MTFCA Forum

I'm helping a friend with some 1911 touring front end repairs. We found the left-hand spindle arm loose in the spindle bore — still nutted and cotter-pinned fortunately, but rattling around and the nut not even finger tight once the pin was pulled. Yikes!

Upon disassembly, we were puzzled: the arm is 0.740-0.742 OD but not visibly worn, and the spindle bore is 0.750-0.752 ID and again not visibly worn. Bottom line there is 0.010 clearance which is surely not needed and surely can't be correct. The spindle bore is clearly countersunk but there is no corresponding fillet on the arm (photo 1 below).

Looking in my parts stash, I have several later, curved, arms, all with a bit of fillet on the arms and all loose in their bores, although less than the 0.010 of the arm in question. I have only one earlier, straight, spindle arm and spindle. It too has no fillet and is also loose in the bore but only by about 0.005 (photo 2 below).

The purported 1911 arm is marked "T 270" and also with what is probably "DB". My straight spindle arm is marked "T 270" without a DB. The MTFCA Axle book illustrates typical 1911-1919 front axle parts and identifies the spindle arm as "2696" (photo 3 below).

My questions:

— Despite the variance in part #s, are these T 270 DB or T270 spindle arms correct for a 1911 touring?

— Is it typical to see a 0.005-0.010 clearance between the spindle arms and spindle bores?

— I'd like to add a bit of weld to the spindle arms and shape it down to a clearance fit into the spindle. Advisable or unnecessary?

— Alternatively, or as well, I'm tempted to dish the end of the spindle arm nuts to nestle into the spindle countersink and help centre the arms in the bores. Again, advisable or unnecessary?

Looking forward to getting smarter about all this. Thanks in advance.

Not an expert here, but... . The spindle has flats, so is much later than 11. The flats were added for the tapered timkin bearings.
Secondly, the side where the nut goes has no chamfer/countersink. The chamfered side is for good clearance for the arm. Dont dish the nut.
Are the threads correct for the side you have? Could you have a later, wrong side spindle?

Couple things. I like your idea of welding up and turning down the db spindle arm to fit with minimal clearance. I personally would not modify the spindle nut. It's not necessary. Besides, the spindle body is later than 1911. Try to find one where the backing lip that seats the inner race is round as opposed to having two opposite sides squared off.

Yes, that spindle is 1919/25.

Thanks to all who have replied thus far. Very helpful.

Speedy: Oops, yes, brain fart my end, the countersink is NOT on the nut side. I double-checked both spindle threads... they are correct, but the spindles were mis-labelled — the one in question is the RH spindle not LH.

I'm still curious if the 0.005-0.010 diametrical clearance with these parts is typical, or perhaps the result of mis-matched years?

Good to learn about the earlier and later spindles. The other side has the earlier style without flats. There may be little appetite for sourcing an earlier, correct-year spindle if the one under discussion can be made serviceable and safe. This car is a year-round driver, very reliable and presentable but not a show-piece. Photo below was taken last week. We like to get out at least once a month thru the winter.

The .005-.010" fit is uncharacteristically loose. Been run with a loose nut quite a while. Normally they need to be pressed or tapped apart. Since you dont have a correct early spindle, I would look/advertise for a 19 & earlier spindle. (no flats) The flats make for much easier Timkin servicing/replacing. Having the flats is a big sign flashing "not correct" on a brass car.
But any pre 26 spindle for the correct side in good shape would be an improvement & not expensive, if you determine it has the wear.

Going back to your first post, dimensionally, I believe your arm has the wear problem.

Isn't that Mike Reid's T ?

Repacing the spindle with a correct one may fix the problem with the wear on the spindle arm.

However, this is an ideal application for Loctite product called Quickmetal. It is used extensively in machinery repairs where tolerances exceed the norm, and stationary parts can be remounted without repalcement. The neat part about it is gentle heat with a heat gun is enough to break it down, should the components need dis-assembly. At a customer's request, I reluctantly used it on a T with wear problems in a back axle keyway, not the optimal application for it. he did a national tour with that fix and many subsequent miles before having to pull it down to do the thrust bearings.
A fixed arm in a non working application like a spindle arm is a perfect application for its use.

Hope this helps.
Allan from down under.

As John K said, that is uncharacteristically loose! (A twenty letter word! Whew!)
A lot of people I know and respect like the idea of welding up and turning down to a proper fit. Me? It only takes a couple times seeing bad results to not care for the idea so much. Uneven heating cycles can result in uneven hardening and brittle areas in even the best steels. In strong structural pieces such as this, with relatively small stresses, no motion between the pieces once properly assembled? There is no serious reason against good tight shims. All one is attempting to accomplish is a solid and strong fit to keep the pieces from working themselves loose and causing wear where there should not be any wear. A brass shim should be fine? But I would generally prefer a steel shim in this application. You want it tight enough to require a little force to assemble, but not much force (basically lightly tap it into place).
Once the nut is properly tightened, maybe 15 to 20 foot pounds? It should work and last for hundreds of thousands of miles! Should be long enough?

Just a thought? It is possible the arm was a NOS replacement somebody used during restoration. Legend has it, and I have seen a few examples to suggest it may be true, that Ford often sold mildly defective parts for replacement stock to dealers. These would often be slightly off in machining tolerances and require a few extra minutes to make fit and use. Minutes that couldn't be taken on the assembly line, but a mechanic in a repair shop could do.

Again, thanks to all who posted to this thread. Much appreciated.

The repair is complete: combination of Allan and Wayne’s suggestions… 0.005 shim full circle with Permatex “Fast Metal” smeared both sides (a snug turn into place) and a very tight nut.

Hi Chris

One of our east coast T members had the same problem last year. In his case we changed out the arm. Between a few of us, we keep some T stock lying around for trading and replaceing when these kinds of problems come up.

The initials you saw were probably DS in an oval which stands for Dominion Stamping. They starting making parts for Ford Canada in 1913 and continued making parts for along time for Ford.

If you eventually need a replacement, we may have something in our east coast parts stock.

Drive Safe
Jeff