Steering Supports and Knuckles

[James_Douglas]

If one keeps an eye out on ebay...

 

Some of the reamers for the king pins come with an adapter that is used to press the bushings out. NEVER hammer on a bushing or a spindle use a mandrel and if need by have a general machine shop make you one.

 

I have then for both the 0.7xx size and the 0.9xx size. I also am using bearings in the upper as opposed to bushings.  See my thread on the steering PITA on my 1949 Desoto...

 

James.

[woodie49]

1 hour ago, Sniper said:

You know you are supposed to ream the bushings to size?  It's not a drop in install.

The ends of the pin, held by the steering knuckles, have bushings that need to be pressed in and then reamed to the pin size.  The knuckle support has a bore to accept the pin, but it does not have a bushing.  The pin goes thru and then you use a wedge shaped insert against the flat of the pin to tighten up the fit and insure the pin remains stationary in the support arm (I think you probably know this, but trying to be clear).  That is the bore that is too small for my pins.  It is .7945, the pins I have are .7965.  (sorry, I reversed the measurements (7s and 9s) in my first paragraph above - I am slightly dyslexic and usually notice this since I am aware of it.  So, .7945 is the bore, .7965 is the pin). The pins are very hard.  I do not think it makes sense to pound or otherwise force the fit.  Something has to give, I don't think it will be the pin. So, it is the support that I am considering boring out to accommodate the pin.  Also, this should be a hand assembly - not press fitted.  It might need to be assembled/disassembled one or twice to adjust the endplay with shims.

I am hoping that a NOS set of pins will fit my Knuckle Supports without the need to modify the bore. I just prefer not to modify if i don't have to. If I can find a vendor who has pins that are .7945 diameter, I assume that will do it. My guess is that this is probably the diameter of the original pins which were PN 626975. The post by Dodgeb4ya probably bears this out.  The box looks like original stock, so I assume the pins in the box are also original stock, and he measures them at .7945.

I have a set of pins, bushings, etc., so can make this work with only the pins.  But, if I find the original kit (PN 933 435) that would be preferable. These is a set on Ebay, but the seller has not been able to measure them for me.

[woodie49]

2 hours ago, James_Douglas said:

If you have a set of pins in the 0.9xxx range then you have a set that is for the MOPAR Large Wheelbase cars like my 1947 Desoto Suburban or the few Chrysler, Desoto, Plymouth and Dodge Limo's.

 

Someone put the wrong parts into your box. Send it back.

 

The 1946 to 1953 MOPAR all cars Master Parts Book show the "kit" as 933-435 for 1939 to 1954 Plymouth. 

 

Now that said, I have confirmed that the Parts Books have errors or omissions on the front end parts for 1949 and 1950. Remember that it was a late and by accounts rushed change from the warmed over 1942 models that 1946 to February 1949 models represent. They also changed things a lot for 1951. So in many ways information was played with fast and loose for the si months of actual 1949 production and the 12 months of 1950.

 

I have confirmed that some spindles were used on 1949 and 1950 cars that are NOT in the master parts books. I suspect a running change or a supplier issue.

 

Almost all but the LWB cars for MOPAR during those years used a king pin that was in the 0.7xxx size.

 

One thing. I would strongly consider using torrington needle bearings in place of the bushing in the upper. It will steer MUCH nicer with them. See the attached old article. Note that the tool he made was for something other than a MOPAR so size a tool as appropriate.

 

One note. The instructions in the sheets from MOPAR with the kits day to remove all end-ply using the shims on the thrust bearings. Do NOT do that. Make sure that you have between eight and ten thousands of end-play. I found a mid-1950's tech note on the subject. Binding was an issue.

 

James

King_Pin_Bearings.pdf 470.08 kB · 2 downloads

James - thanks for the PDF.  The woodie is a fairly small car.  It steers better than most my other similar era cars (which are mostly Packards) and, once this is back together, might see a couple thousand miles a year.  I think once back together, I will have no hard steering issue. but, if so, I know where to look.  I did follow your thread with interest.  At first I was glad it wasn't me, know i wish I wasn't me.  But, I will get it sorted out soon enough.  Thanks,.

