Regarding an 89 240DL wagon, it looks like I need to do a tie rod replacement, mainly the inner one but will also do the outer one as well (and possibly both sides seeing that the price is right). I'm looking for castor, camber and tow specifications. Also, wheel base distances for front and rear. I'll take ANY info that anyone can provide. Thank you in advance for everyones input.

regards

- rev -

 

Wheel base 104.3" wagons and sedans have the same wheel base.
Track front 56.3"
Track rear 53.5"
Toe-in 1/16" ± 3/64"
Camber +1/4° to + 3/4°
Caster is not adjustable.



Dan

 

FYI, While outer tie rods wear relatively quick compared to the inners and thus are quite often replaced, it's been my experience that when inner tie rods are worn to the point replacement is contemplated the rack itself is near its usable life. Years ago I replaced both inners and both outers and aligned the front end only to have it take a dump within 6 months. Started paying attention to these things...mind you, my information is anecdotal only. I just started noticing customers for whom we would replace inners and 6 months a year later swap in a new rack. It's happened enough that on my own cars I no longer replace inners...when they go I swap in a rack. Swapping the rack is easier than attempting the removal of the inners and there's nothing like the crispness of a new rack Sure the rack costs more, but imho, replacing inners just buys a little time. I'm sure there must be some cars out there that the racks last long after the inners are done...just doesn't seem too often.

 

Thank you for the quick reply regarding the info I wanted and the advise given. I'll put all of to use and follow up with my results.

thanks again

- rev -

 

Well, I got up under the car today and look what I found. See attached photos. I don't believe the passenger side tie-rod boot should look like this. Funny thing is, the car steers fine, tracks good with "no hands on the wheel". I suppose this may explain why the wheel cover is all scraped up and didn't want to fit correctly. Can't seem to get a straight answer from my daughter.

Any thoughts?

regards

- rev -

 

Well, the technical term that comes to mind is FUBAR. My daughter had my 245 for 2 years of high school as well as her freshman year of college. A lesser car would never had made it! Looks to me like she parked the car in an appropriate place and a curb jumped up and smashed into the wheel while she was elsewhere. No way could this be operator error. I have two daughters so I know that for a fact!
I also see damage outboard of the sway bar mount...is that new? Those pics are a good example of when I'd throw a new rack in; they aren't nearly as difficult as one might think.

 

Hmmm, additional damage outboard of the sway bar? I guess I missed that. Any chance you can edit the photo with a red circle around what you see? Thank you in advance.

regards

- rev -

 

Woops, my bad! I was looking at it at work with poor lighting and less than my full attention. Nothing there...that's a good thing.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I kept going out there looking, looking at the photo, crawling back under the car looking again and again, comparing it to the driver side.....scratching my *** trying to see what you saw. no worries.

Thanks again

regards

- rev -

 

revjj,

I noticed in one of your photos, it appears you have the pre-heat tubing connected to the airbox, where the air filter resides. I would guess maybe 90% of the forum members with 200 series have gutted the air box of the thermostatic gates and in some form blocked the inlet side from the engine, leaving only fresh air into the system. The thermostats seem to fail in the position allowing hot air into the system, leading to an early demise of the AMM (Air Mass Meter). Something you don't want. I did mine, and could not appreciate any difference in start up or performance. I still have the original AMM.

I have read that some states, with emission inspections, will fail the car if the aluminum tubing is not present, however those with the tubes in place and gutted airboxes pass inspections.

Good Luck

 

Hello again

After continuing my examination of the front suspension I found that the boot on the passenger side was just "crinkeled" funny due to the position of the control arm. I started investigating the driver side and found a VERY badly worn ball joint. I removed the bad ball joint and strut attachment member and proceeded to remove the strut attachment member and found that the ball joint had to be VERY forcefully driven from the member. Upon examination of the member, it appeared that there was a gouge at the upper portion of the taper (like someone had mis-aligned the ball joint stud and tried to hammer it in), thus resulting in a metal build up at the top of the taper. Trying to seat the new ball joint stud did not seem right. Measuring the top of the taper resulted in a .5925 on the good diameter and about .580 at the damaged area. I meticulously filed the damaged area to match the proper diameter. Things seem to fit and look right now, although the ball joint stud turns while trying to put on the ny-lock nut.

My question is, Do I need to press this new ball joint stud into this tapered hole in the member. I used a vice, socket (as a hollow driving tool) and a hammer to set the ball joint stud into the taper of the member but it did not seem to take like a "morse taper" would.

Any thoughts?

Thanks again folks

regards

- rev -