To Undo or not to undo (a poorly done outboard spring setup)

[billyballer]

I'm gonna start by putting the rat on the table. I've got a CJ7 not a Scrambler. But this has been the best CJ related forum I've had the pleasure to read and most of my issues seem to crossover with the Scrambler crowd so I hope you'll forgive that, but understand if you feel the need to enforce CJ8 justice.

Jeep is a 1981 CJ7 with Scout Dana 44 front and rear, outboarded springs currently SUA with the RE 4.5 lift springs for CJ and 1 inch body lift. I bought this rig to replace my 1986 CJ7 which was stolen out of my driveway in 2020.

So I'm in the midst of trying to sort out the jeeps tracking issues. It goes down the road fine until about 40 mph it gets spooky and is hard to keep in a straight line.
I've checked and the scout 44 had not had the knuckles turned so I thought I'd start there. But while investigating I also noticed the welding on the outboard setup was pretty janky. I've got a decent welder and know how to burn so I could grind and reweld the setup, but I've also thought of just taking it off altogether and going back to stock spring mount locations. I'm not a hardcore wheeler or anything and will spend 90% driving this thing on highways. 33" tires is what is has and likely never go any bigger, and I do like the look of the standard CJ widetrack axles on 33s where I think the scout width starts to look a little out of proportion.
In the mean time I've scored both a Wagoneer passenger drop Dana 44 with good castor stock and a narrowed Scout dana 44 that is wide track CJ width with a cut and turn on the knuckles already done. I'm up to my ears in Dana 44s.

So I think it's probably more work to cut away and reweld original mounts but I have all the stuff to do it.

What do folks think. Leave them out board with 33s or put the mounts back to stock width and run the narrow axle.

Here's a pic of the booger welded outboard setup

 

[billyballer]

Here's the jeep for reference

 

[Randyzzz]

Nice looking 7! My .02 is to put the springs back in the factory location. But the front axles you might have may not work as the differential housing will be where the spring needs to sit. The ideal D44 front is a Jeep J-10 axle narrowed 4” on the long side. This allows you to have the wider width without outboarding. So… if you want to use the axles you have, you can do the outboard, but do it right.

Read through this thread. I think it will have all the answers you need.

Don't Use a Wagoneer Front Axle

:D Okay, now that I have you attention/interest, here we go... Part I I made a lot of measurements on all kinds of axles before I did the axle swap on my Scrambler (everyone jokes about the notebooks I keep on my Jeeps). One of these days I need to post this information. Bottom line, I...

www.cj-8.com

 

[sdsupilot]

Having a pile of 44s to choose from is a good problem to have. As you are aware the Scout axles have 0 degrees castor from the factory. I would guess that nearly all of your drivability issues are from that. I have a friend with a 79 Scout II. It drove ok until it was lifted. After that its tracking and veering was scary.

If you don't like your current width, you already have the waggy front. If you narrow (cut the long tube) 4.4-4.5" it would match a narrow track CJ dana 30 and you could remove the outboarded spring mounts. That would be the same process as the J10 mentioned in Randys link above. The waggy 44 can be made to have 5, 6 or 8 lug patterns. I followed the link above and narrowed a 78 J10 44 and used factory spring perch locations. It has been great and has a crazy turn angle.

All that said, if you have a cut and turned scout 44 front... That would be the quickest and easiest.

 

[RockTractor]

I had a cut and turned Scout 44 on my old CJ7. I loved the stability of the wider axle. So, my suggestions would be to keep it and fix any issues you have with the outboard mounts (which I doubt are the cause of your tracking issues).

 

[Chamba]

Love the rims. Great looking 7.

 

[bigwalton]

What Randy said, you're getting into a bigger effort to take it back under the frame because of what you have to do to the axle you'd then need. That link he posted is the best option for the wider (and IMO better) CJ width once you're lifted if you want to go down that path.

I run NT waggy axles on mine and did it via outboarding I designed myself because I didn't have the skills and equipment to get into cutting down axle tubes and rewelding knuckles. I wish I'd done it differently now but only due to the fact that I did have to cut down the turning radius with the knuckle stop bolts for rubbing. I do love the added stability and I actually prefer the stance/width over stock.

 

[billyballer]

I had a cut and turned Scout 44 on my old CJ7. I loved the stability of the wider axle. So, my suggestions would be to keep it and fix any issues you have with the outboard mounts (which I doubt are the cause of your tracking issues).

I agree it's not the cause of the tracking issues. The 0 degree castor is certainly the culprit, but I just want to make the mounts safe for road use and offroad abuse. And yeah the more I think about it I think getting in their with a grinder, some gusseting and my 220 MIG Welder could fix the existing outboard setup.

