The Triumph Dolomite Club - Discussion Forum

Thought I would share Saturdays experiences.
My spitfire has has a forged style steering UJ, same as used on a dolly (and I have on my Toledo) which is now 7-8 years old, and had developed some play. No problem, I had a spare new (in sealed bag) one on the shelf. Swapped it over, only to find teh new one had twice the play of the old one, without even dropping the car on the ground.
The new one is from one of the main suppliers, but I can't remember which one.

I am now on the hunt for a quality version. AB performance sell one they have had made as they could not find a decent quality one on the market, which may explain things. However, it is only splined one side, the other is meant to be welded to a column, but I will ask if they can supply a special. After that, Kiley-Clinton seem to make one here in the UK, and I believe supply some of the better retailers (Witor?)

But thought it worthwhile sharing the issue. ALl the forged ones are not alike. Incidentally the old one has 4 stake marks, evenly spaced. The new one has only 2, but I have seen 4 stakes as 2 opposite pairs, and 6 stakes. The AB ones use a bolt to retain the UJ, so they are rebuildable, though unsure if they can supply spare UJ's.

This is a UJ as the replacement for the FAM1718 flexible coupling?
That's the one where the modern reproduction ones with rubber inserts are really, really nasty and fall apart while you're driving.

I've bought 3 over the last few years off eBay, the first a pressed steel one I thought had play (as a Group 1 escort part), but didn't, and two forged ones (at least one as a Group 2 escort part - RS1600/1800 I assume). One was for the Doly and one to replace the pressed one I was keeping for the Herald, but which had disappeared when I needed it. So now both cars have forged UJ instead of the flexible couplings.
Neither was any problem other than I can't fit them as easily as the originals. But it's no problem when replacing the rack, etc.

I never had an original FAM1718 that was any good - they were both buggered when I got the cars. I had a repro in the Doly for a while, which didn't go well. So I'm not sure if the driving is actually better with that wee bit of cushioning from the rubber inserts. But I don't feel like I'm missing anything with the UJs in.

Graham

If you look on Chris Witor's site / the superflex section you will see that it contains a kit ST374-1179TH @ £20.50 for replacing the rubber bits with poly it does not include the steering joint bolts but Chris has told me that, some people use Torx screws, others Posi as he does not think these are standard issue screws, he has yet to find a source for them. I agree with Chris that they are not standard screws. Chris went onto advise, the thread seems to be ¼ UNF and It may be possible to use ¼ UNF x 1” socket cap screws, with tubular spacers 5/16 x ¼ x 7/16 but 7/8 would be a better screw length if available..

Several years ago when I fitted some superflex replacements I was able to obtain some of the original special bolts that were longer than the ones currently fitted and riveted in. The longer bolts had a hole drilled in them so that they could be wire locked and so were re-useable. This overcomes the problem that to get the unit apart you have to file the riveted bit off so you can't reuse the original screws/bolt.

But is the FAM1718 flexible coupling actually any better than a UJ? As in, does the cushioning effect of the rubbers take out vibration you don't need without taking out feel you do?

Or are UJ's less prone to going slack, or worse still, shearing off under load? I know they're a bit harder to fit, but I feel like it's a job needs doing less often if there's some oil gets on 'em now and again.

Also, I know the 1/4" UNF bolts in the original FAM1718s are bigger diameter than the M5 ones in the reproductions, at least the grimmer ones. But I'd still worry about using different spec. ones in rebuilding one of those. If it weren't such a safety critical item, I might feel less concerned, but there're few reversionary options to the steering. Bin there; got the soiled underwear.

Graham

As I state before when I re built one I did manage to find some of the original design of special bolts, it is pity that we can's find someone to re-manufacture the bolts at a reasonable price. Especially as if they are wire locked they can be reused. You obviously know all the options so the decision is yours to make.

As I state before when I re built one I did manage to find some of the original design of special bolts, it is pity that we can's find someone to re-manufacture the bolts at a reasonable price. Especially as if they are wire locked they can be reused. You obviously know all the options so the decision is yours to make.

I get my upper intermediate column sections from Fitchetts (remanufactured but seem to be fine) I've fitted maybe half a dozen of these in the last few years.

The lower coupling (originally FAM 1718) I ONLY use the forged joint from Chris Witor which is sold as an upper coupling for non PAS T2000. Having (like Graham) no faith whatsoever in remanufactured FAM 1718 lookalikes and several in my black museum that have failed before the slightest corrosion has set in, less than 6 months/1000miles in some cases, I won't use them. Further experience with the (Escort) pressed type where they don't tighten correctly onto the rack, leading to play at the wheel, has put me off those too.

