MJ one ton turning radius

Scott86MJ

Scott86MJ

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Location
Dallas
I have installed SD 60 with heim joint steering kit. When I turn all the way the steering gear runs out before the steering stops are touching I have about 3/4 inch left. Can anything be done to give me better turning radius?

Pic of the MJ first time out of my shop in months
IMG_6043.jpeg
 
Hokie_YJ said:
What high steer setup is that? It looks like you have the drag link in front of the tie rod. The drag link needs to be closer to the centerline of the ball joint to increase your turning radius.
Click to expand...
barnes4wd.com

2005-2008 Ford Superduty Dana 60 Weld On Crossover High Steer Arms

*CAN BE USED FOR CROSSOVER OR FULL HYDRAULIC/HYDRAULIC ASSIST STEERING, BUT IS BETTER USED WITH CROSSOVER STYLE STEERING IF INSTALLING FULL HYDRO STEERING, SEE PART NUMBER: B4WK12340 If you are looking to add cross over steering, and high steer to your 2005-2008 Superduty Dana 60 axle this kit...
barnes4wd.com barnes4wd.com
IMG_6044.png
 
Hokie_YJ said:
What high steer setup is that? It looks like you have the drag link in front of the tie rod. The drag link needs to be closer to the centerline of the ball joint to increase your turning radius.
Click to expand...
If I switched the tie rod and the drag link around would that work better?
 
I was guessing that was probably the one you had. I don’t know why that one is designed that way, but the geometry is wrong. The distance from center of the drag link to the balljoint should be as close as possible to the length of the pitman arm from center of the sector shaft to the drag link.

Ideally this is the kit you’d want.

Weld On High Steer Arms 2005-2008 Superduty Dana 60

But I’m sure you don’t want to go through swapping. You could get a longer pitman arm. Or if it were me I’d see if you could stack the drag link on top of the arm on the same bolt as the tie rod and build a bracket to make it double shear.
 
Scott86MJ said:
If I switched the tie rod and the drag link around would that work better?
Click to expand...

You would definitely get more radius. Your tie rod would be at an angle though and may interfere with the drag link when you’re turning. Or could possibly cause some handling issues.

I love Barnes stuff. They’re good people and I’ve known them for years. Not bad mouthing them at all. That kit is just not a good design in my opinion. But maybe it’s that way for a purpose I don’t understand.

Either way to get more radius you’ll have to shorten that distance.
 
Hokie_YJ said:
You would definitely get more radius. Your tie rod would be at an angle though and may interfere with the drag link when you’re turning. Or could possibly cause some handling issues.

I love Barnes stuff. They’re good people and I’ve known them for years. Not bad mouthing them at all. That kit is just not a good design in my opinion. But maybe it’s that way for a purpose I don’t understand.

Either way to get more radius you’ll have to shorten that distance.
Click to expand...
I believe the reason is if you have a track bar and bracket in front of the axle instead of on the top there's not enough room. The truss kit I have has the track bar in front.
 
Longer pitman arm.

Put the front end up on jackstands. Disconnect the drag link from the pitman arm and turn the wheels full lock, and turn the steering wheel/box all the way. See how much longer of an arm you need. Repeat for the other direction.

www.wfoconcepts.com

Flat Pitman Arm, NO HOLE | WFOConcepts.com

Find Flat Pitman Arm, NO HOLE at WFOConcepts.com
www.wfoconcepts.com


www.wfoconcepts.com

Wagoneer Pitman Arm, Jeep | WFOConcepts.com

Find Wagoneer Pitman Arm, Jeep at WFOConcepts.com
www.wfoconcepts.com
 
Last edited:
Scott86MJ said:
I believe the reason is if you have a track bar and bracket in front of the axle instead of on the top there's not enough room. The truss kit I have has the track bar in front.
Click to expand...

Probably so. I’d weigh your options on moving the drag link on top of the tie rod vs. a longer pitman arm. If you move the drag link up the really the track bar will need to go up to stay in line with it to avoid bump steer.