If I end up doing that I'll probably build the Wagoneer NT axle I have (4.11 gears and Truetrac sitting around waiting to go in to something). I've read through the above mentioned threads and understand I'll lose a bit of turning radius, though I'm running narrow 33x10.50 tires and the steelies are 15x8 so It think it won't be too bad.

And thanks for all the great responses above. That's exactly why I posted in this forum.

 

[Randyzzz]

Love the rims. Great looking 7.

That’s what I forgot to mention in my first post. The wheels are awesome!

Agree- the easiest path forward is to gusset it up, make sure all the welds are good, and swap in the Waggy axle. The Waggy axle is 6 Lug but you can swap out F150 outers to get 5 x 5 1/2.

It looks like someone has tried to improve caster by shimming the front axle- the pinion is pointed down. It should at least be level.

 

[billyballer]

That’s what I forgot to mention in my first post. The wheels are awesome!

Agree- the easiest path forward is to gusset it up, make sure all the welds are good, and swap in the Waggy axle. The Waggy axle is 6 Lug but you can swap out F150 outers to get 5 x 5 1/2.

It looks like someone has tried to improve caster by shimming the front axle- the pinion is pointed down. It should at least be level.

Thanks guys. Yeah the wheels were the first thing I did when I bought it. I had the same wheels on my CJ7 that was stolen and I just loved the look. They are Wheel Vintique steel wheels that I spray painted old English white. Came out pretty good I think.

And yes the axle has definitely been shimmed down so I'll remove those when I put the waggy axle in. I'm not sure if waggy axles have 0 degree pinion angle, but just eye balling it looks like they have a bit of upward pinion angle with the perches set level.

My narrowed scout axle came with flat top knuckles and small bearing hubs and I think all the goodies to run a 5x5.5 bolt pattern, so my goal is to run that setup. And I've already read a bunch of the archived posts on this forum dealing with SUA dana 44 steering setups.

 

[Randyzzz]

Thanks guys. Yeah the wheels were the first thing I did when I bought it. I had the same wheels on my CJ7 that was stolen and I just loved the look. They are Wheel Vintique steel wheels that I spray painted old English white. Came out pretty good I think.

And yes the axle has definitely been shimmed down so I'll remove those when I put the waggy axle in. I'm not sure if waggy axles have 0 degree pinion angle, but just eye balling it looks like they have a bit of upward pinion angle with the perches set level.

My narrowed scout axle came with flat top knuckles and small bearing hubs and I think all the goodies to run a 5x5.5 bolt pattern, so my goal is to run that setup. And I've already read a bunch of the archived posts on this forum dealing with SUA dana 44 steering setups.

The MORE steering box mount that moves the box forward 1.5” helps a lot on the pitman arm clearance. But then the power steering lines interfere with the crossmember. I used the Pure Choice Motorsports power steering banjo fittings to help with this. I still had to relieve the crossmember about 1/4” but that’s better than a 2” notch.

 

[bigwalton]

The MORE steering box mount that moves the box forward 1.5” helps a lot on the pitman arm clearance. But then the power steering lines interfere with the crossmember. I used the Pure Choice Motorsports power steering banjo fittings to help with this. I still had to relieve the crossmember about 1/4” but that’s better than a 2” notch.

I actually still need more clearance even with the MORE box mount. Maybe 1/4”. I am going to try the offset TREs on the tie rod to get it.

 

[sdsupilot]

And I've already read a bunch of the archived posts on this forum dealing with SUA dana 44 steering setups.

I think pretty much everyone has some issues with the steering/clearance. I thought I had cured my clearance issues with the MORE relocation mount. Now the clearance issue isn't at the pitman/tie rod end, but rather where the drag link and tie rod cross over.

Part of the problem with the MORE steering box mount in my case is that the mount rotates the steering box down. This lowers the drag link into the tie rod with vertical suspension travel. When articulating off-road I have no issues now, like I did before with the factory mount.

I think there are a few ways to make the steering work.
1 - MORE mount with a pitman drilled bottom up with high steer arms/knuckles for tie rod and using passenger original top down steering arm for the drag link. You will be able to use the factory sway bar with this.
2 - MORE mount with a pitman drilled top down still setup for crossover steering. This should clear everything, but @Randyzzz mentioned under articulation that his drag link just contacted the bottom of the frame. The factory sway bar will not work with this.
3- My current setup crossover steering with a bottom up pitman and one offset tie rod end on the high steer arm for the drag link. Problems with this are that it is a somewhat difficult to replace (not in stock at local parts stores).

