So I appreciate the previous posts on rag joints. I did not realize mine was so bad until I had to pull the shield.....and arrrgh. And, I found that some old posts using the Dorman was correct, and that Lares 220 was the right one. Although, Lares had none, I did find one. The Dorman does take 2, but the Lares is the duplicate of the OEM....thank you Lares.
C Body Rag Joint
- Thread starter 66furys
- Start date
1970FuryConv
Old Man with a Hat
Good info. Thanks!
Here's the story..... The Dorman rag joints were cobbled in by some before the repop became available. I never liked it and thought it wasn't a good alternative.
Bochillon Performance built an aluminum piece that replaced it, but that made for a solid connection, not allowing for any flex. IIRC @Trace 300 Hurst tried one and I think he removed it.
Somewhere along the line, someone discovered that a flex joint from a Rover car was almost the same and if you cut down the thickness from 1 5/16" to 1" and counterbored the holes, it was a perfect replacement both operationally and visually. Some didn't bother cutting the thickness down and it still worked great. I described it a bit in this thread, post # 1698 What did you do to your C-body today....
Some more reading on the subject of the Rover part here: Steering coupler needed
Then Lares musta been reading the threads here and came up with a good repop, probably based on the Rover unit, but all the work was done and ready to bolt on.
Bochillon Performance built an aluminum piece that replaced it, but that made for a solid connection, not allowing for any flex. IIRC @Trace 300 Hurst tried one and I think he removed it.
Somewhere along the line, someone discovered that a flex joint from a Rover car was almost the same and if you cut down the thickness from 1 5/16" to 1" and counterbored the holes, it was a perfect replacement both operationally and visually. Some didn't bother cutting the thickness down and it still worked great. I described it a bit in this thread, post # 1698 What did you do to your C-body today....
Some more reading on the subject of the Rover part here: Steering coupler needed
Then Lares musta been reading the threads here and came up with a good repop, probably based on the Rover unit, but all the work was done and ready to bolt on.
What year / make/model are we talking about here regarding that part. And why is it called a "rag" joint?
65-73 mostly C-bodies, but I also think they are used in '73 or so B-bodies.
Definition: Rag joint - Wikipedia.
My '67 Monaco is not accessible for me to have a look under the hood (it won't be for a while) - I had a look at the '67 Monaco / Polara service manual and it doesn't show this round coupler (nor does it mention it) - but I can find no drawing showing the steering gear with the shaft emerging from it so... I guess my car has this also?
I can't tell you all the applications... I just looked quick in the '67 parts book and they used it on the tilt/tele columns, but I'm not sure if the regular columns used it. My '70 has one, with the regular Saginaw column.
So this rag coupler or joint is part of an additional shaft that would be located to the left of the "Coupling" shown here?
So this post brings up a question I've been debating. I just rebuilt my front end steering linkage and suspension parts but still feel like the steering is too loose. I'm going to replace the original gear box, coupler, and rag joint.
I'm trying to decide whether to rebuild the coupler and replace rag joint with OE replacement or go with a U-joint style setup on the steering shaft and eliminate the factory coupler & rag joint. Any input from someone who has gone with a U-joint style on a vehicle as a replacement would be great.
I'm trying to decide whether to rebuild the coupler and replace rag joint with OE replacement or go with a U-joint style setup on the steering shaft and eliminate the factory coupler & rag joint. Any input from someone who has gone with a U-joint style on a vehicle as a replacement would be great.
See my fun notes on install of my new gear that I am just finishing. I would highly recommend having your OEM rebuilt instead of buying another as I did. Pretty hard to fit these bolts and stud in this situation. But, on the joints, my rubber rag joint was almost in half, and was part of my problem on steering. But, the new Lares is great, and if it lasts half as long, all good. No point in changing the design. These are called rag joints because they have been used since the early days of the auto. But the early ones were actually made of a rag like material in layers....somewhat like the Dorman that is made like a tire cross section with a fabric and rubber combo. I kinda like the rubber and fabric and would have been good with using two of them, if I had not found a Lares repop as John says. The Lares lets me use the OEM socket head cap screws arrangement.
