Turn Signal Switch?

Boosted · Post by **Boosted** » October 21, 2006, 6:57 am

6166 Junkyard Dog · Post by **6166 Junkyard Dog** » October 21, 2006, 9:18 am

Steve I sent several pictures of the correct brackets & bottom of the column,,, if

the last picture is the correct adjuster for Power steering on the Ford Boxes & what that does is adjusts the gap between the steering wheel & the turn signal plate at the top & rides on that bottom bearing with a thin metal shim that has a cloth type material on it,,, The gap should be like a thicknees of a business card so that your horn works & turn signals cancel properly Oh by the way those pictures of the column are from a 65-66 4 Speed on the Column ,,, I have about 30 columns for the 65-79 trucks that are cores that I build as the customer needs for there particular truck & power steering set up to get the right switches, etc.... Hope this helps you are anybody else out there in Slick Land on ?'s parts for columns

ABA · Post by **ABA** » October 21, 2006, 3:31 pm

Is mine correct JYD?
Column I think is out of a '76 and gearbox a '69.

6166 Junkyard Dog · Post by **6166 Junkyard Dog** » October 21, 2006, 8:07 pm

Yes that is the 73-76 style steering column by having that plastic bushing @ the bottom,,, Banjopicker knows where you can get a different bearing for the bottom in which is a better improvement over just the plain plastic bushing that I seen there,,, I saw it when we went to slick stock 2006 on his truck... I can see the correct Power Steering Plate since it is marked Power Steering Hope this helps you out Tom

cdherman · Post by **cdherman** » October 22, 2006, 12:47 am

JYD -- Why would taking out the lower center bearing put more strain on the rag joint? Strikes me that removing the lower bearing would allow the shaft to "float" a little, reducing the strain on the rag joint.

IMHO, it would put less strain, though I suspect it may be a recipe for a worn out upper bearing and a sloppy steering. Usual cause of failed rag joint are sagging cab mounts, which in turn put a strain on the rag joint.

Hawkrod knows a lot about trucks too. We need to be careful and realize that NONE of us knows everything. Sometimes, I think I have it figured out, but then I read or see something else and I see that I am still not as smart as I would like to be.....

That being said, I am pretty sure everything you said about PS versus MS columns is correct. I just wonder if that lower bearing is so very important for the rag joint. Seems in my reading that the major enemy of a rag joint is mis-allignment with the axis of the steering shaft and gear unit.

If the earlier manual steering firewall bracket were used, but relocated up on the firewall a tad, it could still be used to hold the outer steering column in place. It would NOT be correct, and the clamp at the bottom would not fit as correctly. But it might work.

Mind you, I have both. I've had the Saginaw PS unit on my truck (which I then removed when I saw the problem with the firewall bracket). I then aquired the correct PS firewall bracket and I plan to do the swap "correctly".

But I am not sure than it would be UNSAFE to do it with the old MS bracket if it were moved up on the firewall and even to leave out the lower bearing and retainer.

6166 Junkyard Dog · Post by **6166 Junkyard Dog** » October 22, 2006, 7:07 am

you know what here,,, here is my 2 cents You all do it your way & I will do it the CORRECT way on steering columns & and anything else I might know its right... FORD did not put those parts in there & have different plates for the xxxx of it... I will just sit back & not speak up & let someone else figure it out for everbody I do not want to get in a debate over someones BAD advice,,, Will still have fun here BUT BYE

