Jeep Enthusiast Forums banner

Currie Currectlync drag link with other tie rod??

5K views 87 replies 17 participants last post by  TJnBC 
#1 ·
I have a question about using the Currie DL with a non-Currie tie rod. I currently have a stock DL and a 1.25" HD tie rod. I'm considering picking up the Currie drag link, not the complete kit. I am happy with my current tie rod, but Currie's description says their DL will only work as a replacement part for the Currie system. I call BS. I think my tie rod will bolt right up wth it because even though the Currie drag link has beefier threads at the adjusting sleeve, the tapered TRE's are the same size as any other TRE. So mine should fit. Plus, I don't like the clamps and the slotted bolt holes on the Currie tie rod, looks silly and makes it tough to get a perfect alignment. I would much rather use the one I have. Plus, that would be a $218 upgrade for the DL, rather than $559 for the whole kit. Thoughts?
 
#4 ·
I'm not sure if you've seen the Savvy/Currie setup lately but the tierod is a double adjustable sleeve with 2 jam nuts (much like their control arms). No clamps anymore. I threw a little antiseize on it and you just rotate by hand until it's adjusted and tighten down the jam nuts.

Their draglink does have a sleeve like the stock TJ draglink does.
 
#16 ·
I see. Also found this on a search. I think if it doesn't line up, I could just add a second slot with the grinder going vertically. You should always be able to get another 1/4 turn to align with a slot one of those ways. I don't think it would have any effect from the amount of lift you have. It is more about the tie rod taper seating in the DL.

 
#17 ·
I see. Also found this on a search. I think if it doesn't line up, I could just add a second slot with the grinder going vertically.
There's no need to even think of grinding a second slot, it just requires normal proper installation technique that gets everything lined up.
 
#18 ·
The rod orientation doesn't matter. TREs are ball in socket joints. They're stiff to start but you should be able to rotate the cotter pin hole to line up with the slot regardless of lift height.

@OP I believe you're correct, the Currie TREs are all stock taper. You'd need to make sure that the cotter pin hole is around the same depth in you TRE as the currie one to make sure the cotter pin will still be able to be used. If your hole isn't as far, the castle nut will cover it, if is too far the cotter pin won't be able to grab the castle nut. You'll also want to make sure that your TRE with the drag link would be able to clear the axle at full lock to lock. The currie TRE gets really close to the Track bar bracket when turned all the way to the passenger side. They currie TRE is quite beefy though, yours may be smaller.
 
#38 ·
Never had that problem. Are you sure you're not confusing the tie rod clamps with the drag link clamp? That and there is more than a mental need for a straight steering wheel. It's far better for your steering gear to be on center than not. Due to the way the steering shafts are keyed, it's pretty hard to keep it on center with the steering wheel offcenter.
 
#41 ·
The adjusting sleeve for the drag link on mine is grooved for the clamping bolts. In order for the clamps to clear the track bar they must be either facing up or down.
The fix is easy, extend the grooves all the way around the sleeve. I plan on doing this, but the steering wheel being a little off center doesnt bother me much.
In fact after a good wheeling trip I usually reset the toe and the wheel has moved a tad. Not a big deal
 
#42 ·
When you say clamps, are you referring to their use of U clamps around the bar in order to mount a steering stabilizer bracket? If so then I'm with ya, that just looks cheap and cheesy compared to the rest of the setup. That's the main reason I haven't gone with their kit. A friend got that setup awhile back and has already had those clamps slip twice (that I know of) which is fairly common with that kind of U bolt clamp setup to mount that end of the steering stabilizer. If they had a nice formed hole or welded on mounting point for the steering stabilizer I'd get that setup but just can't stand the cheap look of those clamps, not to mention the constant re-tightening that usually goes along with that type of U clamp setup on a straight tube. Ruins that otherwise looks like a nice setup.

~
 
#43 ·
Well NVM my last post, I seen in later post that you were probably referring to the end adjustment clamps.

Though the way they mount the steering stabilizer to me is still the cheap-out part of what otherwise would be a nice setup.


~
 
#44 ·
Well NVM my last post, I seen in later post that you were probably referring to the end adjustment clamps.

Though the way they mount the steering stabilizer to me is still the cheap-out part of what otherwise would be a nice setup.

~
Yet one more brilliant example of your awesome mechanical evaluation skills. I've installed more of those clamp mount stabilizer brackets than should be legal and if someone is having it slip, they need to give their tools away and quit touching Jeeps and mechanical crap. The u-bolts are the Spicer u-bolts from a 1480 series U-joint that used on Dana 80. The nuts are Grade C top locks which do NOT come loose so you would have to be a complete moron to install one and have it slip especially with just the forces of a stabilizer acting on them.

I've built clamps to attach assist cylinders to the draglink and used two of those very same u-bolts to hold it in place and they did not slip.
 
#47 ·
Lots of manufactures do it, even the cheapest crappy aftermarket rods from China that you can order off eBay still have a formed hole in them so I can't imagine the extra expense would be that much worse and the aesthetics would look soooo much better. It's an AWESOME setup and otherwise looks sooo good. I just hate to see something that looks like some cheap universal part (no matter how strong it may actually be) thrown onto something that was so clearly well thought out and so elegant looking otherwise.

I know it's a personal thing but it's like sticking one of those chrome stick on "turbo" stickers from the parts store on the side of a Ferrari 599 GTO or a beautiful elegant woman who's fit and well groomed wearing a designer dress but then puts on what are clearly cheap chromed plastic earrings from the teenage-girl store in the mall.

