Sure, drop it off and I’ll get to it by winter….

quote:

Originally posted by chrisW:
I just finished up a little restoration work on the Barth's front suspension. (see "just been Barthed" for rig history!")
The Idler arm was siezed - a 5 lb sledge would get it to move about 1/4" a whack.
The original tie rods were very stiff / siezed. Oddly enough the ball joints were fine, but they were replaced anyway.
New schocks should be here any day and then I can finish her up and enjoy the ride.







BTW - I am replacing the engine oil pan gasket too...

I'm really curious about how this rebuild worked out, but specifically wondering whether there was an interference problem with the drag link/bell crank and frame. My tie rod ends look identical to the ones in the picture and they will not clear the frame for a left turn. See frame crossmember behind the bell crank {right in the photo} in the last photo & imagine the bell crank rotating another 1/4 turn. My tie rod end alone will not clear, not to mention the zirk hanging down another 3/8". These replacement tie rod ends are a thicker casting than the originals. I've had to replace the new tie rod end with one of the old ones. I removed the boot, peeled out the old cruddy grease and cleaned up the joint, added new synthetic grease and replaced the boot. Not the most desirable outcome, but the only other alternative would be to notch and box the frame and I'm not going there. Anyone else do the MCC chassis front end rebuild and run into this problem?

Wow, quite a project you have there! Another crazy mechanic with a camera!

Nice work, nice photos. Maybe someone has seen that dimensional problem on another Regency. I know Regencies are known for a good ride (unlike my GM chassis) Hopefully you can engineer some clearance for the tie rod ends....

Keep the postings coming!

Actually those photos were taken by ChrisW in 2010 when he was restoring the front end on his Regency. My MCC Barth looks the same and I'm at about the same point with my rebuild. I don't have much in the way of choices... either I use a tie rod end with a thinner casting, or modify the frame crossmember to clear. For now I've cleaned and lubed one of the original tie rod ends. My tie rod ends weren't worn, the main issue I had with them was that they are non-greasable and 31 years old, do they were very stiff and impossible to maintain. The one I reused was in reasonably good shape and I cleaned and greased it with the boot off.

I sure would be interested to know whether anyone has encountered a similar problem with a Regency or MCC Barth chassis.

....just wondering if you have checked out the FMC group on yahoo cause the MCC were based on/derived from the FMC motorcoach in many respects!!

I just found and joined the FMC owner's forum earlier this week. I'll have to dig some more to see what information I can find there. You are correct, the MCC chassis is very much FMC. I have service information for FMC chassis that is pretty much identical to my MCC chassis. Every now and then I run across a part on my MCC that has FMC cast into it (brake caliper brackets for instance). I work for a fleet organization and recently showed an MCC rotor to one of our "seasoned" mechanics. His off-the-cuff response was that it looked like the rotors used on FMC street sweepers years ago.

My take is that FMC, being a large industrial and military equipment manufacturer, sourced many of the wear parts from their other applications. These may have been parts that FMC was already tooled-up to manufacture, were on the shelf, or that could be easily provided by one of their many suppliers. The ball joints are TRW, perhaps a military application. The parts are hard, but not impossible, to find. Thing is, nobody really collects and restores much industrial equipment; maybe a few military pieces get restored. There isn't much demand for these parts 10-15 years after manufacture of the vehicle or equipment, so they pretty much go extinct.

I was able to source all of my parts through my local NAPA. I've done a fair amount of business with them and they are great guys. They ended up sourcing the ball joints and tie rod ends through Rare Parts in California. I know somebody is going to say that I may not have had the frame clearance problem if I'd gotten the "right" tie-rod ends. Well, maybe... but I doubt it. You couldn't add a zirk fitting to the stock tie rod end at this location without frame interference. It is a very tight fit. And judging from the photos another member provided, I have the same parts he has.

All of the brake parts were off the shelf, in stock at NAPA. My ability to get parts debunks the myth I've seen on this site that there is a single supplier or even "manufacturer" as I have seen it stated, of these parts. I saved almost $400 going the route I did. I'm all for supporting an independent operation, particularly one that can share valuable knowledge. But pricing should be reasonably competitive, and I did not find that to be the case. I actually did spend a little more at a local machine shop to have my idler arm "restored" than if I'd bought the kit I've seen others us elsewhere on this site. I am really happy with what the machine shop did. They use graphite-impregnated nylon for the bushings and custom fit them to my idler arm. I paid a $60 premium for this over the price of the kit.

This has been an interesting road so far... and I realize the front suspension is only the tip of the iceberg for me in the future of my MCC/Barth ownership.