Hawkrod · Post by **Hawkrod** » October 22, 2006, 11:04 am

JYD, you are unfortunately mistaken and not familiar with Ford and how they did things. You took my post out of context and you are wrong. Ford did not use a lower bearing on many models. They did use a lower bearing on trucks but the reason for it is not at all what you assume. The is no more load on the steering coupler with or without a lower bearing and I would suggest that you look at 5000 pound Lincolns and notice they did not use a lower bearing either. The bearing is there for a reason but it is not critical to any safety issue. The lower column can float just fine and will never cause any problem. The truth is that overall very few Ford products ever had a lower bearing on the column. As far as the firewall plate is concerned, you can use either plate as long as you move it to the right spot. This is difficult with using a non power steering one with power steering but it also is not a safety issue, just an issue of bolt hole position. In fact, in 78 Ford quit using a lower bracket alltogether. That is right, not only do you not need the lower bearing but you don't need a lower bracket! How can that be, ask an engineer. I will say that without a lower bracket, you do need a lower bearing though as even with the rubber mount there is a heck of a lot of movement. As far as why Ford had two different lower brackets originally? That is easy, it is because of the assembly line process. The holes in the firewall are prestamped and the plates have ever so slightly different angles so it was easier to make the part differently so that it did not stop the line if the guy was trying to make the wrong part fit. Ford could have just as easily made a mount with 10 holes and adjustable that would fit all columns but that would have cost more so two small brackets were cheaper to make. I understand the concept of rebuilding original parts and selling them but please do not mistake that with understanding the engineering that caused the part to exist in the first place. Ford did use those parts (plate and lower bearing) but you need to keep their use in context and understand why they were or were not used on a vehicle. The lower bearing is not a safety item. Hawkrod

ICEMAN6166 · Post by **ICEMAN6166** » October 22, 2006, 11:54 am

i am not going to get into the column issue except to discuss rag joint failure

3 most common things that cause rag joint failure
1.cab sagging/misalignment of column
2.brake fluid- either leaking down from mc or sloppy filling of mc.brake fluid softens rubber.oil does this too.
3. heat from exhaust manifold/headers too close to rag joint.dries it out.
once the rubber is compromised the joint is certain to fail.

later i will take a picture of the rag joint area in a 66 in my yard.cant believe this was done, and driven by someone.(actually its not hard to believe given some of the other stuff i have seen)

6166 Junkyard Dog · Post by **6166 Junkyard Dog** » October 22, 2006, 1:09 pm

The last time Ford used the plate was in 1976,, All 1977-79 trucks used a very heavy rubber that was mounted from the inside but still had a plastic bushing , go ahead & leave all that junk out but ask your self that when people using the Toyota Boxes on 48-56 they have to put a bottom bearing spacer in the original column that both No-Limit & Classic Preformance based in Calif makes???,,, Reason is someting has to hold that shaft from moving all in that tube & help the rag joint,, Really I do not care about any other Fords, Lincolns or Mercury's here we are talking Ford & Mercury Trucks & what is there,, Iceman is right what causes rag joint failure but when a truck has been driven with out a bearing the shaft is then slammed into the column & I have pulled shafts out that were on the brink to snap where the shaft has wore thin down due to shaft & column making contact ,,, & the plates are more than a couple holes off the pitch where the clamp are angled different with a shorter pitch for a reason,,, C'mon this started as something simple now getting complicated all due to the fact that I was concerned about somebodies steering column parts @ the bottom

Hawkrod · Post by **Hawkrod** » October 22, 2006, 2:50 pm

JYD, Ask yourself how does the shaft move around in the tube? It can't move around. We are not discussing earlier or later conversions, we are discussing 65-79 4X2 columns that do not need a lower bearing. The only way the shaft can move around is if the steering coupler is already bad. This is why a bearing is not needed. The shafts that are nearly worn through are worn not from the bearing, but because of other damage and that is not related to the issue and is usually cab mounts. Please do the math and provide the engineering proof that requires a bearing. I will give you some help on this. To start with use a truck with a good coupler and remove the lower bearing assembly. Measure sideways deflection on the shaft under normal conditions. Do this again under extreme condistions. I can already tell you that total shaft deflection will not exceed .100 which is well within the tolerance for the design. This is something I used to do and something you are not familiar with (evident by your posts). I did mention the bracket angle is different but it still works just fine. Again, the lower mount is not needed beyond a few foot pounds of torque, Ford could have made that bracket from plastic. This has become complicated by the fact that you disputed accurate information not because of something anybody else did. And finally 1977 did use the firewall bracket on some units prior to serial number Y20,001 when the conversion was made so all units used the new mounting system. I appreciate the effort you have put into this but please note that I would not have posted if I were not sure of the facts as I was stating them. Hawkrod

