Another Tie Rod (Dorman) Enters the Chat

[popo_patty]

So Dorman just announced their tie rods for the Bronco. Looks like they used some science on their design. Of course, I’m curious how well it will translate into the real world. Figured I’d post them here to see what y’all think:

The offset seems to be the big selling point, that five degrees of offset to counter up to 1.5” of lift for proper steering geometry. Curious how that will work in real life. On paper to a simpleton like me it makes sense but I’m noscientist.

Moving the connection back closer to the rack to reduce stress on the “fuse” point as well by shortening the inner and lengthening the outer seems pretty sciency.

A larger, serviceable ball joint is also a nice touch and I’m curious on the quality of their balls…

Of course, overall strength through thickness also happened.

Im not trying to start a discussion on “you’ll break your rack kid!” Im very aware of the need to brace your rack. In fact, go watch my series on it lol shameless plug.

Anyways, comment away!

https://www.dormanproducts.com/p-144970-ta87445rd.aspx?origin=homebanner

Sponsored

 

[Dantastic]

You’ll break your rack kid!

 

[cbrownabq]

Very interested!

 

[dgorsett]

I saw these a while back and yes they look great. I suppose you'd want to add rack bushings as well. I agree they look sciency, but wonder: normally the UCA, LCA , tie rod and even axle act as a parallelogram, leveling out the tie rod might defeat this and cause some bump steer.

 

[Richterman]

Interesting. And $250

 

[Snacktime]

$230 to my door for some hands on testing! Going to see how they look next to Icon and Hoss 3.0. Hopefully a good middle ground product that isn't overly strong.

The offset for the lift is a marketing gimmick. Offset does allow for more droop but the tie rod is not limiting anything so why? The other issue is force travels between two points in a straight line, preferably the metal between those two points is as close to the "force line" as possible. The farther the steel tube is from the force the greater the bending momentum and the weaker the design. The other issue with the offset is the force at the ball socket is 5 degrees further off at the narrowest cross section.

Real lack of engineering knowledge went into this design.

 

[popo_patty]

$230 to my door for some hands on testing! Going to see how they look next to Icon and Hoss 3.0. Hopefully a good middle ground product that isn't overly strong.

The offset for the lift is a marketing gimmick. Offset does allow for more droop but the tie rod is not limiting anything so why? The other issue is force travels between two points in a straight line, preferably the metal between those two points is as close to the "force line" as possible. The farther the steel tube is from the force the greater the bending momentum and the weaker the design. The other issue with the offset is the force at the ball socket is 5 degrees further off at the narrowest cross section.

Real lack of engineering knowledge went into this design.

Got a sciency question for ya. Would this offset design help at all with bumpsteer from lifting or no in your opinion?

 

[cbrownabq]

The offset limits the stress to the housing and bushings.

 

[Snacktime]

Got a sciency question for ya. Would this offset design help at all with bumpsteer from lifting or no in your opinion?

We will see if the managed to make a shallower ball socket lengthing the arm. Probably same as stock.

The offset limits the stress to the housing and bushings.

Nothing about this tie rod does anything different from stock or other tie rods. Same 2 points where force comes in and goes out. Don't be fooled, any bent connection between 2 points weakens the design, it's an optical illusion.

 

[0ne]

Anybody see the rough countries, they’re straight as an arrow…good?

 

[dgorsett]

We will see if the managed to make a shallower ball socket lengthing the arm. Probably same as stock.



Nothing about this tie rod does anything different from stock or other tie rods. Same 2 points where force comes in and goes out. Don't be fooled, any bent connection between 2 points weakens the design, it's an optical illusion.

Yes, but the heavier weight (strength) might compensate. With the bend and more level orientation thrust on bushings and rack would be linear rather than angular, more like Ford designed it. I still wonder about bump steer due to different radius compared to the control arms.

 

[5GENIDN]

Got a sciency question for ya. Would this offset design help at all with bumpsteer from lifting or no in your opinion?