Measure your distance from drag link to balljoint and see if the one @drkelly posted would work. If it’s not long enough there may be another off the shelf option that would work. Or it would be relatively easy to build a custom one. Just cut the splined section off your old one and build off that. If you go that route you can make it double shear and you could also build it similar to the Genright twisted arm to save a little angle on the heim joint.
 
jeepinmatt said:
Ballpark pitman length should be distance from balljoint to draglink mount. Or go full hydro :D
Click to expand...
Thats roughly 9" might need that one from the Scout II
 
Scott86MJ said:
Thats roughly 9" might need that one from the Scout II
Click to expand...

That should work. That might travel slightly more than the factory stops, but probably not by much. Seems like I remember you posting that you had the 1550 shafts in it. They should handle the extra radius. If it does hit the stops with the scout arm you could just trim them down and enjoy the extra couple degrees of steering.

Here’s a pretty good video on how to figure out exactly what length arm you need. That SD60 should have about 8” travel lock to lock.

 
Wfo makes a flat pitman arm with no hole and for an up charge they will drill or tap it for you to a custom center to center. That’s a lot easier than trying to deal with it at the axle side. Longer arm = more turning at the box shorter arm = more turning at the axle

I would measured the pitman arm of the truck the axle came out of and compare to what you’ve got before buying anything
 
Had the exact same issue in my xj. Went full hydraulic and never looked back
 
I used a flat arm that I had to drill and taper myself but was able to get the throw necessary to get full travel stop to stop. Cannot remember anymore whose I used but it was for the Ford forward swing box I put in.
 
I might know the guy that designed these arms...
What the other folks have said above is spot on, move that draglink to the top of the arm above the tie rod. You might have to do a longer pitman arm as well to get to full lock. The closer you get to the knuckle with the draglink the more angle you will get at the wheel.
 
Pless said:
I might know the guy that designed these arms...
What the other folks have said above is spot on, move that draglink to the top of the arm above the tie rod. You might have to do a longer pitman arm as well to get to full lock. The closer you get to the knuckle with the draglink the more angle you will get at the wheel.
Click to expand...
I haven’t actually wheeled my pile but I can confirm this. I stacked my drag link over my tie rod in the original spot on the knuckle. It turns my stock steering box from stop to stop.

IMG_2557.jpeg
 
hurt4x4 said:
Following this because I have a SD60 with the same arms. What about stacking the joints like this and welding a tab to the bottom to make it double shear?

View attachment 445393
Click to expand...

Just to keep the tie rod up higher I'd do the opposite and put the drag link on top of the arm and leave the tie rod.
 
Hokie_YJ said:
Just to keep the tie rod up higher I'd do the opposite and put the drag link on top of the arm and leave the tie rod.
Click to expand...
But either way you think would be a viable option for gaining some steering angle? The only reason I was thinking Lower was draglink to frame clearance.
 
hurt4x4 said:
Following this because I have a SD60 with the same arms. What about stacking the joints like this and welding a tab to the bottom to make it double shear?

View attachment 445393
Click to expand...
hurt4x4 said:
But either way you think would be a viable option for gaining some steering angle? The only reason I was thinking Lower was draglink to frame clearance.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be fine also. Let the packaging constraint drive it, because both are functionally fine. Having the drag link on top might give you a flatter angle, which is better, but as long as the drag link is parallel to the track bar, either will work just fine. And if you don't have a track bar, none of that matters :D
 
hurt4x4 said:
But either way you think would be a viable option for gaining some steering angle? The only reason I was thinking Lower was draglink to frame clearance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, either will work.
jeepinmatt said:
Yes, that would be fine also. Let the packaging constraint drive it, because both are functionally fine. Having the drag link on top might give you a flatter angle, which is better, but as long as the drag link is parallel to the track bar, either will work just fine. And if you don't have a track bar, none of that matters :D
Click to expand...
Exactly what he said. On top would be better for drag link angle and keeping the tie rod up out of the rocks. But if the drag link is going to hit the frame and you don't want to notch it then below is fine. As long as your drag link joint doesn't run out of angle and bind at full droop.

EDIT: Unless you're building pretty low COG I'd be surprised if it hit the frame going on the top.
 
A 6” bolt and a wagoneer pitman arm has solved my turning radius issues. Now I have to delete my sway bar mount (touching drag link) and figure out what to do about my track bar angle
IMG_6049.jpeg
 
Back
Top