I really REALLY like the Currectlync setup, but that darn bracket just looks wrong to me on such a nice setup. Usually when I see U-bolts on something like a steering stabilizer it's "universal" type stuff from the local AutoZone in the isle where they hock universal fit add-on accessories. I know the quality of the Currie bracket/u-bolts is better, assumed it was even before Blaine verified it, but it still has that universal-fit kinda look to it to me.

It's a personal thing. I know they probably do it so it can be more universal for different types of stabilizer setups but I just don't like the look. I'd order one of the complete Currectlync setups that same day if they would release one that had a different mounting for the stabilizer.

~
 
#51 ·
Regarding the steering stabilizer clamp, I just wish it had something like this. Maybe that's the inner architect speaking but aesthetically, it's cooler.
Agreed, that would look so much nicer :thumbsup:
Don't know who makes it or how strong it is but something like that would look much nicer installed than the bracket that comes with it now.

~
 
#52 ·
How do they slip? They're just attached to a stabilizer. Maybe they're hitting on something. My buddy's clamp was.
Vibrations over time, or in her case possibly the death wobble she was experiencing. It's just a U-Bolt around a relatively smooth straight shaft. Doesn't matter how strong the bracket or how strong the U-bolts, they're just still smooth U-bolts around a relatively smooth round, straight shaft with no bumps or anything to lock on to.

Hers is the first Currectlync that I have seen in person that had slipped. It was tight at the time she asked me to double-check it before her last trip but I could see the small shiny scratches on the bar from where it had moved on her before. But hers is not the first time I have heard of a Currectlync having it's bracket slide a little on the shaft over time, even from owners who are meticulous about checking the tightness of all of their stuff after every hard wheeling trip or ever so often on a schedule. I wouldn't say it's something I heard about commonly, but hers certainly wasn't the first either. Personally once it was positioned properly I could have our welder put a tiny bump on either side of the U-Joint loops down on the backside where you couldn't see it to act as a stop but I still wouldn't like the looks of the bracket/U-joint setup.

Maybe if Currie realizes that these things do sometimes still slip a little along the shaft over time even on people who are keeping them properly tightened they'll come up with a new design that will also look better. I believe Blaine helps design for them and though I have my issues with his attitude sometimes he's a great designer and I'm quite certain he could come up with something that looked much better and might be even stronger if he put his mind to it.

~
 
#80 ·
biffgnar said:
It is not a technicality. They are very different companies. Different owners. Different histories. Different product offerings. Savvy is a distributor for Currie products, as well as other vendors and as well as having their own products. And they have partnered together to sponsor race cars, but that is not uncommon either between offroad aftermarket vendors. I can give other examples of that. Blaine designing parts is far from a uniting factor. I can think of many other companies that he has designed parts for also. You are very off base on this one in lumping them together.
I understood what iSG was getting at and agree with his logic when he's referring to Blaine having said that he makes products for both companies and it would also apply to any other companies is designed for if as SG said he sticks his head in the sand over those companies products too.

"CJ" Candice Jolene, "Dashie" 82 CJ-7 [Currently being rebuilt from ground up] and "Rubi-Dash" 04 Rubicon
 
#81 ·
You guys can obviously think about it how ever you want. Personally, once the product designer is done with a part it is up to whatever company is bringing it to market to worry about materials, design, QC, distribution, warranty, etc.

Either way you think about it though, I have a hard time understanding referring to the Savvy cable shifter as being a Currie product. I'm sure Currie would be surprised to hear that.

I don't think anybody in this thread (or any of the others in this section) is afraid of being wrong or of learning something. I know I'm not. But if I am going to learn something I'd like it to be based on tech and I'm afraid too often lately around here we are getting away from that and things are becoming about what somebody's brother's bosses's girlfriend's cousin said.
 
#82 ·
biffgnar said:
You guys can obviously think about it how ever you want. Personally, once the product designer is done with a part it is up to whatever company is bringing it to market to worry about materials, design, QC, distribution, warranty, etc. Either way you think about it though, I have a hard time understanding referring to the Savvy cable shifter as being a Currie product. I'm sure Currie would be surprised to hear that. I don't think anybody in this thread (or any of the others in this section) is afraid of being wrong or of learning something. I know I'm not. But if I am going to learn something I'd like it to be based on tech and I'm afraid too often lately around here we are getting away from that and things are becoming about what somebody's brother's bosses's girlfriend's cousin said.
I agree that once the designers finished with the product it is in the hands of the company. What I took SG's point to me was that when it comes to anything that Blaine his had any hand in designing no matter what company it's for it seems as though he has the attitude that it will always leave that company. When that simply is not the case. I may have designed it is perfect as he could and provided specifications for the hardware to be included with it but that doesn't mean that every company and every supplier to that company will always meet those specifications without the possibility of making a mistake. And I took SG point to be that Blaine seems a bit blind to that simple fact and it's insulting to customers to automatically blame them for something like a supplier that provided nuts that we're not up to spec in the example posted earlier.

SG never once said there was a flaw in the design that I have read. He only pointed out that at least one person that he knows personally received their kit with inferior nuts that would not stay tight.

And mine may be a second case for it because I have had to have mine retighten several times now and now that SG has posted about the nuts I'm thinking about having someone take mine off and replace them to see if that solves the loosening prob.

"CJ" Candice Jolene, "Dashie" 82 CJ-7 [Currently being rebuilt from ground up] and "Rubi-Dash" 04 Rubicon
 
#83 ·
I think it would be interesting if we had a nut or maybe just a close-up picture of the nuts that should have been included in the kit that way we could compare them to the nuts that came in the kit on one of us that are having the problem of them backing off. To see if the supplier has mixed up their nuts in some orders or batches or however they supply them to Currie.

"CJ" Candice Jolene, "Dashie" 82 CJ-7 [Currently being rebuilt from ground up] and "Rubi-Dash" 04 Rubicon
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top