Track rod ends despair.

[johnben]

2 years ago I purchased a pair of TRE's from a dealer on eBay (since gone) I finally got round to fitting them a couple of weeks ago after the MOT tester had found one of the gaiters torn on the steering track rod. Only to find that like Dick Maury http://georgiajag.com/Documents/TieRodE ... dEnds.html they did not open far enough. I contacted SNG before ordering a pair from them and explained my concern over the opening angle, the sales person assured me they had not had a problem with their product. I received the track rod ends a week or so ago only to find that they too did not open far enough. Having done more research on this and other forums I read that Bob Hodgins in Canada had purchased some Quinton Hazel QR1178S in 2010 which opened at the correct angle, so after after some effort I managed to get a supplier, Auto Ekectrics (UK) Ltd, who assured me that these were genuine QH parts and were for my 1967 Ser 1 2 + 2. My car has been on jacks for over 3 weeks now in what was an exceptional warm summer for the UK so I was anxious to fit the QH ends on and get out to enjoy what was left of it.
Despair, despair, despair, when opened the QH had the same fault as those from eBay and SNG obviously Bob Hodgins had purchased some old stock and I had the new version.
As a general point I have great respect for the designers and engineers who created the E Type and if they decided to use a more angulated TRE then there was a good reason for it. The premise that distributors 'have not had a problem with the product' does not address the fact that some defects in design or construction only show themselves over time (as we all know from the 'Call Backs' in motor vehicles and domestic appliances) and that as most classic cars do only a small mileage over a year as compared to their daily drives it maybe some years before stress and strain on the TRE's have an effect.

My options appear to be:
1 Put back on the original ends.
2 Inspect the originals and see if I can engineer the eBay ones to something similar (not without risk) and I am unsure how to dismantle the TRE.
3 Ask round on the forums in case someone in the UK has a set of correct ends and is willing to sell them on.
4 Take the risk and put on the ones I purchased and live with it as a lot of E Type owners must be doing.

As a side note, those purchasing the various makes of TRE's should check the length from the flat area where the nut on the track rod will butt against to the centre of the grease nipple nut, they vary. The original is 81 mm, eBay 85 mm, SNG 83 mm and QH 79 mm.

I think if I do not get any response re option 3 then I will opt for option 1, tidy the ends up and put them back on as I just do not trust the suppliers to come up with the correct ones. Option 2 is probably not practicable and option 3 will just encourage the production of more ill designed, potentially dangerous parts. It is my intention to send back the SNG and QH parts with a suitable letter but first I need a reality check by placing my observations on the forum.
Sorry about the length of the article.

John



The tube has been added for clarity.









The original is on the right, note the scooped out recess, the other is the eBay TRE.



Varying lengths of the different TRE's



The open angles of the various TRE's which may vary + or - due to crude way of measuring.

[Heuer]

More here: http://etypeuk.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... =track+rod

[rfs1957]

Thanks for bringing this up. Are we all talking about the same thing here ?

I had understood Christopher's original failure to have been on the sphere/track rod interface on the end of the actual rack (Inboard Track Rod End ? ITRO ?) and not the outboard end referred to by John in this post as a TRE. OTRE ?

Reduced angular freedom of movement in either would presumably pull the rack mounts south-bound when the car is lifted up. I would suggest that one might expect a worn original TRE to have a higher angular movement than an un-worn original TRE, and that condemning a replacement TRE because it has a lower displacement may not be necessarily be fair. What really matters is that the necks adjacent to the balls (on both inner and outer TREs) should not be subject to any bending moment when the suspension is on full droop. When I refitted (not changed) my OTREs recently I seem to remember (age, memory) that I was able to raise the cones into their seats without any undue effort or gymnastics, which presumably means that there is no residual bending being imposed anywhere. This is definitely a subject where we would all sleep better if we knew what was right and what parts were needed to get there.

PS Steering-rack reconditioning ? Anyone have any experience of who/where/what-they-do etc ?

[tim wood]

I had my rack fully rebuilt by Kiley Clinton in Birmingham. Recommended to me by CMC.
You can find them on google.

