Jump to content

snoopy2x

Moderators
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About snoopy2x

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Moses, Well, it took me awhile, but I eventually found someone with an AMC 1971 Universal Parts List, and he was kind enough to scan and email the relevant pages. Below are those including the brake arm from my Kaiser Jeep 1966 Parts List, as well as the pages from the '71 list. From what I can tell, it doesn't appear that the brake arm pushrod stud had a separate part number in either case. Do you notice anything along those lines that I didn't?: 1966: 1971:
  2. That's an interesting thought, and is certainly a possibility. I don't know that Fred or I have an OEM bellcrank shaft to compare to the one from the kit, but maybe another member reading this does, and could provide a comparison. Thank you again for your help with all of this, Moses!
  3. Thanks very much, Moses, and I've sent Fred a link to your excellent analysis above. I asked him if the threaded part of the bellcrank pin that came with the kit had a hole drilled through it to accept a cotter pin, and he said it did. I can understand his and his mechanic's confusion. While the bellcrank pin has that hole, the self-locking nut (which resembles a castle nut, but has narrower slots) would not allow for the installation of a cotter pin through it without modifying the nut by widening the slots. It sounds like maybe the manufacturer of the bellcrank repair kit he purchased started out including a castle nut that would allow the insertion of a cotter pin, then switched to a self-locking nut at some point during production - but did so while continuing to provide bellcrank pins with a cotter pin hole drilled through them. In any case, Fred has already purchased an NOS bellcrank and the Timken tapered roller bearings needed to have a custom bellcrank machined, like the ones shown in my post on the 8th. That custom unit will likely be installed later this month, and will hopefully permanently solve the issue.
  4. Your comment about self-locking nuts above got me to thinking about the shaft nut in the kit Fred used. Looking at the images shown in the link ( https://walcks4wd.com/bell-crank-kit-78-2a-3a-3b-cj5.html ), I wonder if the shaft nut that came in this kit, which visually correlates with Fred's description of having very narrow cotter pin slots, could actually have been intended by its manufacturer to be a self-locking nut, rather than a castle nut? Here's an enlarged image of the nut shown in one of the photos on the link:
  5. I just spoke with Fred, and he had a (different) mechanic put the jeep up on a lift today to try to figure out exactly what caused this failure. It appears that the mechanic who installed the mount and bellcrank assembly a couple of years ago made two separate mistakes during the installation. First, no cotter pin had been installed through the castle nut at the top of the pin. In fact, the mechanic who looked at the jeep today had to slightly grind some of the "crenelations" at the top of the castle nut in order to make them wide enough to accept even a small-diameter cotter pin. Second, the previous mechanic had also overtorqued the pinch bolt to the point that it stripped the threads. Though the bolt was still in place, because the threads were stripped inside the nut, it was no longer capable of maintaining the necessary tensile "pinching" force on the pin across the slot in the mount. As far as the parts used in the 2016 installation, the bellcrank was NOS. The bellcrank shaft kit used was one that should have been (to the best of my knowledge) the correct version for Fred's jeep. His is an early 1967 CJ5 built in November of 1966. Here's a link to the rebuild kit he bought (note the narrow slots in the castle nut): https://walcks4wd.com/bell-crank-kit-78-2a-3a-3b-cj5.html I don't know for sure whether or not any parts were lost, but from his description it sounded like Fred still has all of them. Moving forward, Fred has decided to have a modified double tapered-roller-bearing bellcrank (like those linked to above) machined and install it as soon as possible. His reasoning is that this mod will not only add a greater margin of safety, but will also result in a more easily maintainable bellcrank assembly that's less likely to loosen over time and cause unwanted play in the steering system. Fred certainly realizes that he was very, very lucky indeed that the bellcrank pin fell out when and where it did. The consequences could have been truly disastrous if it had happened at speed and/or in traffic, which he had been very shortly before it failed. That someone was looking out for him seems, to both he and I, to be quite obvious!
