I wondered why the tie rod on my roadster had been lengthened by almost two inches with ugly welding.
Today I found out why.
The right spindle has the hole for the arm perpendicular to the axis of the spindle shaft. But look at the left one. The hole leans back at an angle of about 80º. I looked at about two dozen other spindles, both left and right, and the number I found with that angle is zero. I also didn't find any reference to it in my Rodda books or the encyclopedia. That's not to say the info isn't there somewhere, but I didn't find it. Can anybody ID the odd spindle?
I think the odd one is the one on the left.
I seem to recall a discussion maybe last year about a spindle like this and whether it was bent, or twisted, or made that way. I can't see how it could be anything other than made like that.If you find the old thread, maybe you'll find a mate to yours!
Charles Little has an early one bent just like that: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/257047/310756.html?1347336296
I've got one hanging on the wall deformed the same way ????????? Missed the "Quality Control" portion in the assembly line !
Any numbers on that odd spindle?
As mentioned in the thread referenced above, the one that I have has the Transue/Williams logo and the part number 203-204 and then what looks like a backward 7. I looked the number up and 203B and 204B were the numbers for the "bare spindle".
Steve, is yours a TW and is it marked with numbers?
I haven't been able to detect any marks. I'll include it when I sand blast some parts and see if that uncovers anything.
My oddball spindle is genuine "Ford" script with a part number of T-203, I believe.
The first contact in a collision with a T is the front wheels (and the crank) Then if the wheel is turned slightly it will turn as far as it will go - until the steering arm on the spindle stops at the axle somewhere. If the collision occurs above X mphs, the spokes will break too, even if they are hickory - perhaps the bent spindles are remains from old wrecks?
Sometimes bent parts were kept for later repair even if Ford discouraged that practice - man hours were cheap back in those days. Later on perhaps someone used the bent part without noticing, he had to improvise later on to get the tie rod to fit, but in reality the steering geometry was all wrong, not following the Ackermann principle:
Have you thought about the wide track ''T'. It would require a different angle to comply with the ''ACAMAN ' steering principal.
Wide tracks - hmm, they should really have the steering arm more inward to point at the center of the rear axle, but these examples are more outwards instead.. Would make more sense on the longer wheelbase TT's, but TT's are not known to have any different tie rods than the standard T.. My guess is that Ford just ignored the problem, the TT's steered good enough at their slow 18/24 mph speed, and the rare wide tracks got so much better stability so nobody noticed any Ackermann deviation when cruising the cotton wagon ruts down south
I don't see how a car could have left the factory that way. I don't think there is enough adjustment on the tie rod to correct that much toe out. On the other hand, maybe the car made it as far as the original owner before the problem was noticed. In that case the dealer would have replaced the spindle. I don't know what Fords' policy was in those days, but I would think they would want any warranteed defective parts returned to the company for numerous reasons.