Track rod ends despair.

Post by **Heuer** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:45 am

Pete makes a good point. Maybe Gaz can provide the specifications just as Spax did.

johnben · Post by **johnben** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:28 pm

Received the following email from GAZ this morning, no response from BOGE, Lightweight Jag Team, SNG, Quinton Hazell as yet.
John Ser 1 2+2

John,

Our current damper we supply for the series 1 & 2 E type is 16? (406mm) centre to centre fully open but we do make a shorter one for SNG Barrett that is 15 3/8? (390mm) fully open.

Regards,

From: John Bennett [mailto:johnben@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 15 September 2014 06:34
To: enquiries@gazshocks.com
Subject: Suitable shock absorber for E Type

GAZ Shock Absorbers

Hi

There is some concern within the Jaguar E Type community that there seems to be a problem with the aftermarket front shock absorbers now available for the E Type.The steering/ suspension set up is different from other Jaguars and the after market suppliers do not seem to have accounted for this. The present GAZ shock absorbers provided for this car appear to extend too far which seems to exacerbate the problem of the aftermarket track rod ends which do not angulate enough. My question is do GAZ manufacture a shock absorber the same length as the original Girling of 400 mm (centre bolt to centre bolt) that is suitable for the E Type.

John Bennett

Ref viewtopic.php?t=6145&postdays=0&postord ... 841f7e118c

Geoff Green · Post by **Geoff Green** » Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:05 am

I have a pair of new Armstrong # 65 1080 on the box and stamped into the body of the shock is # 2565 1080 9 DB 41 064. Measurement off the car is 408 mm.

daykrolik · Post by **daykrolik** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:20 am

I am planning on rebuilding my front suspension over the winter and would replace my shocks as a matter of course. I guess I'll have to stick my neck out and play the straight man here: if I don't make it a habit of allowing my front suspension/front wheels to hang unsupported and/or drive fast enough to go airborne on a regular basis, is this something I really have to be concerned about?

christopher storey · Post by **christopher storey** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:49 am

Yes, it most certainly is. The suspension reaches full downwards travel on one side or another quite often. It only requires a rise of about 3 inches from the mid-laden position to reach full travel even when there is no roll involved. Once you factor roll in corners into the equation, you can see that on the inner side of the turn, full downwards travel can be reached very easily. If you go back to my early posts on this some 5 years ago, you will see that it took just 60 miles from a total rebuild for me to suffer a fatigue fracture of the trackrod

daykrolik · Post by **daykrolik** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:06 pm

Thank you! Perhaps I won't be rebuilding that suspension after all. So has it been determined that the currently available Special D Koni 82-1232 shocks are
not correct, only NOS vintage 82-1232s? Are the new ones the the same as Koni "Classic" shocks? In many photos the Special Ds are red and the Classics black, but that may be incorrect or meaningless. I do remember the old Konis were red.

Post by **Heuer** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:18 pm

Koni "Classics" are a cynical marketing ploy to sell product at a premium! Same shocks, painted black with a funky stick-on logo. Closest at the moment seem to be the standard Boge units from SNGB. Seems to me the best thing to do is use a good set of Girling originals or have a worn set re-conditioned: http://www.vintageandclassicshockabsorb ... 4578272652

johnben · Post by **johnben** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:26 pm

daykrolik wrote:I am planning on rebuilding my front suspension over the winter and would replace my shocks as a matter of course. I guess I'll have to stick my neck out and play the straight man here: if I don't make it a habit of allowing my front suspension/front wheels to hang unsupported and/or drive fast enough to go airborne on a regular basis, is this something I really have to be concerned about?

Good question, from my point of view, that of an inexperienced DIY mechanic I need to buy things which are right. After all who decided that the track rod end for the E Type could be provided with at least 3 different angles? If any old TRE would do why did not Jaguar adapt a set of a XK150's?
Who do you trust Jaguar engineers who designed the car or the after market suppliers, some who appear to have little interest in the products they are selling.
Fortunately I kept my original TRE's and put them back on, I regret dumping the original Girling shock absorbesr as I could have had them renovated.
So if I was you I would keep what you have for as long as possible or until aftermarket suppliers produces the correct replacement.
I did email Amsteer Sales Ltd this morning, a British company who manufacture TRE's (I believe the one's I purchased from eBay was made by this company) and outlined the problem. I won't be holding my breath for a response.