  6. April 8, 2018 (almost 2 years after initial posts above) My brother in law Fred had a significant failure occur in his 1967 CJ5's steering system today. It could easily have been catastrophic if it had happened while he was on the road, instead of minutes later as he was pulling the jeep into his garage. He was extremely fortunate, to say the least. The shaft of the same steering bellcrank pictured above (in 2016) literally fell out onto his driveway this afternoon, immediately disabling the steering. Based on his photos below, it appears that the pinch bolt that clamps the mount around the bellcrank shaft must have loosened itself over time - possibly to the point that it actually fell out(?) - and the nut on the top of the shaft likewise worked itself loose. Once both were gone, the shaft dropped out of the mount. Fred and I had been concerned about this possibility, as mentioned in the first post in this thread a couple of years ago. In an effort to ensure that preventative measures were properly taken, Fred subsequently had the frame mount replaced and the bellcrank assembly re-installed by a local mechanic who supposedly had experience with older jeeps. Given what just happened, however, it's highly questionable whether or not that work was performed correctly. Fred sent these photos he took earlier today: Needless to say, Fred's a bit shaken up by this (and so am I!) If you have any questions, I'll be glad to relay those to him and post his answers. - Do you have any thoughts in terms of forensic analysis? - Also, is there anything you would recommend be done in order to prevent a recurrence, beyond what you already suggested above? I'm wondering if Fred should consider upgrading to one of these modified bellcrank assemblies: ....or one of these similar modified bellcranks by one of the Early CJ5 site members: http://www.earlycj5.com/xf_cj5/index.php?threads/steering-bellcrank-rebuild-qusetion.129680/#post-1395299
  7. Moses, your theory very well may be correct. The brake arm and the associated pin may have been differently numbered parts in the Kaiser Jeep Parts List. If so, this would explain the apparent discrepancy that the brake arms with the earlier smaller pins have the same part number as those with the later larger pins. Thanks very much for your feedback!
  8. I asked the machinist working on the bronze arm if it was cast or forged, and he's pretty certain it was forged, as there are no inclusions as would be expected with a casting. He also said it is definitely solid bronze, as opposed to being plated. As best I can determine, the CJ5 V6 brake arms were a one-off modification of the earlier brake arms used on other CJs and the M38 and M38A1. As NOS brake arms for the V6 are no longer available, a good fix for worn arms is to have them bushed. As you're well aware, the inevitable wear to the inside diameter of these arms causes brake pedal side-to-side wobble. The bronze bushing in the '71 brake arm isn't factory, but was installed as a repair to correct this problem. Below is the (dirty, still unpolished) bronze brake arm from the '67 (top) and the one from a '71 (bottom). Like the M38A1 brake arm, the one from my '67 has the smaller pin for the early single-reservoir master brake cylinder. The one from the '71 has a larger-diameter pin to accommodate the later double-reservoir master brake cylinder. This pin is a longer, larger diameter one-piece pin, rather than a sleeve pressed over a smaller pin. However, despite the significant difference in the master cylinder pins, which are more or less specialized rivets permanently attached to the arms, these two brake arms have the same part number, 941416. Why Jeep would make them with two very different pin sizes but not change the part number is an interesting question. Maury
  9. The guy installing the bushing for me is an experienced machinist, and he had the same question about it possibly being plated, but concluded after some additional investigation that it is a solid bronze cast piece. I was intrigued by your thought that the bronze arm might possibly be a leftover M38A1 brake arm, and did a bit of investigation about this possibility. It turns out that though they are indeed very similar, the M38A1 brake arm is not identical to the CJ5 V6 brake arm. The two have different part numbers as well. Below is a shot of an M38A1 brake arm above a (cast steel) brake arm from a '71 V6 CJ5. As you can see, the "bends" in the castings are slightly different between these two parts: Note that the brake arm from the '71 has exactly the same shape, and also the same part number as the one off my '67 jeep. However, like the M38A1 brake arm, the one from my '67 has the smaller pin for the early single-reservoir master brake cylinder. The one from the '71 has the larger-diameter pin to accommodate the later double-reservoir master brake cylinder. (Why Jeep would make brake arms with two different pin sizes but not change the part number is a mystery to me.) Did any other thoughts occur to you as to why the one on my '67 was made of bronze? As you say, there must be a reason, but so far it has been an elusive one to figure out. Maury
