I have stopped and thought about it and believe within reason we improve with each change in design. I remember doing many a frozen king pin so I welcomed ball joints instead. I have never seen a ball joint freeze. You want a dangerous situation? Someone driving one of these trucks with a frozen pin. I personally believe rack & pinion superior to a standard steering box (reticulated (spelling?) ball type) for light duty driving.

I have driven many of these trucks over the years and pulling the I Beam suspension was a no brainer to me. The handling, ride, stopping are all superior to what Ford originally put on the truck. Mine came down 6 1/2". With minor mods my truck would still be capable of towing what it was originally specked to tow. The mod would be air bags which they are using on new trucks for just that. I have full suspension travel.

What you state is your opinion. If you can show me what you state is factual I will conceed. Like William's truck mine has been retired from service as a truck. I don't like the bump stop situation on his truck but it's not my truck. With your logic we would still be using brakes that were actuated mechanically. I tell everyone to take 5 seconds before speaking. It appears you do not subscribe to that concept.

We now return to our regularly scheduled thread.

 

my truck is put up in storage for the winter. maybe I can swing by there this weekend and take a few pictures for you and post them.
like someone stated above, there's always a right way to do it in a wrong way to do it. this is of course being 1 of the right ways to do it. and also like I mentioned above I have yet to have my truck bottom out in the rear. I also do not use this truck as a truck. I also don't use it as a race car. when I want to drive a little faster, I'll break out my boss 302 mustang. LOL.

 

Williamwilliam,

I had messaged you on the other board, and you directed me to this thread. I went ahead and ordered the entire AIM set up, part number for part number. So, I just got a shipping confirmation, and it will arrive on Friday. (1/20) I hope to get everything installed, in the next 10 days or so. I will definitely post up some pics, and overall opinions. I hope mine looks as good as yours!

 

Thanks!! Photos would be great!! Just like you said, My truck won't be used to dragrace, tow or anything like that. The most my truck will haul will be chairs and a cooler . Front and rear photos of yours would be nice. It's been a long time coming with my truck and I have to get it right for Spring time.

 

How many 1000's of Dodge dakotas were recalled due to the possibility of their ball joints seperating? I had the recall done on my 03 just after they started popping. Not a single instance, but many.

Search for a Recall | Safercar.gov | NHTSA
04V596000

 

1000's when balanced against ? Ball joints have been used since ? Was it in the '60's or '50's when started. On how many different makes and models? Even if every single ball joint put in a Dakota failed you still have a very small number percentage wise when balanced against the whole. Of course what is also being pointed out here is engineers don't always get it right.

Back to ball joints 1,116,409 is the number of sold Dakotas total since '99. That makes 4,465,636 total ball joints used in Dodge Dakotas. In 1967 alone for the Camaro usage was 883,624 or roughly 20% of all Dakota usage. Stir in 1968 and we have a total for the Camaro of 1,824,212. Starting to see the picture? That is only 2 yrs Camaro compared to all Dakotas. What now if we stir in all vehicles of every make and model that incorporate ball joints when compared to Dakotas? The Dakota number becomes next to nothing overall. We have assumed 100% failure for all years Dakota in this example. From '67-'69 Chevrolet produced 1,325,464 2WD trucks. 3 yrs production against 13 for the Dakota.

5 seconds is really all it takes.

 

I have the front hangers flipped, and a 15lb bottle of nitrous in the bed. None of the ford engineers designed my truck for it. I fixed it for them

 

Sorry guys, I didnt get to go to storage this weekend. I will go this coming friday for sure and take pics of the install, front and back, and post them up for you.

 

WilliamWilliam,

I just looked at my tie rod relocator and the front tab is not connected to anything. This just can't be right!! It looks like from your photos, it should be connected to the spindle. The spindles on my '67 are off a 1976 F100 with disc bracks. What spindles do you have? This is bugging the mess out of me and I gotta get this fixed.

Thanks!! JohnDavid

 

Did you buy parts for a '67 or a '76?

 

The beams are for my '67 and the spindles off the '76 fit,work and are appear to have no problem. But the tie rod relocator tab just has no where to bolt to that is can see.

 

I didn't ask you what you have. I asked you what you bought. I understand you bought these parts for your 1967 pickup but you no longer have a 1967 pickup when it comes to certain parts up front.

 

What I bought were the AIM/DJM Drop Beams, same thing WilliamWilliam has on and in his photos of his '68 F100. I'm converting from drum to disc. Attached to the beams are '76 spindles, discs and calipers. The tie rod relocator is connected and in the correct possision but the tab on the relocator doesn't appear to be able to attatch to anything.

 

Forget it. I asked the same simple question twice and for whatever reason you refuse to answer it.

 

Well excuse me!!! Maybe I don't understand your question.