For reference my setup is:
1978 J10 Dana 44 narrowed 4.4" on the drivers side to use stock spring perches.
Stock non flat top 44 drivers side knuckle. Parts Mike flat top passenger side knuckle with high steer steering arm.
The J10 Dana 44 knuckles are top down/high steer from the OEM. I am using a crossover steering setup from Parts Mike.

 

[billyballer]

The MORE steering box mount that moves the box forward 1.5” helps a lot on the pitman arm clearance. But then the power steering lines interfere with the crossmember. I used the Pure Choice Motorsports power steering banjo fittings to help with this. I still had to relieve the crossmember about 1/4” but that’s better than a 2” notch.

I've already got the MORE steering box mount I was going to use it on my old jeep but never got installed, so it's waiting to go in. And I know I'll need to do some notching.

Thanks for laying out the steering options so clearly sdsupilot.
I'll probably go with a version of option 1.

I saw an interesting steering setup on a waggy swapped CJ that used passenger flat top knuckle with highsteer arm mounted on a 1" spacer and the drag link and tie rod running underneath the high steer arm. It May buy a tiny bit more frame clearance. If you start around minute 17:30 he starts going into the steering:

-Bill

I think pretty much everyone has some issues with the steering/clearance. I thought I had cured my clearance issues with the MORE relocation mount. Now the clearance issue isn't at the pitman/tie rod end, but rather where the drag link and tie rod cross over.

Part of the problem with the MORE steering box mount in my case is that the mount rotates the steering box down. This lowers the drag link into the tie rod with vertical suspension travel. When articulating off-road I have no issues now, like I did before with the factory mount.

I think there are a few ways to make the steering work.
1 - MORE mount with a pitman drilled bottom up with high steer arms/knuckles for tie rod and using passenger original top down steering arm for the drag link. You will be able to use the factory sway bar with this.
2 - MORE mount with a pitman drilled top down still setup for crossover steering. This should clear everything, but @Randyzzz mentioned under articulation that his drag link just contacted the bottom of the frame. The factory sway bar will not work with this.
3- My current setup crossover steering with a bottom up pitman and one offset tie rod end on the high steer arm for the drag link. Problems with this are that it is a somewhat difficult to replace (not in stock at local parts stores).

For reference my setup is:
1978 J10 Dana 44 narrowed 4.4" on the drivers side to use stock spring perches.
Stock non flat top 44 drivers side knuckle. Parts Mike flat top passenger side knuckle with high steer steering arm.
The J10 Dana 44 knuckles are top down/high steer from the OEM. I am using a crossover steering setup from Parts Mike.

 

[Randyzzz]

I've already got the MORE steering box mount I was going to use it on my old jeep but never got installed, so it's waiting to go in. And I know I'll need to do some notching.

Thanks for laying out the steering options so clearly sdsupilot.
I'll probably go with a version of option 1.

I saw an interesting steering setup on a waggy swapped CJ that used passenger flat top knuckle with highsteer arm mounted on a 1" spacer and the drag link and tie rod running underneath the high steer arm. It May buy a tiny bit more frame clearance. If you start around minute 17:30 he starts going into the steering:

-Bill

On Copper, I had the J10 axle set up spring under. I used the flat Astro pitman arm, and a shorty crossover steering arm on the pass knuckle. So the tie rods were attached like they would have been stock, and the drag link went form the top of the Astro arm to the bottom of the high steer arm. (I think the bottom, I’m going off memory.) The only time I had any issues was when I took the whoops fast or fully flexed out- the drag link rubbed the bottom of the frame. If I’d have notched it like in the video it would have been perfect. FYI, with the steering set up that way and 6* of caster, the Jeep was so stable that I had it up to 120mph, and would regularly cruise at 75 with minimal steering corrections. One finger steering. It can be done.

 

[billyballer]

On Copper, I had the J10 axle set up spring under. I used the flat Astro pitman arm, and a shorty crossover steering arm on the pass knuckle. So the tie rods were attached like they would have been stock, and the drag link went form the top of the Astro arm to the bottom of the high steer arm. (I think the bottom, I’m going off memory.) The only time I had any issues was when I took the whoops fast or fully flexed out- the drag link rubbed the bottom of the frame. If I’d have notched it like in the video it would have been perfect. FYI, with the steering set up that way and 6* of caster, the Jeep was so stable that I had it up to 120mph, and would regularly cruise at 75 with minimal steering corrections. One finger steering. It can be done.

Good to know it's possible! I've got an injected 258 so I'll never see 120 unless I drive off a cliff and have a tailwind, but I'd be happy with 70 mph and one hand on the wheel.
As it unfolds I'll let you all know how it goes.

Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Chamba]

You can get that for sure. Mine is an 8, so inherently more stable, but with all new steering, axles and springs she'll happily cruise 85 steering with my knee.