  10. I sent what I believe to be my jeep's original brake arm to a machinist in Alabama who rebushes a lot of them for members of the Early CJ5 site. As it was being cleaned and then glass-beaded, he realized that unlike any others he had previously seen, this brake arm is made of bronze rather than steel. He started a thread about it with this photo: http://www.earlycj5.com/xf_cj5/index.php?threads/strange-brake-arm.129750/ Apparently, these solid bronze brake arms have been found on a number of '66 & '67 CJ5s (http://www.earlycj5.com/xf_cj5/index.php?threads/brass-brake-pedal-arm.89095/#post-951636), so it's likely an OEM jeep part. My question is, why would Kaiser Jeep have made some brake arms out of bronze instead of (less expensive) steel in the first place? Do you have any insight on that? The vast majority of the wear on mine was to the (also likely original) steel cross shaft, rather than to the inside diameter of the bronze brake arm pivot. I've always thought that steel is harder than bronze, and would think that the bronze would therefore wear out faster than the steel. Am I wrong about that? Maury
  11. EchoWars, thanks, and I agree with both of your points. As for the second, having the same thought, I bought a bunch of extras of those particular filter elements on closeout. As I only drive my jeep 1000 miles or so a year, mostly on paved roads, I figure I can get by for another 30+ years using the air filters I have on hand. And since I kept my original stock oil bath air cleaner unit, I could always go back to that if I (or my son, who will eventually inherit the jeep) ever need to.
  12. My goals with this project were: 1) to eliminate the problem of oil dripping onto my intake manifold when removing or installing the oil bath air cleaner (which I learned the hard way was all too easy to do); 2) to resolve this issue without changing the external appearance of the original air cleaner housing, and 3) to accomplish both of the above while still providing an adequate amount of low-resistance flow of filtered air to the engine. This mod achieved all three, so I think it was worth the effort involved. Removing the paper filter element is as simple as taking off the upper air cleaner housing and lifting out the cartridge. As with all of the rebuilds and mods I've done on this jeep, I really enjoy the challenge of creating a workable solution to a problem like this!
  13. Yep....both the top and bottom of the 170 CFM filter element seal tight against the two stainless steel discs installed in the OEM oil bath housing. Glad to finally have this project done! Maury
  14. Note: I've just updated my original post above to show how I improved the initial modification to use a 170 CFM paper filter element, rather than the 90 CFM filter I'd first used. Hope this is helpful to those considering converting their oil bath air cleaners to use a paper element. Maury
  15. HI Moses, I have some general questions for you re. oil bath air cleaners vs. paper filters. I've read that oil baths, while they work well in terms of removing particulate matter from the air, tend to become more restrictive as the air flow through them increases. However, I've not yet found any conclusive data in terms of a CFM comparison of an oil bath air cleaner vs. a paper filter type. The paper filter manufacturers, e.g. Wix, do publish CFM figures for each of the filters the make - but do those figures represent an actual maximum air flow for a given filter, and is that figure generated via a calculation of the filtration / surface area of that paper element? When I chose the Wix 42011 filter for this conversion, I selected it based on 1) the fact that it fit well into the modified oil bath housing, and 2) that it is commonly used on similar sized (i.e. 225 c.i. 6-cylinder) motors, as well as some larger V8s. That particular filter also had the highest CFM rating (90) of the various filters that were within the dimensional diameter and height ranges I needed. In 1970, Kaiser jeep shifted to a paper filter for the 225 V6. I checked the data for those particular filters on the Wix website and found that they were shown as being 155 CFM. My jeep, even with a modified cam that probably somewhat increases the air flow required compared to a stock motor, seems to run quite well on the 90 CFM filter I just installed. But would it run even better on a less-restrictive 155 CFM filter like the ones used on the 1970 V6s - or a filter with an even higher CFM figure? Conversely, could I have used a paper filter with a significantly lower CFM "rating", and still have achieved good results? In other words, in selecting a paper filter to replace an oil bath type, is there a "right" way to approximate an air filtration CFM range required by or recommended for a given motor displacement? Thanks, Moses, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts. This project, as they all seem to be, is yet another learning experience! Maury
×
×
  • Create New...