XJ Steering Shaft Upgrade (88-94 Trucks) 95+instructions on page 31

[eric.s.t]

im interested in the failure pictures too!

 

[bluex]

im interested in the failure pictures too!

x3? I cant use this on my 98, but I have one waiting to go in on my 78 after I swap columns..

 

[4thesporty]

x3? I cant use this on my 98, but I have one waiting to go in on my 78 after I swap columns..

if you have one available out of the truck then pull it apart at the slip joint. Take the upper piece, below the u-joint and then you can then pull that piece apart too, leaving the upper part of the shaft with the thick rubber piece. It will take some wiggling but it will come apart.

This is what happened to mine while it was in my truck.





Sent from my Windows Phone

 

[Jizanthapus]

So after doing tons of reading and looking... The 97+ has a U-Joint at the steering wheel to column connection which runs just through the firewall and connects to the intermediate shaft. Given that the first U-Joint (at the steering wheel) is supported in 2 places by the frame of the truck under the dash and at the firewall, it basically eliminates its ability to cause 3-4 inches of travel causing any kind of bind. As long you support every third (in a line) u-joint, it doesn't mess with the geometry as it only allows one direction of movement (vertical or horizontal).

Your chassis and frame do not flex opposite each other nearly enough, unless jumping your truck, to produce a situation in which the shafts could bind from improper geometry.

However, Borgeson DOES NOT support the 97+ with said shaft. In theory, if you were to cut only the bare minimum from the shaft so that there is no COLLAPSE, during an accident, this could cause the driver harm. However, if you cut enough to allow for travel, you should be in the same boat as the OEM shaft. They are really the same principal minus the crappy rag joint. Again, it's at own risk, but I think that alignment guy was misinformed.

From reading problems with the Jeep intermediate shaft in swaps pre 97, the shaft collapses internally and lets your steering wheel move while not turning the gear box. I think that could definitely be a hazard, possibly what the alignment guy had heard of as well.

Just throwing it out there for everyone who stumbles across this!

 

[great white]

So after doing tons of reading and looking... The 97+ has a U-Joint at the steering wheel to column connection which runs just through the firewall and connects to the intermediate shaft. Given that the first U-Joint (at the steering wheel) is supported in 2 places by the frame of the truck under the dash and at the firewall, it basically eliminates its ability to cause 3-4 inches of travel causing any kind of bind. As long you support every third (in a line) u-joint, it doesn't mess with the geometry as it only allows one direction of movement (vertical or horizontal).

Your chassis and frame do not flex opposite each other nearly enough, unless jumping your truck, to produce a situation in which the shafts could bind from improper geometry.

However, Borgeson DOES NOT support the 97+ with said shaft. In theory, if you were to cut only the bare minimum from the shaft so that there is no COLLAPSE, during an accident, this could cause the driver harm. However, if you cut enough to allow for travel, you should be in the same boat as the OEM shaft. They are really the same principal minus the crappy rag joint. Again, it's at own risk, but I think that alignment guy was misinformed.

From reading problems with the Jeep intermediate shaft in swaps pre 97, the shaft collapses internally and lets your steering wheel move while not turning the gear box. I think that could definitely be a hazard, possibly what the alignment guy had heard of as well.

Just throwing it out there for everyone who stumbles across this!

As in the other thread, Thats bad advice.

The problem with the three joints is the play it allows. In an abrupt maneuver, deflection is possible. Too much can cause control issues.

 

[eric.s.t]

Update.

