Shift Linkage UJs Hitting Chassis

Has the location of the trunnion bearing been changed?

quote:

I know the engine and gearbox have been lowered in the chassis

Can you post a photo of your issue?

I am unclear as to what portion of the chassis is the culprit.

If the engine/ZF package has been lowered, I can see where problems would occur.

Larry

Thanks Larry .... I cannot get a photo at the moment because the linkage is disassembled. I am going to see if I can get a slimmer UJ assembly and see if this will clear. If not I shall put the whole lot back together and then post a photo of it.

Question though: how might lowering the engine/gearbox affect the movement of the rod?

As far as I know the engine mod was done by the previous but one owner who used to sprint/hillclimb the car and made many modifications for the purpose (eg fuel tank moved to front bonnet space). From what I know everything worked then so I am assuming this problem I have is to do with the positioning of the UJ's on the shift linkage shafts.

Does that make sense?

I am not aware of the trunnion having been moved (there is no evidence to suggest this) but he height of the adjustment of the rod support does seem to make a difference to the way the linkage works. Should this be set to its maximum height, or minimum?

Murray

quote:

I cannot get a photo at the moment because the linkage is disassembled.

Murray,

How about a chassis photo so we can understand WHERE your interference point is?

I, for one, can't offer any specific ideas - and that will be all they are, ideas - until I better understand the problem.

In my 14 years as part of the DeTomaso Family, I've never heard of a problem like you are describing. Which leads me to believe it is connected to the Cleveland/ZF lowering you've mentioned.

Larry

quote:

I, for one, can't offer any specific ideas - and that will be all they are, ideas - until I better understand the problem.

In my 14 years as part of the DeTomaso Family, I've never heard of a problem like you are describing. Which leads me to believe it is connected to the Cleveland/ZF lowering you've mentioned.

And maybe a picture of your parts would be helpful too. Do you know if you're assembling with the original parts, or something the last owner cobbled together? Pictures will help us all understand and determine what's going on!

I have seen this on a very few cars- even stockers. The impact area is the leading edge of the left inner fender panel. It's VERY difficult to access with the engine & ZF in place, but some owners have pounded or ground out a recess in that area for clearance. There's room for a dent but also a couple of suspension doublers that make pounding more difficult. What's happened is, your car was marginal to start with & the engine reposition required adjusting the support under the header, which 'shortened' the shift-shaft, according to Pythagorith's Theorum. So the u-joint which barely cleared before has moved backward that tiny bit & hits. It may even clear when cold but hits when everything is hot & expanded.

You may have better luck loosening all the motormount bolts, and prying the whole powertrain to the right, then re-tightening. In the 2-3 stock cases I saw, the interference was slight.

quote:

Pythagorith's Theorum

Really, this is a car forum. Quit using such big words!



Just kidding of course!!!

Scott could hook you up with his new cable shifter and all your shift linkage woes will be a thing of the past.

quote:

Scott could hook you up with his new cable shifter and all your shift linkage woes will be a thing of the past.

LOL... Thanks Garth!

Murray;
Agree with previous posts that it is difficult to visualize the shift linkage in a lowered engine/transaxle configuration. If you are using the OE shift linkage, is there a possibility of repositioning the UJ on the splines and make an adjustment with the turnbuckle on the shift linkage? Sounds as if the tolerances are so close, fine tuning with various adjustments may be your only alternative.

Murray, not sure what is stopping or hitting when you "move the UJ on the spline so it is as far forward as it will go in order not to foul the chassis member I then can't move the gear lever back far enough to get gears 1,3 and 5."
Is the UJ hitting the trunnion / rod support?
I added a picture of my linkage. Ignore the fact that they are the "blingy" UJ's, the stock ones could be less bulky.

Shifter in 2nd.

Shifter in 3rd.

Thank you to everyone for their comments ... clearly my problem is "exceptional"!

Just for clarification, the problem is the rear half of the UJ just to the rear of the shift shaft rod support hits the chassis member which supports the rear wheel upper wishbone. Sorry I can't post a photograph but I am away from the car till next Tuesday.

Anyway .... I have found a supply of some very neat UJ's which are only 41mm diameter and have recessed pinch bolts. I am hoping that as these are considerably smaller in diameter than the existing UJ's and are perfectly cylindrical one of these will clear the chassis member and solve the problem.

What still puzzles me is that the linkage must have worked previously as I have spoken to the first owner (who made all the mods) and, listening to what he said and seeing the quality of everything else he did, I can't believe he would have left the car only able to use half the gears!

Maybe as JAG13CAT says, it is a question of fine adjustments.

The learning point for me in all of this is: don't buy a car that comes in 101 boxes of bits - at least buy one that's in one piece to begin with!

I'll post the outcome of my trials in due course.

Didn't realize you had non-stock u-joints on the shifter shaft. Take a look at the steering shaft, too- it uses the same u-joints as in the shifter, but interference there would be far more serious! The bad part of non-stock u-joints is, they're more bulky than stock. The good part is, some are non-corroding stainless or aluminum, and their round shanks allow the use of a boot to keep lube around the needle bearings & protect from weathering. But that makes the package even more bulky.... I did a couple of articles on rebuilding stock u-joints in the 2015 Feb & Mar POCA magazine, so your problem is timely.

I have the same Flaming river joints. They are indeed a bit too solid for this application since meant for the use in steering racks. I had mine machined down to make them look less bulky, and save some weight

quote:

Originally posted by Kid:
I have the same Flaming river joints. They are indeed a bit too solid for this application since meant for the use in steering racks. I had mine machined down to make them look less bulky, and save some weight

My UJ's are from Borgeson. I don't have a problem with binding or interference with these in my car and work well. The old units were notchy.
I think the op, Murray, has the original UJ's.

AH HAH!

If you received all the parts in boxes, a thought has occurred to me that might make sense.

Have you perhaps assembled the shift rods backwards?

Notice the two sections in the engine bay, 12A and 12B. They are not the same length.

Larry

Murray

Any update on this issue?

Larry