• NAXJA is having its 18th annual March Membership Drive!!!
    Everyone who joins or renews during March will be entered into a drawing!
    More Information - Join/Renew
  • Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Pre-Production Sneak Peak at Boostwerks Comp Mount

LOL!

I think the line started over two years ago.

I am pretty sure some Colorado folks got spots ahead of me. It makes more sense to work on prototyping with local rigs than it does with someone a thousand miles away.
 
:greensmok

I may have seen a couple of pics of that.
 
Anyone know when these are going to be available?

Kevin

I will start production once we finish thoroughly testing this last prototype. I'm on about the 6th revision to date, each a little bit better than the previous design. The final product will be worth the wait for sure. :cheers:
 
Now it was time to address the sector shaft support bearing. Instructions call for a 1 3/8” and a 1 5/16” deep well socket. The 1 3/8” is for the new, extended sector shaft nut and the 1 5/16” is for the old nut. On mine I certainly did not need a deep well socket for the original nut. A standard socket would have been fine. Check yours before you order anything. The socket for the new nut is another matter entirely. Deep well isn’t deep enough. What you need is extra deep, if you can find it.


When I tried to order my sockets the 1 3/8” was out of stock, so I opted for 35 mm. It is pretty close. Not perfect, but at that size it will do. When it came in I found it too short, so I tried to get a longer one at Napa. No luck on the length, but I will say that Napa’s pricing was better than Amazon’s. I got a second socket and then proceeded to make my own extra deep socket.

Here is the challenge:

CMWU21OPT.jpg

I decided to trim both in order to get the joint away from the contact area:

CMWU22OPT.jpg


Beveled:

CMWU23OPT.jpg


Welded:

CMWU24OPT.jpg


Final torque is probably a subject for some personal consideration. Instructions call for 180 ft/lbs (factory spec) with anti-seize (I don’t think the factory calls for that, but I do like something on my threads). If you hunt down the tech specs for Permatex they say to “Reassemble parts using normal torque values.” Personally, I am not so sure about that. From my experience elsewhere, the marketing folks will say just about anything in order to sell a product, regardless of outcome. Here would be the extreme view going the opposite direction: http://benmlee.com/4runner/threads/threads.htm


And this is probably the reasonable compromise position: http://www.garagejournal.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-226077.html

I am thinking this rule sounds like the path to take: “Using Never Seize versus dry uncoated steel, multiply the specified torque by 0.65.”

But that is a personal decision. From a “follow the rules so the lawyers don’t take your arse” perspective you may be best off following the directions.




I just had to do the same thing on mine. I have the regular steering brace, and it is 1 1/4" (32 m).

NAPA deep sockets were too shallow, even using 2 of them, so I ended up using a NAPA 1 1/4" deep well that I cut the nut portion off of, and welded it t the autozone 32mm deep well socket.

Took forever for the chop saw to cut thru the socket tho, but I guess I did something right by going slowly (or got very lucky) as the cut was square to within .005" per my calipers.

Since they were the same diameter, I used a geesus ring (factory spring steel hose clamp) I had laying around to center them together, and hold them while I tacked them (the slots in the ring worked perfect to tack thru while it was holding them in place) together.

Then I used a u-shaped channel I had laying around to set it in so I could slowly rotate it as I tacked/welded it.

Turned out pretty good, and the 2 pieces are aligned perfectly (the nut will slide into & out of both easily), and a straight edge confirms it.


Still haven't decided on what I am gonna do about the torque tho, as the website directions & the ones I got are different (instruction sheet says anti-seize, website doesn't), and I am not sure 180 with anti-seize won't strip the nut, as depending on the anti-seize used, 180 on the torque wrench could be as high as 280 on the nut.

If I go with using anti-seize and dropping the torque wrench reading by .2, then I could achieve the required 180 ft lbs using my 0-150 ft lb torque wrench by going to 144......and return this new torque wrench I got last night (25-250 range).

Any thoughts ?


.
 
Last edited:
The two pitman nuts that I have removed from XJs (my own and AJ's) have been remarkably not very tight. My half educated guess is that the lock washer gradually drives the pitman arm deeper onto the splines, increasing the distance between the pitman arm and the nut and thereby reducing the effective torque setting. But the nuts still stay on. (And AJ's pitman arm was certainly plenty tight.)

The thought in my mind is that the torque figures you choose may not be nearly as important as would be going back and checking the torque setting 100 miles (and maybe 1,000 miles) later, especially so if you have removed the pitman arm.
 
The two pitman nuts that I have removed from XJs (my own and AJ's) have been remarkably not very tight. My half educated guess is that the lock washer gradually drives the pitman arm deeper onto the splines, increasing the distance between the pitman arm and the nut and thereby reducing the effective torque setting. But the nuts still stay on. (And AJ's pitman arm was certainly plenty tight.)

The thought in my mind is that the torque figures you choose may not be nearly as important as would be going back and checking the torque setting 100 miles (and maybe 1,000 miles) later, especially so if you have removed the pitman arm.

That's kinda what I was thinking......torque to 145 with my torque wrench & anti-seize, which should yield ~180 @ the nut, then then recheck in a few 100 miles.

No need at this time to remove the pitman arm...but may have that need in the future.
 
The two pitman nuts that I have removed from XJs (my own and AJ's) have been remarkably not very tight. My half educated guess is that the lock washer gradually drives the pitman arm deeper onto the splines, increasing the distance between the pitman arm and the nut and thereby reducing the effective torque setting. But the nuts still stay on. (And AJ's pitman arm was certainly plenty tight.)

The thought in my mind is that the torque figures you choose may not be nearly as important as would be going back and checking the torque setting 100 miles (and maybe 1,000 miles) later, especially so if you have removed the pitman arm.

are you using OEM pitman arms?

I used to have the loosening problem when I was running an aftermarket arm, and the metal was too soft, allowing the steering forces of the rig to essentially wallow out the splines in the arm and the nut becomes loose as a result.

I have been through several arms and between myself and a couple other guys we have tried just about every brand out there, the OEM arms are the only ones that hold up long term and don't loosen.
 
I believe both were OEM arms.

Note that it was not that the arms were loose. Just that the amount of effort required to remove the nut was substantially less than what I anticipated. They felt like they were only torqued to 50 ft/lbs or so, certainly not even 100 ft/lbs.

On my own I was not trying to remove the pitman arm, just replacing the nut. On AJ's we were trying to remove the pitman arm. It was certainly not loose. I was spreading the jaws on a Craftsman 17mm wrench trying to get the puller to break it loose.

I think in both cases some settling has occurred in transit. That lockwasher is a good spring, and a torque check isn't going to be a bad idea.
 
Back
Top