John

67 Ser 1 2 + 2

Post by **mgcjag** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:10 pm

Hi all.......had this problem for quite a while know ever since refurbing the front end of my S2 2+2 using Boge shocks and SNG trackrod ends..unfortunatly disposed of the old parts.......been told by quite a few of the well known E experts that many cars left the factory like this with the steering pulling down when the ftont end is jacked up.....anyone know what the tech spec was for the original tre,s or where we can get a diagram......if not we will continue in circles with this post......John..when u say u will stick with your originaltre,s how do u know they were not replacements fitted prior to u aquiring the car..........anyone have identifiable originals they can take some measurements from and post here........regards Steve

johnben · Post by **johnben** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:56 pm

mgcjag wrote:Hi all.......had this problem for quite a while know ever since refurbing the front end of my S2 2+2 using Boge shocks and SNG trackrod ends..unfortunatly disposed of the old parts.......been told by quite a few of the well known E experts that many cars left the factory like this with the steering pulling down when the ftont end is jacked up.....anyone know what the tech spec was for the original tre,s or where we can get a diagram......if not we will continue in circles with this post......John..when u say u will stick with your originaltre,s how do u know they were not replacements fitted prior to u aquiring the car..........anyone have identifiable originals they can take some measurements from and post here........regards Steve

Hi Steve

I think mine are original for the reason here: http://georgiajag.com/Documents/TieRodE ... dEnds.html
plus who would want to use track rod ends to support the suspension anyway?
I agree we are not making too much progress here, though I dream of technicians pouring over the emails I have sent to the various companies I suspect that they are all in the bin. Perhaps we can interest the E Type Magazine in writing an article on the subject at least then we would have informed fellow E Type owners.

John

Ser 1 2+ 2

Post by **mgcjag** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:26 pm

HI all.......will call the new Jaguar heritage workshop next week and see what they recommend or would fit re shocks and tre,s will post answer here asap.....Steve

Post by **mgcjag** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:46 pm

Hi All........Spoke to Peter Stent the technical guy at SNG.......he was aware of the problem.and as a result they have now had a shorter front shock produced by GAZ......390mm as pointed out in a previous post....this has been tried out on there demo E type with there own track rod ends.and the steering rack does not stress when the front end is jacked up...note that e type GAZ shocks from other suppliers will not be this shorter length.......as re the track rod ends they are currently talking to manufacturers to have a larger angle version made but this may take some time......
I will be purchasing the 390 GAZ shortly ...will let u know how I get on.........Steve

steve3.8 · Post by **steve3.8** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:37 pm

Just to highlight a point , as this is the second thread on this subject with 6 pages of posts and 2? thousand views and still no one seems concerned about the minimum closed length of these Gaz shocks compared to the original Girling, I know there is a foam bung limiting the Gaz closed length but for me the dimension needs to be as Jaguar intended with some travel left in reserve.

Shock length used whilst driving--------305mm - 371mm
Gaz [new unused 5yrs old ]-------------306mm - 424mm
Original Girling--------------------------- 260mm - 395mm

So are Gaz making the new version to the original Girling 260mm minimum dimensions or are they just putting a spacer in to reduce the open length to 390mm ?

daykrolik · Post by **daykrolik** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:18 pm

I have drafted a brief article on this subject for Malcolm McKay, editor of the magazine. Malcolm has spoken to Julian Barratt. Julian confirms that they are aware of the problem and, indeed, the GAZ shocks they currently offer are 390 mm. I'm advised that Julian will also be addressing this issue in his Barratt Banter column. Has anyone confirmed the length of the currently available Boge shocks? I will ask about the CLOSED length.

