Rack-Hack. HOSS 3.0 severe duty STEERING RACK and TIE RODS ...Ford Performance M-3200-WT

[BigMeatsBronco]

Maybe silly question but wouldn't just purchasing the bushing and end housing from Bronco buster for your original rack be cheaper and easier at this point? I don't know what size wheels you plan to run but I think he's solution would hold up to normal amd moderate off roading....and could be done before Moab.

Gross

Sponsored

 

[zuke]

hmmm. 2, 2.0 racks coupled in series? or independently operating 1 wheel each?

One in the stock location, and one behind the FDU running the rack the opossite direction from the one in the front with a tierod hitting the back of the knuckle, so one rack is pushing the knucke out in the back, while the other is pulling it to center in the front.

Four wimpy (14mm) tie rods have got to be better than two beefy (16mm), right?

Plus if you DO blow one of the racks out, you still ought to be able to get home on the other!

***Disclaimer*** I'm in no way endorsing this idea! It's just what popped into my brain as soon as @Tex said it!

 

[NORCALGXP]

@zuke can make a engineering image please sounds like a plan

 

[Tex]

Funny thing is while I was contemplating a solution to the weak tie rods and rack before the 3.0 ever came out, I had thought of an "idler rack" of sorts. Basically a non-powered rack with tie rods attached behind the hub, which would tie both wheels together in tension. No matter which way you turned the wheels, at least two tie rods would be in tension, and if you know basic engineering a long metal object in tension is considerably stronger than one in compression. A 2.0 tie rod in tension will hold more force than the best tie rod replacements on the market in compression. So if there was considerable force acting on the wheel, rather than easily bending and collapsing a tie rod under compression, the other tie rod would be in tension, holding that force with ease.

If there was room to physically slave a second rack behind the first, theoretically you'd have twice the steering power and twice the strength, you could set all four tie rods under tension to take out all the slack in tie rod ends and bushings, and there would be some measure of redundancy in case something failed.

Just a pipe dream though, there's definitely not enough room for that.

 

[Ducati1098]

23S09 steering gear recall has been updated.
It now states that service parts were NOT affected by this.

 

[Snacktime]

I'm want full hydro, why complicate the system more than you have to.

 

[Ducati1098]

Also, here is the repair parts and labor information for anyone curious. As you can see, these are limited to SSSC ordering due to limited parts availability.

 

[zuke]

Just a pipe dream though, there's definitely not enough room for that.

I think there really might be room if the slave rack were behind and above or below the FDU centerline, can't be level with it, because of the pinion, Can't be too high above it because of exhaust routing, underneath would be hard to protect.

Things it would require that make it pretty impractical though; Custom Knuckles with rear facing tie rod mounts, in addition to the front ones,

Programming to run without an actual physical input... If this were possible, it could be written to make whichever rack was "pulling in" (tension) have a bias, while the one that's "pushing out" (compressing) remain somewhat slack.

OK, It's fun to think about, but really, just a beefier rack in the stock location is still the easy answer

 

[BroncoBass]

Thanks for posting this!! I'm super stoked that service parts are not affected... Now, back to getting around to installing my 3.0 rack that has been sitting for months!

23S09 steering gear recall has been updated.
It now states that service parts were NOT affected by this.

 

[Tex]

I think there really might be room if the slave rack were behind and above or below the FDU centerline, can't be level with it, because of the pinion, Can't be too high above it because of exhaust routing, underneath would be hard to protect.

Things it would require that make it pretty impractical though; Custom Knuckles with rear facing tie rod mounts, in addition to the front ones,

Programming to run without an actual physical input... If this were possible, it could be written to make whichever rack was "pulling in" (tension) have a bias, while the one that's "pushing out" (compressing) remain somewhat slack.

OK, It's fun to think about, but really, just a beefier rack in the stock location is still the easy answer

My biggest hangup on the idea was how it would affect the steering and suspension geometry.
Having tie rods on one side of the hub causes toe in/out changes as the suspension cycles, some are set up really well and minimize this but it's still there, especially if the steering isn't straight at the time. If you were to have both sides hooked up, there would be no room for this toe in/out to naturally occur and would likely cause some sort of binding in the system.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

More information...

A piece could get stuck in the gear?

Here's a quote from the article..

."After tearing down the steering gearbox, Ford found that the ball nut retainer was broken which in turn allowed the balls to wedge in between the steering gears. Should the problem continue unchecked, it’s possible that the gearbox could end up locked up and leave the SUV without the ability to change direction."

https://www.carscoops.com/2023/03/f...-on-broncos-with-steering-gear-safety-recall/

 

[SS Bronco]

Maybe silly question but wouldn't just purchasing the bushing and end housing from Bronco buster for your original rack be cheaper and easier at this point? I don't know what size wheels you plan to run but I think he's solution would hold up to normal amd moderate off roading....and could be done before Moab.

“Normal and moderate off roading”, doesn’t come close to @NORCALGXP driving style.

 

[zuke]

My biggest hangup on the idea was how it would affect the steering and suspension geometry.
Having tie rods on one side of the hub causes toe in/out changes as the suspension cycles, some are set up really well and minimize this but it's still there, especially if the steering isn't straight at the time. If you were to have both sides hooked up, there would be no room for this toe in/out to naturally occur and would likely cause some sort of binding in the system.

I have an idea to get around that, but I feel we're dragging this pretty far off topic if we get into it, and as cool an idea as dual racks might be, I still think a single rack that's up to the task is the best solution..

 

[Snacktime]

My biggest hangup on the idea was how it would affect the steering and suspension geometry.
Having tie rods on one side of the hub causes toe in/out changes as the suspension cycles, some are set up really well and minimize this but it's still there, especially if the steering isn't straight at the time. If you were to have both sides hooked up, there would be no room for this toe in/out to naturally occur and would likely cause some sort of binding in the system.

I was having a hard time understanding this till I found this. It looks like a 3.0 steering rack, high steer kit and hydro assist.

 

[Tex]

More information...

A piece could get stuck in the gear?

Here's a quote from the article..

."After tearing down the steering gearbox, Ford found that the ball nut retainer was broken which in turn allowed the balls to wedge in between the steering gears. Should the problem continue unchecked, it’s possible that the gearbox could end up locked up and leave the SUV without the ability to change direction."

https://www.carscoops.com/2023/03/f...-on-broncos-with-steering-gear-safety-recall/

The part that I took notice of was this quote:
"a grinding noise and a loss of power steering but no loss of directional control."
So, that's easy enough to check...we're not supposed to be affected by this but it's hard to say that for sure, at least now we know what to keep an eye on.

Sponsored