Have just looked at a new Witor one that I have handy and it has 4 good stakes on each cup.

Most cars you DO need to shorten the intermediate section about 0.5" and extend the flat by a similar amount to fit the Witor forged joint. One or two haven't needed this attention, that's BL production tolerances for you!

Steve

cliftyhanger wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 5:55 amAfter that, Kiley-Clinton seem to make one here in the UK, and I believe supply some of the better retailers (Witor?)

I thought that the OE spec T2000 IJs he supplies are made in Reading?

Anyhow,
the only downside I can see of using a UJ in place of the coupling is that the UJ is straight
rather than angled, so I am thinking that the needle roller bearings won't rotate, causing the UJ to develop play
much sooner than it would in a T2000?
From experience of trying it, using a UJ doesn't cause any extra vibration at the steering wheel
(same result with aluminium alloy rack mounts).

T2000 UJs don't break, unlike the rubber joint used on the PAS equipped models


Ian.

sprint95m wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:51 pm

cliftyhanger wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 5:55 amAfter that, Kiley-Clinton seem to make one here in the UK, and I believe supply some of the better retailers (Witor?)

I thought that the OE spec T2000 IJs he supplies are made in Reading?

Anyhow,
the only downside I can see of using a UJ in place of the coupling is that the UJ is straight
rather than angled, so I am thinking that the needle roller bearings won't rotate, causing the UJ to develop play
much sooner than it would in a T2000?
From experience of trying it, using a UJ doesn't cause any extra vibration at the steering wheel
(same result with aluminium alloy rack mounts).

T2000 UJs don't break, unlike the rubber joint used on the PAS equipped models


Ian.

I too use solid rack mounts, along with the UJ'd lower coupling and have experienced no ill effects from either (despite numerous prophesies of doom from some quarters) no bump steer or extra vibration detected. Just nice, direct and rapid steering response.

I think you will find that the lower UJ (or indeed a stock FAM1718) sits only "nearly" straight in most cars. If it was absolutely straight, there'd be no need for a coupling there at all! A push over clamped spline would be sufficient.

I grant that a few degress movement (less than 5 degrees in all probability) is not much better than none, but it IS better. I've not wrecked a Witor UJ yet, but i've only been using them for 3 years or so, so no real test yet!

Steve

I can't find the order details for either of the ones I bought, and memory may be faulty about what they were sold as. However, none of them needed mods to either car.

But when fitting the UJ on the Herald instead of the FAM1718, it was necessary to pull the upper part of the column back into the car a bit, which is easy in the Herald. I think the Doly's was done while the rack was off and I'm not sure if it's possible to disengage the top joint in the engine bay by pulling the upper column back in. Guess re-assembly would then be a two person job as well.

Graham

Carledo wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:45 pm I think you will find that the lower UJ (or indeed a stock FAM1718) sits only "nearly" straight in most cars. If it was absolutely straight, there'd be no need for a coupling there at all! A push over clamped spline would be sufficient.

I am unsure about "nearly ", Steve.

When I fitted a steering rack employing Spitfire type alloy clamps to my previous 1850, I was conscious of the need to get the rack aligned
(as there is plenty of room for side to side misalignment with they type of clamps)
so I turned the steering wheel whilst watching the lower coupling, to ensure said coupling was not be strained sideways (or up and down).
I am sure that this is the right approach because the original (wired) joints would slide straight up the intermediate shaft
(the replica ones don't because the hole in the central disc is too small).

I am thinking an OE coupling would wear out fairly quickly if it was not straight?




Ian.

sprint95m wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 4:36 pm

Carledo wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:45 pm I think you will find that the lower UJ (or indeed a stock FAM1718) sits only "nearly" straight in most cars. If it was absolutely straight, there'd be no need for a coupling there at all! A push over clamped spline would be sufficient.

I am unsure about "nearly ", Steve.

When I fitted a steering rack employing Spitfire type alloy clamps to my previous 1850, I was conscious of the need to get the rack aligned
(as there is plenty of room for side to side misalignment with they type of clamps)
so I turned the steering wheel whilst watching the lower coupling, to ensure said coupling was not be strained sideways (or up and down).
I am sure that this is the right approach because the original (wired) joints would slide straight up the intermediate shaft
(the replica ones don't because the hole in the central disc is too small).

I am thinking an OE coupling would wear out fairly quickly if it was not straight?