Proper job at a keen price

Tim

[christopher storey]

Rory is correct : my failure was at the inboard end of the rh track road , and was caused by a different problem from the one related here . Nonetheless, as Rory says, and necking of a balljoint is highly undesirable and will lead to unintended stresses being applied to parts not designed to take them

[johnben]

Hi Rory
Thanks for the comments, yes this could be down to wear and the SNG could be the proper replacement, but how can the eBay and QH TRE angles be explained away? Also Dick Maury and Bob Hodgins flagged this issue up some time ago and both have now got the original TRE, which they must have compared with the original. It occurred to me having read your comments that I had not given the full story as I had neglected (had not thought of) to give the angles at the other extreme of travel.
Here they are + or -: Original 63 degrees, SNG 63 degrees, eBay 65 degrees and the QH 65 degrees.

John

[abowie]

It's intriguing that the current market offerings are all different from the original. Is there any evidence that this is resulting in either damage to other components or premature failure of the tie rod ends?

[johnben]

Hi Andrew, I think the short answer to your question is no. I have taken a few further images which may illustrate the problem better:



This is the original Jaguar TRE and as expected (because it was the one which came out) it fitted in easily.



A closer view of the same thing, I did not put the nut on and tighten down, but it did not seem to me that the weight of the front suspension would be carried on the TRE.



The SNG most closely matched the original but it just did not seem that it could be installed without some strain being placed on it and the assembly.



Close up of SNG TRE



I did take into account that the barrel of the SNG TRE was 2 mm longer than that of the original and screwed it a further 2 mm onto the rod.



Though the inner ball joint does not seem to be under any stress with the SNG TRE fitted at the other end, the TRE was not tightened down. I am not inclined to do this as I intend to return the TRE's to SNG at some point and they need to be in good condition.

If the SNG is the correct replacement then there would have had to be a lot of wear on the neck of the lower ball joint and housing. This wear could only take place when the front suspension is extended to it's maximum i.e. When the car is jacked up or when driving, the wheel is wholly or partially airborne. I cannot see the owner doing either of these on such a regular basis as to cause significant wear.
So I have 3 replacement and 1 original TRE's all are different to each other in terms of length and angle of the post on the ball joint and my car is still jacked up and going no where. Can anyone help?

[Heuer]

Give Ken Verity a ring - he will know.

[PeterCrespin]

What is the fully-extended centre to centre shock length?

[christopher storey]

As Peter says, those dampers look hyper-extended to me and this could be the reason for your troubles.What make are they ? The extended length should not exceed 400mm . Mine extended to about 430-435mm and that was sufficient over a short period to cause fatigue fracture of a trackrod

[johnben]

Peter & Christopher
410 mm! And yes I have read the thread regarding the length of shock absorbers. Because the original TRE fitted without a problem I wrongly presumed I had the correct shocks. It would appear that again on this critical aspect of the safety of the vehicle we are being offered an incorrect part. Unless an owner goes down the adjustable shock route there does not seem a satisfactory replacement (unless I missed something in the thread). To sum up the situation if you buy new shocks and TRE's and manage to force fit them together then the TRE is taking some of the load of the suspension which it was never designed to do and transferring this load in part to other areas of the steering system which might result in premature failure.
Is this a fair assessment?
Regarding my own situation, providing I can get a proper replacement for the TRE I would be fairly relaxed about the shock absorbers at the moment (though I will change them when a correct set is available) as the original TRE, because of its range of movement over it's replacements, easily accommodates the extra length of the shock absorber and can be tightened up easily without apparent stress to other components.
Though I recognise that the load which should have been carried by the original s shock absorber length is perhaps now dissipated along the extra 10mm? of length elsewhere when the car is jacked up or the wheel airborne.
Christopher, I am not sure what you mean by 'overextended' as I understand it the suspension hangs on the shock absorbers which act as a stop, so the 410 mm is the full y extended length as would be the 400 mm shocks.

John

[christopher storey]

John : the problem with extension significantly beyond 400mm is that hyperextension allows the angle of the track rod at its inner end , and the track rod end at its outer end, to approach and then exceed the point at which the angles are such that one or both ends "neck" on the joint . Once that happens , the rack and its attachments start to take a vertical bending load for which they were not designed , in particular, as the suspension arm goes down, the rack - and the track rod with it - can be forced upwards ( see the rusty witness mark on my rack after only 60 miles ) . The design length extension of the original equipment dampers appears to have been somewhere between 387 and 403mm, and at lengths of that range you do not get necking . Unfortunately, many designers of modern replacements do not seem to have appreciated this problem , hence the need to check the length and correct it if it exceeds 400mm by any significant degree . At 410mm you might just be ok but it is essential to check visually that there is still clearance between the neck of each ball and the relevant housing when at full extension

[Heuer]

This could explain why I needed new TRE's every couple of years (7,000 miles) when I had Koni's fitted! Currently running with Boge on the front so it will be interesting to see if the wear rates improve. Anybody measured the standard Boge length when extended?