Yes, I used the solid aluminum piece for a quick temporary fix. I was astounded how my "rag joint" was so totally ragged that I had to do something while I acquired either a 50 year old NOS item or the Land Rover item. I got the LR and modified it as we've all discussed here, and it's outstanding.
The aluminum unit was NOT GOOD. I could feel the turning resistance that it put upon our somewhat flexible column system, putting stress on the lower column bearing and the pot coupling. Now I see that Bouchillon is selling a rubber joint (probably a modified $8 Rover joint for a lofty $149. Original Style Rubber Steering Column Isolator "Biscuit" Coupler 3575303 - Bouchillon Performance Engineering When I spoke to them three years ago, they swore that the alumy version was far better than the flimsy rubber coupler. Guess they changed their tune.
My original joint, totally typical.
Rover and Bouchillon joints
Me modifying the Rover joint. It's no big deal.
I really wanted to say that... Knowing that you ACTUALLY went through the drill of replacing it and then pulling it back out for the proper joint, it's better to hear it from an experienced user.
Our long column assembly and our flexy subframe requires a flexy column, as evidenced by all the devastated rubber couplings out there. Chrysler knew what they were doing with this.I really wanted to say that... Knowing that you ACTUALLY went through the drill of replacing it and then pulling it back out for the proper joint, it's better to hear it from an experienced user.
OTOH, Bouchillon sent it to me FedEx Next Day (for considerable cost) so I could put the car back together again. Soon after driving it, I started looking for a Rover piece.
Last edited:
As a follow up for me, I got the new rubber Lares the other day, and then put the lower shaft on the new box. What I find is that there is little way for me to adjust the column alignment, w/o cutting the firewall up a bit.....which I dont want to do. I think that there is about 1/8 in misalignment that the rubber will take. A note again in my pea brain is looking at both the Dorman and the Lares, the old fashioned Dorman might survive better in this misalign....but just a guess. I am about to clean up bolts and install mr Lares, then see if I can help column align, maybe with spacer up top.....TBD. But, a solid device will not work on mine, at all.
Similar to your misalignment, my lower shaft is not a straight shot from the column to the plunge coupler/steering box. That's why the aluminum coupler doesn't work.
Last edited:
The floor plate has some large holes in it to adjust the lower end of the column. Right/left/up/down with some fore/aft in the lower clamp. The upper mounts to the lower dashboard only slide fore and aft, but there's nothing saying it couldn't be shimmed down. A small amount of shim here would play out a lot bigger at the end of the shaft. IIRC, the upper column could probably be shimmed in the bracket to raise the column too, but I'd have to study it (read pull one out of the car and stare at it).
Of course, most of what I've done is with the '67 up collapsible columns and not with earlier columns. Keep that in mind.
When I did mine, I just slid the column with coupler onto the steering box spline with all the column bolts loose. When it all looked good, I snugged, checked and tightened everything up.
I find it interesting that your gear is the same as mine, but the coupler shaft is totally different. But, the effect is the same, that is, if it aint lined up, it needs a flex joint. And, I agree with John on alignment....will try to flex mine a bit more to reduce the angle of the dangle.....we will see. What I do know for now is that the bottom is at the top of my firewall opening, and it is not all good. Will try the top later. Flex be flex. Mine is 66 non adjustable.
Indeed and agreed. I fiddled mine a bunch before deciding to cinch the floor plate (first), and the dash mounts (second). The upper column could be shimmed downward if that would help with the angles, but not upward (which probably would make things worse).
I have a hunch that our alignment problem has something to do with aged subframe mounting biscuits. It would be fun to see a clear pic of the coupler area of a car just off the assembly line.....see if it's straight.
I THINK that they might have done a bit more on the firewall opening for the column, to help align....just me. But, as you can see, there is almost no way for me to move my column over and up enough to get rid of the misalign. Mine is off about an 1/8 at the coupling bolts, which is pretty good amount. But, for some time, the rubber can take it, I think.
So, a word to the wise. Dont mix Scotch and car mechanics. I went to the trouble to mark with white ink, my steering column components before removal. So, fine, after cleaning the intermediate shaft, my marks kind of faded. So, I put the new rag joint in today, and guess what....my wheel is 180 off. This after new cotters and all. Great. Check your wheel alignment as you reassemble, before tighten and cotter. At my age, how many times do I have to learn these lessons.
Similar threads