Ian.

It was my impression that the bushing in the stock coupling was there to absorb the few degrees of alignment difference. It certainly isn't primarily a vibration damper as removing the damping effect (if any) of the rubber bushes makes no discernible difference. And I can't see any other purpose to it. I think this is the problem with the remanufactured FAM1718, the rubber isn't soft enough to absorb the angle changes, so it splits and falls out instead. The same could maybe be true of using poly bushes here, i've not tried it myself, I don't like rebuilding safety critical items like that, at least, not if there is a practical alternative.

I use the same (older) design solid rack mounts as you on both my cars. As you say, they need a cautious approach to centralizing the rack as they leave over an inch of possible lateral movement and roll only limited by the D flanges on the rack.

The original bushed rack mounting will move sideways a little, even with new rack, clamps and bushes, maybe it is this sideways movement the bushes in the coupling were there to absorb? Also movement between the rubber mounted subframe and the body will change the angles somewhat. None of it very large at all individually and some of it, we have engineered out but cumulatively it must have been enough that the designers felt the need for more bushing. Or it may just be there cos they needed SOMETHING and the FAM1718 was already on the line, courtesy of the Herald/Spitfire range!

One thing I DO think worthy of mention, i've been fixing Triumphs a long time now (50 years next month) and I have changed out WAY more FAM 1718s on Dolomites than on ALL the Herald derivatives combined. Besides customer cars by the literal thousand over the years, I have also OWNED more Herald derived cars than Dolomites too. There ought to be a reason for this observed discrepancy in wear rates and a small angle might just be it!

Steve

I had to persevere with those horrible Oring couplings in my car as the v8 starter motor left too little space for a reliant scimitar forged UJ.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Steering-fl ... mwheY5KJ
I ended up just replacing them after they developed play which was very quickly annoingly as I had the early 1850 rack, wide tyres and more weight up front than a slant 4.
I rebuilt one with ptfe washers but staked bolts make it a dodgy thing to mess about with imo.
The next engine that wont put the car into BIVA territory like a v8 does will leave space for the UJ!

Starting with the rack mounting arrangements.
All the repair manuals that I have looked at fail cover the fact there is a plate or there should be a plate under the nearside mount that needs to be moved to compress the mounts when new mounts rubber or poly are being fitted. The mounting plate and the engine sub-frame have slotted holes to provide sideways adjustment. I can’t find my photograph which shows the nearside holes in the sub-frame are slots but I have found a photo of the mounting plate.
(See photo of the steering rack plate for adjusting the clamp position)

I always have to think very carefully which way the plate needs to go in. I always like to fit it so that once I have fitted the driver’s side mount and clamp I can fit the nearside mount and clamp and then tap the mounting plate towards the rear of the car so that the plate forces the U bolt and hence the clamp sideways to compress the mounts. It is then time to fully tighten up the U bolts. If you fit the plate the other way up tapping it towards the rear of the car will slacken it off.
I also pointed out in Dolly Mixture, (Issue 120 January/February 2007), and again in the A to Z of dolomites part 6 that I had discovered that some manufacturers produce poly mounts that are very slightly smaller and after some time in service they allow the rack to move once again. This problem may have been corrected by now but I have not checked.


Considering the lower steering knuckle, part number FAM1718. It has been reported that the quality of some of the remanufactured items currently available are not very good and the bolts are staked in which means they can’t be removed and reused. When I rebuilt a FAM1718 with superflex poly I obtained some of the original steering joint bolts that a longer and drilled so that they can be wire locked and reusable. Part number 108976 these are now quite rare. (See photo Lower steering coupling ready to be wire locked)

I have found that when it comes to fitting some of the replacements, such as the group 1 Escort design or the Triumph 2000 lower steering knuckle it has been necessary to grind or bend out of the way some more of the chassis so that the pinch bolt or bolts do not hit it and prevent it from turning. (See photo )
As it has previously been stated and I agree, to fit a lower steering knuckle from a Triumph 2000 there is a need to shorten the intermediate shaft a bit to get it in.

Im aware of the presence of that shim/adjuster plate and was also taught as an apprentice how to set up the rack mounts for minimum play. We were taught how to do it on Heralds and the like that had the same setup to counteract worn bushes! It saved the faff of changing them! But the whole thing is a bit Heath-Robinson, I much prefer to drive on solid mounts and a uj'd column, it makes the steering a lot less vague and doesn't seem to have a downside.

But each to his own I guess!

Steve