6166 Junkyard Dog · Post by **6166 Junkyard Dog** » October 22, 2006, 5:49 pm

I give up it is not worth talking about it & I will Continue to do it the right way & not tell somebody that you don't need something You know I see many trucks in a week that the columns are shot & the problem was that bottom bearing shot..... I spoke up about early conversions cause they need the bottom bearing So Just Forget It ,,, That I ever spoke up

Hawkrod · Post by **Hawkrod** » October 22, 2006, 6:27 pm

I am sorry but I can't forget about you telling people bad info. Early conversions are a different issue so why do you keep crying about it? Can't be right about something so use some unrelated facts to get the dogs off of your scent? A bottom bearing is needed in certain applications. It is needed when the lower shaft and steering box are not in direct alignment such as in a conversion or an application where the coupler is designed to be installed with some degree of flex (like Tbirds for example). Trucks have a lower bearing but the bearing does not cause damage to the shaft even if it goes bad and I don't care how many you see because you are still full of it. The only way the shaft can be damaged is if it is side loaded and that can only happen if there is an alignment issue not because a bearing is bad. I am sorry but the fact that you are wrong is easy to see and I don't get why can't see it. You keep throwing out unrelated info and comments unrelated to the issue to show you have a clue but we can easily see through the smoke and mirrors. Hawkrod

6166 Junkyard Dog · Post by **6166 Junkyard Dog** » October 22, 2006, 7:07 pm

OK,,, If I am wrong smart _ _ _ ,,, Then how to do adjust the gapon 65-74 1/2 trucks between the steering wheel & the turn signal plate with no bearing there & no place for the adjuster with 2 allen screws for trucks with power steering or manual steering has the clamp with a bolt going through it ??????? and on all 74 1/2's to 79's there is a small clip on the shaft under the bearing & C-Clip on the top side where the switch is in return keeps the play set right Like I said before I will do it the Right way ,,, you want to take short cuts be my guest... The best thing about this site is that you can voice your opinion or make suggestions & decisions on what is right or wrong how many times do I have we are working here on Trucks, no other, Ford, Lincoln or Mercury Products, Since my opinion is so wrong don't ask me no more BYE

mikecarson · Post by **mikecarson** » October 22, 2006, 7:14 pm

I hate getting in the middle of an argument, but...

May be that both of you are right, and both of you are wrong?

What I mean is this, don't NOBODY know it all.

Hawkrod · Post by **Hawkrod** » October 22, 2006, 7:38 pm

You are right, not everybody knows it all. I don't even respond when I don't know and if you look you will see that I don't respond that often! I even make mistakes occasionally and freely admit it when I find out that I was wrong. In this specific issue I have specific knowledge and it makes it easy to know what is correct. Unfortunately not everybody has that mindset. It is rather presumptive to assume that a part was built a designed a certain way when you have not studied it specifically. Very often parts are designed a specific way to ease the assembly process. Many parts of a car or truck are actually only there because you do not have a single individual assembling a vehicle. In order to guarantee that the process is smooth and correct the sub-assemblies are designed in a manner which makes mis-assembly difficult. This is not because it has to be that way but because it is cheaper that way. did you ever wonder why 65 and newer trucks had a seperate shaft and steering box when so many other Ford products still had a one piece shaft? It certainly was not a safety concern. The shaft was made two piece as a cost cutting move. is it cheaper to build a steering box with a two piece shaft? No, it is actually quite a bit more expensive. So how could a two piece shaft be a cost cutting move if it was more expensive to make? Because of the assembly process. By having a two piece shaft and box you can finish the chassis assembly at one point and do the cab drop as a sub-assembly at another point. It may not seem like much but to Ford the savings of pennies on each unit was a major profit maker. Just to put that in perspective, lets say 100,000 units are being assembled if you can save 1 cent on an item you just made $1000. Not much money really but the thing is Ford operators and accountants did not just save 1 cent on 100,000 units. Ford found ways to cut costs on a daily basis and saved 20-30-40 and more on each unit each year for nearly the entire decade of the 60's and they made millions of vehicles, now do the math! Whether many people realize it or not there are many items on our trucks that are the way they are because it was less expensive to do it that way not because it was better. Hawkrod

cdherman · Post by **cdherman** » October 22, 2006, 10:55 pm

Fellows, I think several of us are trying to throw water on this one, but not getting there.

