Toe-out

henk · Post by **henk** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:18 pm

Great info Barry,

Thanks.

I often use the part names that are in the parts list.

Aussie Frank · Post by **Aussie Frank** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:01 pm

Hi Barry and Timo,

The E1ADKN 3107/3108 spindle part numbers are some misinformation that came off the Sparex web site. I did not have my parts book at hand at the time and if I had I would have realised that the 3107/3108 numbers were refering to early E27N spindles E27N 3107/3108 that were superseded by E27N 3105/3106 in 1946. Just goes to show that you should always refer to original documents.

Timo if we go by the part number on the casting none of your spindles are original as they are in fact a 1945/1946 part according to the part number. As for my previous post about you having all right hand spinles may not be true. After looking into my pile of parts I found a left hand spindle that had the right hand part number cast into it just like yours. It looks very much like the castings are interchangeable but the machining is different. The two spindles are clearly machined differently and they can not be swapped from left to right, but they have identical part numbers cast into them. It may be possible that the part number in the casting is a complete red herring. All three of my tractors have the same part number cast into the spindles. Only one of them is slightly different and has the small lettering like your replacement. This one is not original because it is the color of a New Major and is completely different to the navy blue the rest of the tractor is.

Regards, Frank.

P.S. Barry, good point about using the correct ford terms, I can see how things can easily get confused.

Post by **Brian** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:53 am

Numbers cast into parts mean nothing.

It is something I always found strange when I first started working on the tractors. I would take a part to the stores and say " I want this number please" and our storeman would say, in that sadistic storeman way, "Sorry, don't recognise that number".

The number looks as if it should mean something. Sometimes the prefix/suffix means more than the number. The parts book and the serial number are the most important ones to get.

Kim · Post by **Kim** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:43 pm

Brian, you are totally correct about the sadistic glee that some countermen exhibit when you give them a number they can't find or don't recognize. Satisfaction comes when, after they tell you there is no such part, you lay it on the counter and give them a jaundiced-eye look. The good ones will laugh and dig 'til they find it: the ones that won't try, you don't deal with again!

Cornishbloke · Post by **Cornishbloke** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:47 pm

I have the same problem and have to replace the stub axle and the top link (RHS) as both are beyond salvage. Also badly worn is the casting in which the king pin sits.

I presume that I will have to have this bushed and then reamed, but is there a limit to how much of the casting can be drilled before it weakens?

Richard

John · Post by **John** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:53 pm

Cornishbloke wrote:I have the same problem and have to replace the stub axle and the top link (RHS) as both are beyond salvage. Also badly worn is the casting in which the king pin sits.

I presume that I will have to have this bushed and then reamed, but is there a limit to how much of the casting can be drilled before it weakens?

Richard

I'll watch these replies with interest as well. My first road run last week revealed a bit of wobble RHS...

TOH · Post by **TOH** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:26 pm

I was going to remove the stub axle and compare it to the old one this weekend but I didn't have the time to do it after all. But by visual comparison it seems that the angle between the stub axle and the steering arm is slightly different than what it should be. The fault is clearly with the stub axle so I'm not going to bother to investigate further. I'm going to live with it until I find a suitable replacement stub axle. Thanks very much to everyone that helped me find the problem. I would never have thought of it myself.

About the casting codes. I've been under the assumption that the stub axles are identical apart from the locking bolt groove which is machined to a different position in the LH and RH parts. If this is right why make two different molds in the first place if the only difference would be the part number? Or am I completely wrong here?

Emiel · Post by **Emiel** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:41 pm

TOH wrote:About the casting codes. I've been under the assumption that the stub axles are identical apart from the locking bolt groove which is machined to a different position in the LH and RH parts. If this is right why make two different molds in the first place if the only difference would be the part number? Or am I completely wrong here?

Hi,

I think you are totally right here, it also makes sense and fits in Ford policy of keeping production costs as low as possible.

Best regards

Emiel