Post by **mgcjag** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:04 pm

Hi All just fitted the Sng Barrett GAZ 390mm fully extended adjustable front shocks currently using the gold colour Sng track rod ends.......it has solved the problem of the tre,s not fitting and the rack being pulled down when the suspension is on full drop.......the same setup is on Barratts demo roadster 50EE......Regards Steve

johnben · Post by **johnben** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:49 pm

mgcjag wrote:Hi All just fitted the Sng Barrett GAZ 390mm fully extended adjustable front shocks currently using the gold colour Sng track rod ends.......it has solved the problem of the tre,s not fitting and the rack being pulled down when the suspension is on full drop.......the same setup is on Barratts demo roadster 50EE......Regards Steve

Hi Steve

The sad fact is your car and the SNG demo is now a compromise of miss-fitting parts, so join the club. I cannot believe that a reputable company would supply a part (shocks) which differs from the original in order that the other part that they supply (TRE) does not look so bad.

John

Compromised 2 + 2 Ser 1

Post by **mgcjag** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:10 pm

Hi John......yes the whole classic car scene is full compromised parts, thats why so many have to be fettled to fit....... as for sng at least they recognised a problem with the shocks and the only supplier that could come up with the goods was gaz........as I said previously they know the problem with the tre,s but can can get no quick fix from the manufacturers of the parts but are still persuing....Steve

christopher storey · Post by **christopher storey** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:53 pm

I really do not understand what johnben is talking about. These dampers at 390mm extended length are almost identical to the originals and will be perfectly suitable .

johnben · Post by **johnben** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:18 am

christopher storey wrote:I really do not understand what johnben is talking about. These dampers at 390mm extended length are almost identical to the originals and will be perfectly suitable .

Chris do we know for sure what the extended length of the original Girling is? Heuer in his list states OEM Girling = 400mm - 15.75" (verified by Jaguar), where a couple of other contributors have put the length at 395 mm.

On the point you make in your post it is my view that as long as we make do with substandard parts then we will receive them. These companies are making a quick buck on the premise that we cannot do much about the situation and should be grateful we can purchase parts that may or may not fit. To my mind any company who trades in this way is irresponsible, more especially in this case where the parts supplied may affect the safety of the vehicle and its occupants. Remember you can pick up the phone today and order Quinton Hazel TRE's which open at 10 degrees less than the original and match these with some BOGE shock absorbers which extend more than 10mm over the original, both sold for the E Type.
Would you really be happy driving with this lash up? We are not asking for the World here, just for parts that fit, how difficult is that?
BTW manufacturers and suppliers do have a duty of care under the Consumer Protection Act.

John
Ser 1 2 + 2

Consumer Protection Act (CPA)
Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and retailers are held responsible for any injuries products cause. Regardless of any contractual limitations of liability if a product or any of its component parts are defective its manufacturer may be liable for damage under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) or the common law of negligence.
Liability for negligence
The manufacturer's negligence may be:
a failure to take care during the manufacturing process, resulting in a particular product being defective;
a failure to take care during the design of the product, including a failure to carry out sufficiently careful research;
a failure to carry out effective tests;
a failure to provide an effective warning of dangers;
a failure to recall a product, or to issue appropriate warnings if a danger becomes apparent after the product has been put into circulation.
Liability is not limited to the manufacturer of the product ? other parties who supplied components or distributed the product may be held liable if they can be shown to have been negligent.

Post by **Heuer** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:27 am

Although I have not measured them personally I would bet the extended length is, as Girling confirmed, 15 3/4" (400mm) because everything was done in imperial measurement in the 1960's. Can't see Jaguar specifying dampers with an open length of 15 35/64" (395mm) somehow :? This is one of the biggest problems with reproduction parts - manufacturers are locked in a metric world and are happy to round up or down to suit their manufacturing equipment (clutch servo seal's being a prime example)

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

The 'E' Type Forum

Track rod ends despair.

#41

#42

#43

#44

#45

#46

#47

#48

#49

#50

#51

#52

#53

#54

#55

#56

#57

#58

#59

#60