm are not straight on the factory setup either. I imagine the stabilizer does exactly what it's supposed to: it cuts down on vibrations. Without stuff shaking around, the bushings/joints/etc last longer. I'm not sure about 2-3x longer, but whatever. It's not designed or expected to do anything about the conditions that straight up break parts... sort of like how running shoes will protect your knees, but won't do a whole lot if you jump off a roof and land on your feet in the parking lot. The reason for the 2WD inner TREs is the hole size in the CL, correct? There's got to be a straight TRE out there that'd fit the hole if it proves to be an issue... not like you're not cutting a new adjustment sleeve anyway. Anyway, Tungsten, hurry up and break this thing. Can't wait to see how it holds up. Yes, the further inward holes are the reason for the new inner tie rods. Also, those new inner tie rods allow for up to 90 degrees of travel! The dog-bone style link inner tie rods will only travel up to about 45 degrees. You have a lot more travel with the 2WD center link so I doubt you will ever be bending those tie rods. I'm going to mount the system next week and see how it holds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 cant wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowser Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) 1. The stabilizer absorbs sudden impact forces of the steering. If you hit something, the load from the tie rod is transferred to both the center link and the stabilizer instead of being transferred into the center link and the tie rods. 2. Bent components are fine if they are ran at the correct angles and are not molded out of cheese. Note that the pitman arm and idler arm are not straight on the factory setup either. You still fail to see his point. a) The actual IMPACT zone where the Tie rod meets the Centerlink is still going to take abuse before the stabilizer even receives the shock energy. Obviously the centerlink is not the problem that will fail in this scenario which is what he is referring to when he says you are just moving the problem to another area. b ) What he means by steering systems work best in straight lines is that when you take a factory spec Pathfinder the TRE's are as close to parallel with the Centerlink. This allows the force to be spread over the actual Joint and not the stem. When we lift our rigs and the angle changes from straight to, "45 degrees" as you state, the forces work on the stem more and ultimately bend the TRE's. It's not just because it has a maximum travel distance of 45 degrees that is the problem. From your explanation, you're saying that the side mounted TRE offers 90 degrees of movement, but in reality, once you travel past the 45 degree point, the leverage of it all is going to be on the bend in the inner TRE. Thats the point he's making. That is where the failure is most likely to occur. Its not a steering fix, its a steering damage relocation. And on your second comment about pitman arms and Idler arms being bent from factory so there are bends in the steering system already. Seriously..... a) the Pitman arm is the beefiest component in the steering system next to the box itself, and secondly, idler arms bend frequently, even on Stock units. It was just a poor design hands down. Edited March 23, 2012 by Dowser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 IFS is a poor design in general. It's just not meant for real off-roading. Yes, the steering components will still be vulnerable even with the stabilizer but the stabilizer will help to ease the sudden jerks that can cause damage. Now as far as the longer TREs go, they will actually reduce the angle of the so called stem on lifted trucks because they are longer and not from being able to articulate more. The radius arms are definitely not as strong as straight arms are but they will only give in under heavy abuse. If you are bending the radius arms, don't even bother with IFS (inferior front suspension) and just go SAS. IFS is only great on the street and mild trail riding, which is my intention. If I wanted something truly durable and rugged I would look into a SAS instead. This mod is only a band aid for the weird twisty centerlink and not much else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Finally got this back from the machine shop: It works! Now I can start putting it in. The last thing I have to do is clean up the power steering lines I got from the junk yard and then everything can get assembled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5523Pathfinder Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I will be nice and civil here, but man does that bend in the tie rod worry me! Seems like that will definitly be a weak point if used offroading(unles your a urban offroader! Yeah, you know who you are!!! ). Though, for the street, it would take a serious hit to test it(curb, pothole, ect). Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 Yeah man it's definitely more street-able. That bend should not create much of an issue because those ball joints at the ends of the tie rods will absorb mostly everything. Other than that I have to say that IFS just plain sucks. No matter what you do nothing will ever be that good for handling large tires and high lifts. It's just not happening... If you truly want a good system for off-road with 4WD capability, don't look to IFS. I already saw how IFS is so much worse for steering than a solid axle is when I was putting this together and have to agree with what other people said about it. The problem with IFS is it has to have the steering piece in 3 different sections. There is nothing you can do to ever make it as strong as a solid axle system. People even bend rack and pinion systems! Like I mentioned earlier and some members did before me, if you want all out competition capable steering, forget IFS. Now there are those high dollar scissor arm IFS systems but that's a different discussion in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Here is the reason for the design of those tie rods: That bend is really not that bad at all. I bet you can use straight rods as well if you're paranoid and have a high enough lift to do it. Edited March 30, 2012 by Tungsten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattywagon95 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 nice work! i really want to try this out myself. i only have one question... will my stock 4wd idler arm work with the 2wd centerlink or is there certain years i should look out for. thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 Yes it will work. In fact, I am using a 4WD idler arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattywagon95 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 so just to clarify, (i'm cheap and wanna be sure), just get the centerlink off the same year 2wd hardbody correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) The center link and inner tie rods from the equivalent year 2wd hardbody are used. Then take the pathfinder adjustment sleeves and get the one end(the inner end when looking at installed) of them reamed out to 18mm and re tapped, but only half way. The hardbody inner tie rods are thicker diameter and must be made to fit in the pathfinder adjustment sleeves. Edited March 31, 2012 by Nefarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 Yep. Combine inner pathy tie rods with inner hardbody tie rods and use the hardbody 2wd link then ream out the adjusters half way and get nuts. I'm about to put it in I'm just having some power steering hose issues right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 That's great then I should have no issues as I have no P.S. lines down by the crossmember with my R50 VG33E swap. Yeah I really want to see this thing setup and make sure there are no frame rubbing issues or anything... I just did the steering stabilizer and my center link is pooched. I need to upgrade and this seems to be the best way with my lift... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted April 1, 2012 Author Share Posted April 1, 2012 The lines aren't an issue where they are I just need new lines for the new power steering box I am putting in and all the hardware on the lines I am refurbishing is deteriorating to nothing so it has been a headache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Okay I was looking through the junkyard the other day. I had a serious question here regarding the 2wd setup... I looked at my factory front sway bar (using energy suspension extended end links for my lift) and it looks like the tie rods from the 2wd might interfere with the factory 4wd front sway bar.... the 2wd sway bar wraps way up high and then drops down and mounts to the very front of the frame to avoid the tie rods. does the 2wd setup not interfere with the factory 4wd sway bar? if its close i dont care, but if there is contact that is a major no no. i would be willing to custom fit a 2wd sway bar to work with the 4wd setup because from looking at it, it doesn't look like it would interfere at all with the 4wd components but custom mounts would have to be worked to the front of the frame (right under the rad basically). by the way i looked at the 4runner and full size chevy IFS front ends. they looked identical to the 2wd hardbody but with 4wd models.... why nissan chose to make a dogbone center link i have no idea.... no wonder the 4runner guys can run 33-35s all day long with just a little accelerated wear... it is a much better system. now after looking at all those 4wd trucks in the junkyard i don't wonder why it is a better setup. the tie rods follow a parallel path to the control arms, they bisect the line inbetween upper and lower control arm, so there would be next to no bump steer even while lifted. not trying to post jack just wanting to confirm the front sway bar interference or not... it looks like it would be close and probably not so bad on a stock front sway bar endlink truck with no lift but i want to make sure that the tie rods dont interfere when the truck while lifted with a front sway bar/extended end links. thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted April 7, 2012 Author Share Posted April 7, 2012 The trick is you mount the center link upside down. There is no interference anywhere. It mounts exactly like the 4WD one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Ohh!! Ok Haha awesome. That is a good thing to know.. lol thanks for clearing that up. Just trying to find a good rate at a machine shop and this setup is going in my rig too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now