As long as the pivot points and arc of radius stay the same, bump steer should not change. Looking at them though, the unitball at the rack appears to be deeper and if the center of the pivot has been moved outboard it would increase bump steer (in this case a change in toe). If it has moved it appears to be very very slight, therefore any change in bump steer should be minimal I would guess.

I agree with Snack that the "bent arm" seems gimmicky and does weaken the arm itself. Normally you would only do this if there was some kind of clearance issue, which I am not aware of any different variation of suspension that might require or even benefit from this. I am guessing they did this to help facilitate the 5 degree angular offset at the knuckle. Also on the surface looks gimmicky but actually might vertically lower the line of force ever so slightly on the ball joint at the knuckle. did not know that was necessary though. I have not heard of a lot of knuckle ball joints breaking off. More than anything I think the benefit of the 5 degree angular change might benefit the life of the boots protecting the ends, inside bellows ever so slightly but especially outside ball joint boot. The arm itself appears to be considerably large enough to handle the "bend", as it appears the line of force remains inside the diameter of the arm although it does move considerably off center line.

Failure point has typically been at the threads. At least that is what I thought. The root has always been the smallest diameter of the rod. Stock I think is 15 mm at the root where the big difference in stepping up to HOSS 3 (performance) rod was that the root diameter was 16 mm I believe which does not sound like much (or look that dramatically different although you can visually see it) I think that was suppose to add something like 40 percent more strength. These look a lot bigger than the 16 mm at the thread root.

All of these thoughts are assuming that the casting and materials are of equal quality to the Ford stock units.

 

[popo_patty]

As long as the pivot points and arc of radius stay the same, bump steer should not change. Looking at them though, the unitball at the rack appears to be deeper and if the center of the pivot has been moved outboard it would increase bump steer (in this case a change in toe). If it has moved it appears to be very very slight, therefore any change in bump steer should be minimal I would guess.

I agree with Snack that the "bent arm" seems gimmicky and does weaken the arm itself. Normally you would only do this if there was some kind of clearance issue, which I am not aware of any different variation of suspension that might require or even benefit from this. I am guessing they did this to help facilitate the 5 degree angular offset at the knuckle. Also on the surface looks gimmicky but actually might vertically lower the line of force ever so slightly on the ball joint at the knuckle. did not know that was necessary though. I have not heard of a lot of knuckle ball joints breaking off. More than anything I think the benefit of the 5 degree angular change might benefit the life of the boots protecting the ends, inside bellows ever so slightly but especially outside ball joint boot. The arm itself appears to be considerably large enough to handle the "bend", as it appears the line of force remails inside the diameter of the arm although it does move considerably off center line.

Failure point has typically been at the threads. At least that is what I thought. The root has always been the smallest diameter of the rod. Stock I think is 15 mm at the root where the big difference in stepping up to HOSS 3 (performance) rod was that the root diameter was 16 mm I believe which does not sound like much (or look that dramatically different although you can visually see it) I think that was suppose to add something like 40 percent more strength. These look a lot bigger than the 16 mm at the thread root.

All of these thoughts are assuming that the casting and materials are of equal quality to the Ford stock units.

Good stuff, thanks for sharing! The threads are stated to be 18mm for reference.

 

[5GENIDN]

Good stuff, thanks for sharing! The threads are stated to be 18mm for reference.

That is going to require a hell of an upgrade on the rack if the tie rods ore going to remain the fuse...

18 would be a MASSIVE increase.,,,
Edit: well it is an increase of are of 144%

doing the numbers I thought someone said moving to 16 was a 40 percent increase but I think I must have misheard because I calculate a 14 percent increase. 14/40 I probably heard it wrong.

Again that is all assuming that materials and production processes are all of equal value.

 

[GChelini]

I have been using the RPG and they are pretty stout, I did put the bronc buster kit on it as well and will put new steering rack if it fails but figured I would use this until it breaks or at least has more wear on it. Here are a few pics of the suspension kit.

Sponsored