[PeterCrespin]

No but five minutes with a jack and tape will sort yours out. On borderline or safety critical stuff like this I never trust specs but try to measure the actual parts or installation as necessary. In this situation soggy bushings can account for a few millimetres more droop than normal if you measure centre to centre on the mounting bolts compared to centre to centre for a damper on the bench. If you're already pushing the limit those extra mm could spell trouble. People with solid or more stiff rack mounts are at extra risk if absent or low compliance exacerbates strain. Of course, correctly set-up rack mount failsafes, set up book-standard (and therefore different on each side) would be part of the mix too, but I'm not going there again.

[johnben]

Hi Heuer

I am running with Boge(26-258-0 33 1700 310 281) Length 440 mm (middle of bolt to middle of bolt 410 mm). Christopher I have noted your remarks and will try and get some more shots when I reassemble the TRE's only this time at the extreme of travel with the wheels jacked up and the wheels down. I have decided to clean out, re grease and put new rubber covers on the original TRE's and put them back on the car until such time as I can purchase some correct replacements. I will put a letter in with the TRE's when I send them back outlining the problem and referring them to the Jag Forums, at least then if there is a problem they will have been made aware of it. I am sending a letter to SNG and the Quinton Hazell stockists.

John

[Heuer]

We could really help ourselves by compiling a library of the various shock extended (centre bolt to centre bolt) lengths. So far we seem to have:

OEM Girling = 400mm - 15.75" (verified by Jaguar)
GAZ = 412mm or 424mm or 430mm (depending who measured them!)
Boge = 403mm or 410mm (depending who measured them!)
Koni = 407mm
Spax = no data

Anybody have shocks to hand and able to provide some more data? Seems wise to avoid GAZ and Koni's unless drop restrictor's are fitted. Somewhat unhelpfully the E-Type is not listed in the latest Boge catalogue. For those with original Girling shocks has anyone tried having them re-built?:


http://www.vintageandclassicshockabsorb ... 4578272652

[johnben]

Please find below a draft letter which I intend to enclose when I return the TRE's to their supplier, I also intend to send one to Jaguar re the new Lightweight E Type of which they state that "All six vehicles will be built as perfect reproductions and to the exact specifications of the original 12 cars first produced in 1963" and ask where they got their TRE's and shock absorbers from:-

I am returning the enclosed track rod ends (TRE's) as the are not a suitable replacement for my vehicle, which is a 1967 Series 1 2 + 2 Jaguar E Type. The problem is that they do not angulate open far enough, I have attached photographs indicating this. You will also note that a correct replacement TRE does note seem to be available from other stockists.
It is my view that the TRE your company (and others) supply, if fitted, could be potentially hazardous due to the over angulation loads that would be placed on it. Defects in design or construction of reproduction parts may only show themselves over time (as we all know from the 'Call Backs' in motor vehicles and domestic appliances). As most classic cars do only a small mileage over a year, as compared to their owners daily drives, it maybe some years before the stress and strain on the TRE's have an effect. There also seems to be a problem with the aftermarket front shock absorber now available for this car as they appear to extend too far which would exacerbate the problem indicated above. I urge you to take some time to follow the threads listed below to appreciate the concern of owners regarding reproduction parts and pass these comments onto your suppliers.
Please Google: E Type UK Track Rod End Despair & Jag Lovers E Type Track Rod End search for correct type.

[Heuer]

Don't hold your breath waiting for Jaguar to produce exact Girling copies - if the prototype is anything to go by they seem to be favouring bling over authenticity:

[johnben]

I am reassembling the steering with the old TRE's.

This image shows the suspension at full drop with the steering hard over to the right. Even with the original outer TRE installed it looks like there is a wear-line where the inner TRE shoulder makes contact with the holding nut.

This image shows the steering hard over to the left hand side, the wear-line on the shoulder can be more clearly seen.

John