I posted, somewhere here on the forum, that after I had done this mod, I had to remove it. Reason being that the alignment shop would not have anything to do with the vehicle until it was removed.
I did not tell them about the mod when I took it to the shop. The tech. only drove it from the front of the shop to the rear. As soon as he got out, he popped the hood and saw the jeep shaft. He called me over and said that he knew of this mod in these trucks, but it only worked on pre-'97 models. Then he showed me why. Due to the '97+ models having a third universal behind the firewall, inside the cab, the shaft would have a tendency to move off-center, excessively. He demonstrated this by grabbing the shaft and moving it up & down about 2 or 3 inches off-center. (!) He said that during some situations, where the vehicle was being turned left-to-right-to-left, quickly, there would be excessive movement of the shaft and that not only would the steering be effected, but that there could be a possibility of the shaft moving so far off-center that it would have a tendency to bind. This is caused by the jeep shaft having an additional universal.
Damn!!!
But, there is a solution for the '97+ trucks.
This is a part for hot-rods, which have more than 2 universals in the steering shaft in order to clear frame/exhaust/suspension components. The part is fairly cheap, & is an accepted way to stabilize steering shafts. I've seen many. many hot-rods with this component. You just have to fab it up to work on these trucks. Usually mounts to the frame, but I've seen some that had to reach a bit further than the parts reach, so they have been modded into a turn buckle for the extra length required. With jam nuts, off course.
There are lots of different manufacturers of this part, with several I.D.'s to fit the appropriate size shaft. Usually in the $20.00-$30.00 range. I plan to do this, but at the moment, I have too many paying projects in my shop to work on my own vehicles. I will post up pix when it is done.

http://www.jegs.com/p/Flaming-River/Flaming-River-Steering-Shaft-Support-Bearings/1183260/10002/-1

http://www.jegs.com/p/JEGS-Performance-Products/JEGS-3-4-Steering-Shaft-Support/1225469/10002/-1

This is another solution that I may try. A steady bearing mounted to the firewall where the shaft comes into the engine bay from the interior.

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Firewall-Mount-Flanged-Bearing,2044.html

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Firewall-Mount-Steering-Shaft-Bearing-3-4-Inch-Shaft-Size,6845.html

So I notice this answer in this thread this morning, and I really like the idea of having the shaft mounted to the frame ... could this be good for even pre-96 models? Im thinking it could save your Ujoints in the XJ shaft since it should help with some of the stress on it ... and also help with a smooth turning steering wheel... or does this all sound retarded? lol

 

[Jizanthapus]

So what I'm saying previously is your OEM column is already mounted to the frame and firewall from the factory; It's what holds your column in place. On the 97+, there's a U-Joint at the steering wheel side. So your steering column basically is stabilized by the frame. There's no other U-Joint on the column, therefore as it exits the firewall, the column is supported by the frame.

If you add 2 U-Joints to the intermediate shaft, it wouldn't be the condition needed to cause binding as the column u-joint is stabilized. The column being mounted to the frame eliminates movement past the firewall.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

I have this mod on my truck and have yanked the steering wheel left to right with no issue. I have 35" tires, AGR stage 2 steering box, and AGR high pressure steering pump. I've never heard of this problem of binding before, only that the XJ shafts themselves collapse and fail, which is why I went with a Borgeson.

 

[eric.s.t]

So what I'm saying previously is your OEM column is already mounted to the frame and firewall from the factory; It's what holds your column in place. On the 97+, there's a U-Joint at the steering wheel side. So your steering column basically is stabilized by the frame. There's no other U-Joint on the column, therefore as it exits the firewall, the column is supported by the frame.

If you add 2 U-Joints to the intermediate shaft, it wouldn't be the condition needed to cause binding as the column u-joint is stabilized. The column being mounted to the frame eliminates movement past the firewall.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

I have this mod on my truck and have yanked the steering wheel left to right with no issue. I have 35" tires, AGR stage 2 steering box, and AGR high pressure steering pump. I've never heard of this problem of binding before, only that the XJ shafts themselves collapse and fail, which is why I went with a Borgeson.

He's got a point .... looks like you'd be fine with this setup...

DO you have the link to th steering shaft?

 

[great white]

He's got a point .... looks like you'd be fine with this setup...

DO you have the link to th steering shaft?

Nope, conversation is going on in the other thread about it....

 

[bluex]

He's got a point .... looks like you'd be fine with this setup...

DO you have the link to th steering shaft?

That picture of the column he posted in here is not a 97+ column. Don't use the xj shaft on 97+ for the reasons mentioned above!!!