[James_Douglas]

Oooohhhhh,

 

You are talking about the TAPERED LOCKING PIN not the king pin.  Somehow I missed that point.

 

They are tapered with a flat spot and on one side they come out one way and on the other side they come out the other. Make sure you are measuring the correct end.

 

I wrote in my Master parts book the following when I did the Big Desoto some 15 years ago:

 

"Passenger side is driven from the rear and comes out the front"

 

"Drivers side is driven out from the front and comes out the rear".

 

That was 15 years ago. Someone may want to comments if it is different on things other than a DeSoto. These pins are a one way only pin with a slight tapper. They should start just fine and tighten up as they are driven home with a brass drift.

 

James

[woodie49]

I guess I just wasn't clear.  I am talking about the King Pin.  The comment was whether I was aware that there were bushings that needed to be reamed to make the pins fit.  I was trying to communicate that the bore that was too small was not on the steering knuckles, which do use a bushing that needs to be reamed, but on the knuckle support, which does not have a bushing.  The pin simply goes through it and is then locked into place by the tapered pin.  But, the bore in the support (for the king pin) is a couple thousandths smaller than the King Pin.  Pounding it in does not seem like an option to me.  So, that is why i am trying to find a pin set with a diameter small enough to go through the support without requiring that i have the support honed out to a larger diameter.

[Loren]

I am so late to this party!

I am just about finished with my 12 inch brake project for my 52 Suburban and I've stumbled on the King Pins.

The 50 Chrysler Windsor I got the brakes and spindles off of had Torrington NB-15 upper needle bearings on the king pins.

Googling "Torrington NB-15" brings you back to P15-D24.com and the news that Torrington hasn't made that bearing in 40 years!

Another site gave me a description of that number:

Prefix: NB

"Drawn shell Needle bearing, single row of rollers, no inner ring, open end, Non-Standard Size"

Oops!

My usual source for bearings has been Motion Industries for about 45 years...so Monday I am going to pay them a visit.

I may have found an easy solution on my own, you simply install two narrower bearings in the spindle.

The likely suspect is an INA brand HK 2012. If it will fit, two will have a nice gap over the grease fitting hole and will actually be better than one big one but twice as expensive.

If that isn't going to work I will have to consider other approaches.

[James_Douglas]

Ok,

 

If the hole in the Support is too small, then something is really wrong.  What are the numbers cast into the support?

 

James

[James_Douglas]

3 hours ago, Loren said:

I am so late to this party!

I am just about finished with my 12 inch brake project for my 52 Suburban and I've stumbled on the King Pins.

The 50 Chrysler Windsor I got the brakes and spindles off of had Torrington NB-15 upper needle bearings on the king pins.

Googling "Torrington NB-15" brings you back to P15-D24.com and the news that Torrington hasn't made that bearing in 40 years!

Another site gave me a description of that number:

Prefix: NB

"Drawn shell Needle bearing, single row of rollers, no inner ring, open end, Non-Standard Size"

Oops!

My usual source for bearings has been Motion Industries for about 45 years...so Monday I am going to pay them a visit.

I may have found an easy solution on my own, you simply install two narrower bearings in the spindle.

The likely suspect is an INA brand HK 2012. If it will fit, two will have a nice gap over the grease fitting hole and will actually be better than one big one but twice as expensive.

If that isn't going to work I will have to consider other approaches.

The bearings show up all the time on ebay.  Just find some numbers and go hunting. James.

 

Also, as far as I can tell, the desoto and chrysler king pin kits, for the NOT LWB cars are the same just locate a kit with uppers that have bearings.

 

James

[Loren]

Thanks James

There is a kit available from www.fcrcmachine.com which includes a substitute brass bushing for the needle bearing their P/N 30124.

I would imagine there should be plenty of new old stock parts available as Chrysler made these cars for years.

