I am needing a Pitman Arm with the two measurements of 2-27/32"; and 4-1/2". I am referring to the diagram in the post by R.V. Anderson on June 15, 2014, where the two dimensions are at right angles with one another from the axis of the tapered opening. Sorry, I cannot figure out how to copy the link to copy the photo.
Here is the link showing the measurements. I need A= 2 27/32; B= 4 1/2 for Late 1909-1910. Please dig through your stash and see if you can help me find this part. Thanks
I am still needing to find a 1909-1910 pitman arm. Thanks.
Good luck Daniel. I haven't seen one for years. When it comes that time, I will piece one together from two later arms. I have an original on my 10 for a pattern.
BTW did you know the early ones had an oval shaped ball, not round like the later ones? Don't know the purpose, maybe to limit the throw.
I have one for 1910. I currently have an offer for it which I have not accepted yet
Dale, Please send me a photo of it and details to DanielSnell2@twc.com.
I have not heard that the early pitman arms an oval shaped arm. That is good to know. Wonder what the two dimensions of the ball are? Thanks Richard.
Sorry Richard, I meant to comment on the oval shape of the ball not the arm.
Daniel I'd be happy to give you the dimensions but it would require me taking off the drag link. Sorry, not willing to do that. ;^)
Understand and would not want you to go through that trouble, just thought you might by off chance have those dimensions.
All the best
I sent you a Post Message. Please get back with me. Thanks
Still looking for the Pitman Arm, anyone?
Just to add, Daniel, mine looks exactly the same as the photo Kim posted for his 09. I think it was on an earlier thread.
Richard, Have you seen others that had the oval ball you mentioned? The reason I ask is because the one Dale Kemmerer owns has a round ball and I am thinking perhaps they were built both ways, with the oval ball and with the round one.
Daniel, the one Dale has is different than mine, his is longer, the one RV Anderson says is correct for 1910. Mine is the shorter version with the 3 1/2" arm, the same dimensions Mr Anderson says are for 1909. Mine appears to be the same one listed in the August 1909 parts book.
The one I have is the only one I've checked for dimensions and the oval ball. I wonder if Kim's also has the oval ball, my guess is it does.
I am thinking the NRS pitman arm also had an oval ball. I have one in storage, I'll try to check.
BTT Still looking for a usable early Pitman.
Just curious; what might one of these be worth?
I've never seen one for sale, Adam, but I bet someone could get $400 for an 09 style. That's the one I need.
Richard, are you referring to the early 09 style with the shorter arm or the later 1909-1910 model. I think the pitman arm changed around march 1909 or thereabouts.
I can't imagine a pitman arm with an oval ball! They always get that way from wear. I searched for good ones in the past, and finally came up with one that was only out .001". Ultimately, I found a NOS one.
Yep, Larry, oval ball it was. Not just a little oval either. Apparently it limits travel of the steering.
Daniel, I was referring to the short pitman arm the one you say is correct for 09 but I believe was used throughout 09-10.
I wonder if Kims original 1910 has the short arm?
Richard, my 1910, #23805 has the short arm. I compared it to the pitman arm from my 1909, #314 and it appears to be the same.
Does anyone know when the change was made from the 2 1/8" by 3 1/2" to the 2 27/32 by 4 1/2?
I was understanding that it was early in 1909. My car is July 1909.
I might have to dig around a bit this weekend and see if I have one. I remember getting one in a pile of parts a few years ago that was a little different and had 9-10-11 marked on it in masking tape. Havenít seen it in a while and fairly sure I didnít sell it...
Daniel, I don't know the exact date of the change but the one you describe first is p/n T-929A and was used in early '09. The forging drawing for this piece is dated 1-5-09. I believe that with a July car, you are looking for T-929B which has your second set of dimensions. (Your 4-1/2" should be 4-1/4", though.)
According to R.V.ís drawing, the one I have is correct for 1910-1912. Not sure if I want to sell it, but Iím open to offers.
Adam, and R.V. I sent you a pm.
I could be all wrong on this but I don't see how the longer pitman arm would allow the tie rod to clear the wishbone on a 1910. My pitman arm is the short one, the one RV Anderson says is correct for early 09 but not later. On mine, the tie rod just barely clears the wishbone. If the pitman arm were longer, the tie rod would sit lower and there would be interference.
The shorter dimension of 2 27/32" will allow the tie rod to be connected higher thereby clearing the radius rod. I currently have a later one on the car that has that dimension of about 3 1/2", so the extra 3/4 of an inch should allow it to clear and should be the correct on for mid 1909 use and on up to the time they changed the spindle to the two piece design. At least this is my understanding based upon observation.
Daniel, it does not have a shorter dimension. Please check the specs again. In both dimensions the later style is longer. It makes no sense that the longer one works on all front ends thru 1912 as RV Anderson states when the spindle arms changed elevation after 1910.
I'm sorry but this is not rocket science.
Richard, Please see in the photo of my situation as it is now. The Pitman arm with the shorter axis dimension of 2 27/32 would move the connection slightly higher and should allow the tie rod to clear the radius rod. Obviously, a shorter pitman arm would accomplish it as well.
I see what you mean. My camera is not working but a longer pitman arm would not work with my set up. I've changed out the front end with another and in both circumstances, I had very little clearance between the drag link and wishbone. (I earlier said tie rod but its the drag link that is the issue.) Did you happen to see Kims response where he stated his mid year original 1910 has the short pitman arm? Knowing the history of that car, its hard to believe it was changed out.