Tom (JYD) is correct that the lower bearing and retainer do tend to keep the shaft from riding up in the column, which can mess with the turn signal switches cancelling, and create a gap between the steering wheel and column.

However, I think that a good tight rag joint and properly tightening the spline on the rag joint would serve the same purpose. If the rag joint and spline are good, then the shaft cannot move up very far. If the rag joint and spline are BAD, then you have much greater problems than just your signals not cancelling!! And if sagging cab mounts are causing the steering box to slowly move towards the firewall -- well no lower retainer is going to stop that!

Tom is playing it safe, and I'll bet he has seen some botched conversions that made him swear by the "straight and narrow".

On the other hand, clearly there are ways to modify or circumvent stock setups that are not dangerous or even damageing in the long run. Probably leaving the bottom bearing out is one of them, assuming that you have the REST of the angles and planes in the conversion CORRECT! If you don't have the angle correct, then it is going to fail anyhow. Either the rag joint or the bottom bearing will fail from the side stress.

I must say -- I intend to keep my bottom bearing and retainer, as much as I follow Hawkrods logic and think he's correct about the safety aspect at least. For me, I want the bottom bearing there cause Ford put it there and that's sufficient reason! For someone else, this may not be the case, and to each his own I say!

Hawkrod · Post by **Hawkrod** » October 23, 2006, 10:20 pm

I must point out that for a restoration you must do it correctly but if you are making a modification such as not using a lower bearing then you must also finish the modification at the top end just as Ford did on vehicles that did not have a lower bearing. I did not mention this as the issue is not how to make the modification but rather whether it can be done or not. Unfortunately one person seems to feel that if you do not build a vehicle exactly the way Ford did it 40 years ago then you are wrong. It is just a case of one person thinking he can dictate how other people build vehicles and any deviation from stock is obviously not acceptable to this person. His explanations are poor and justifications are unrelated and I think that anybody contemplating modifications has the right to as they wish and they do not need permission from the restoration god. Hawkrod

cdherman · Post by **cdherman** » October 24, 2006, 12:17 am

Jeeze man, back off the retoric. I though Californians were famed to be easy going!!

Seriously, inform us all what those modifications are that you refer to:

"if you are making a modification such as not using a lower bearing then you must also finish the modification at the top end just as Ford did on vehicles that did not have a lower bearing. I did not mention this as the issue is not how to make the modification"

What do you mean by this?

I get the feeling that other folks have decided to stay clear of this somewhat contentious thread.

I for one have actually dealt (as in bought stuff from) with both of you I believe at one point or the other, and I have not been disappointed with either of you fine gentlemen. So I happen to believe we have a misunderstanding as opposed to real problem.

I would request that any replies made to this post be just facts and technically oriented. Please? Its a new site here, we don't have the Nazi Overlords like over at the other Ford Tru*k site. This whole thread whould have gotten nuked over there. Lets demonstrate that we don't need someone here to delete our posts when they get too heated, OK?

Later fellas......

Hawkrod · Post by **Hawkrod** » October 24, 2006, 1:51 pm

"if you are making a modification such as not using a lower bearing then you must also finish the modification at the top end just as Ford did on vehicles that did not have a lower bearing. I did not mention this as the issue is not how to make the modification"

What do you mean by this?

I meant that this thread is not a discussion of how to do such a conversion. The thread is about something else and is already way too muddy to add an indepth article on another modification. I will try and take some pictures and post how to do this in a separate thread as it is actually very simple and uses parts available from ford. Hawkrod

ICEMAN6166 · Post by **ICEMAN6166** » October 25, 2006, 11:06 am

i thought i had a good understanding of Ford trucks including columns but you guys lost me about 5 miles back.
when it comes to the repair or teardown of a column for whatever reason, i have always just put it back together the way it came with or without the lower bearing as the case may be. a person could spend a lifetime analyzing what and why Ford did and when they did it, i got better things to do.in the time it has taken to read all of this thread i could have r&r d a couple of columns.

cd is correct about the censorship too.rather we not have that here if at all possible.i dont think Lance would have let this thread go this far
over on msn, in fact i know threads were killed for less.
this is how your fingers are beginning to look after all this

[img][albumimg]840[/albumimg][/img]