I have a local source I am going to try before I spend any more time on this.

If worse comes to worse I will just turn my own bushings. The fcrcmachine website confirmed all my measurements so it's no big deal.

[woodie49]

13 hours ago, James_Douglas said:

Ok,

 

If the hole in the Support is too small, then something is really wrong.  What are the numbers cast into the support?

 

James

James, I tried to go down this road in an earlier thread, but I don't think a lot of people have parts cross reference books that helped.  The part numbers on the support are: 1313951 12232 (pass) and 1313951 12130 (dvr).  You can make out the number for the support n the first posting in this thread.  These numbers DO NOT match my parts book, which calls out 859079 12235 (pass) and 859079 12259 (dvr).  I thought that these must have come off another Ply/Dodge.   They certainly look correct for the car and I don,y t know the Dodge parts. 

 

I have found a MOOG catalogue online that provides a lot more data (this really helps).  What I do find in that catalog is that the specs for all the 6 cyl Plymouths from 1939 (P7) to 1954 (P25); all the Chrysler 6 cyl from 1940 to 1954; Dodge 6 cyl from 1934 to 1955 and the 6 cyl De Sotos from the same years all use a king pin with the spec .795 (diameter) X 5 7/8 (length).  Other than those, the 7 passenger and eight cylinder models all used pins that were a significantly larger diameter (usually .936).  The only pin that I saw in all this was a tad smaller was for a 1934 Model PF Plymouth, which had a pin of .733 x 5 7/8 and had the notch offset from the center.  I believe that the suspension in that year was sufficiently different that this support could not have come from that car. So, if the MOOG catalog is right, then the spec is .795.  I think I just need to find NOS pins that have the original diameter for the part, as the current sets I have all have a diameter of .7965. If the originals are still too large (it couldn't be by much) then I will have the Supports honed to fit.  

 

So, while the supports are a mystery (maybe they are Dodge?) as to the part numbers, I think they are similar to the originals.  I am anxious to see if a NOS pin set will fit through. If not, then I'll have them honed.  Not sure there is much further to go with this.

[Sniper]

The Delco set I posted measure .795".

[woodie49]

56 minutes ago, Sniper said:

The Delco set I posted measure .795".

 

So some of the aftermarket are also to .795 spec.  That is helpful.  At least one Ebay vendor has come back with 795, also aftermarket.  So, I will be able to source a set and hopefully that will do the trick.  I would just think that  they would all be the same.  Someone mentioned that oversize pins might have been not unusual, but I would assume that if someone is selling oversized, they would know.

[kencombs]

Do you have the packaging, manufacturer name and or part number for the pins you have?  If so, maybe some research could turn up the missing info.  ie, are they intended to be OS?

 

I'd almost bet they are.  But, if so they would have a clear marking on the package, unless mispacked.

[woodie49]

4 hours ago, kencombs said:

Do you have the packaging, manufacturer name and or part number for the pins you have?  If so, maybe some research could turn up the missing info.  ie, are they intended to be OS?

 

I'd almost bet they are.  But, if so they would have a clear marking on the package, unless mispacked.

Yes, I have the packaging for both sets of pins. The packaging is identical and is plain brown box - no info of any kind on it except for a stamped number "53" on it. One I bought a while back, not sure when or where.  The other I just bought from AB.  I talked to them before I bought this set about the issue I was having, I am sure if they were selling oversized pin sets, they would have mentioned it to me given that I had explained my issue to them before they sent the pin set to me.  I am getting various size specs as i go through this.  In this thread, we have a .7945 and a .795.  I know I have a .7965.  It is possible that both my calipers are both off a bit, but they agree.  Once I settle on a set, hopefully it will fit.

[kencombs]

If there is a machine shop near you with a centerless grinding capability, they should be able to resize your pins quickly.  but, I don't know if it is cost effective. 

[Loren]

James was right.

I found a set of NOS NAPA Kingpins with the Torrington NB-15 needle bearings for $40 ($52 delivered) on ebay.

So all is well. Since the seller did not unwrap the needle bearings I am sure anyone who looked at the photos thought it was an incomplete set.

I could see a wrapper which clearly said "Torrington NB-15 bearings" so I pulled the trigger.

 

If you bought your kit from Andy's, they have a black oxide coating on them. I would imagine that could be smoothed down with a Scotchbrite wheel.

I don't think I will use the black oxide pins, I'll use the bright NAPA pins...just say'n.

 

[James_Douglas]

The forging numbers sometimes match the MOPAR part numbers and sometimes not. I have also seen forging numbers that were close but not exactly the same as those in my Hollander Interchange.

 

The Hollander shows for 1941 to 1950 Plymouth as:

856164 Right and Left

or

1119642 Right and 1119643 Left.

 

I would hunt on ebay for a NOS support and if you can find one that is tagged with the correct MOPAR part number...see if you can cross reference its forging number. I would also buy it so I could check it against what you have on the car.

 

One should take a good long time to run this down as if there is a mix and match in these parts the front end alignment may not come out correct.

 

As a last resort, I would get a NOS support and a NOS Spindle that you can confirm is in fact correct and take measurements from them and apply them to what you have. A good machine shop could open up the support hole to match the NOS parts you ran down. Then you can move forward and have a set of spares should you every need them. In particular if it is one of the 856164 supports that are same for left and right.

 

James

 

 

[James_Douglas]

FYI

 

Frank, or rather his old company since he is long dead, has three of those supports.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1941-1950-Plymouth-Dodge-DeSoto-Chrysler-STEERING-KNUCKLE-SUPPORT-NOS-MoPar-/402293513426

 

I would double check my master parts books and talk with them to confirm then buy a set..

 

On my 1949, I had to replace one as it had a slight tweak in it and that would toss out the alignment no matter what. One big pot hole can do that on the supports.

 

James.

[Dodgeb4ya]

Knuckle supports can be different because of the style and size of the shock stud.

Some are swedged into the support and others are bolted. Stud diameters are different too.

Check carefully if you do buy.

Some later Mopar replacement supports were made to supercede and fit but made slightly different mainly because of the shock stud differences.

[woodie49]

Just to follow up on this.  i got a set of NOS  PN 626 975.  They are .795 diameter.  They fit like a glove.  They are tight, but i don't need to pound them in.  I returned the oversized pins.  It still bothers me that the replacement parts are .015 larger diameter than the originals.  Given the design, i don't really see that an oversized pin would ever really be needed. I just think these are being made to the wrong spec.  I assume that we will be seeing more of this problem going forward. 

I still need to have the bushings pressed in and reamed.  Hopefully I have found a place to do that.

All the info on this is much appreciated.  Without it, I probably would have gone down the road of honing out the supports to a bigger bore, not needed.

[Dodgeb4ya]

A lot of replacement parts for old cars just don't fit...as you know.

Most all old stock parts work fine as of course factory parts.

Chinese parts stay away from at any cost.

[Young Ed]

My p15 ate the first set of king pins I installed. When I was doing the second they said the uprights were worn. I now wonder if your oversized pins were either proper for them or designed to save them

[Dodgeb4ya]

I've never seen a factory 46-54 MoPar or old aftermarket set of OS king pins.

The knuckle support bore would have to be honed accurately for new over size pins to do the job right.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Dodgeb4ya

[James_Douglas]

I would still run down a torrington bearing for the upper...the car will self center a lot better. In 1949 they changed the front end geometry and went to a LOT of negative castor. Having the bearings versus the bushing has zero down side and may well have a big up side.

 

This will become especially apparent as the contact patch of the radials available are are usually 20% to 40% wider at the contact patch than the old bias tires. In parking it makes a substantial difference.

 

James

[Plymouthy Adams]

James, what book you using to get the negative caster specs from....there is no change in 46-54 per the Plymouth book and I believe the man has a Plymouth as his project.  In 51 there was a slight change in camber.