Help question on cotter pin torquing to proper spot for cotter pin

Hello everyone,
I recently began my build and this is my first question to the forum so thank you all for the “there are no stupid questions policy!”

I am in the process of fastening the spindles to the lower control arms and when I torque the castle nut to the appropriate force (80-90 lbs), the castle nut is not quite low enough to permit the cotter pin to get through the hole. It’s very close, perhaps 0.5-1 millimeter away.

Due to the location of the cotter hole versus the castle nut merlons (the top parts of the castle nut, had to look it up) i would need to torque a lot further to get to the next opening (or crenel, had to look that up too).

I have searched the forums and can see that this issue has been encountered by others but i have found no satisfactory responses. My solutions are:

1. Use a disc sander to take a tiny layer off of the spacer which will allow the castle nut to torque just a little lower and free up the cotter pin hole. I have included a photo of the spacer that came in the IFS component box, one side is flat and the other has a slight conically concave shape and i wonder if this is the right spacer in the first place.

2. Toss the spacer and build up to a workable height with washers. This was a proposed solution on various forum threads, but seems to me to be very unwise given what’s going on in this part of the car. I will not do this, but highlight it as a suggestion found elsewhere in the forums.

3. Question whether it’s the ball joint or boot (i bought an aftermarket boot for this ball joint, as these were missing from my inventory) causing the fractional variance.

4. Buy new spacers at different widths and go trial and error.

Attachment 190944

I appreciate any and all insights.


Thank you very much!

Any of the above will be fine although I agree the washers are probably the least satisfactory. Do whatever makes you feel confident. At some point you may need to take one of these apart. When you see how difficult it is to break that taper joint you may understand why I say this. To thin down the spacer, I often get a 60-100 grit sticky back sandpaper piece that fits onto a power sander. I stick onto a board. Then I move the spacer along it back and forth by hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TXJosh

...I have included a photo of the spacer that came in the IFS component box, one side is flat and the other has a slight conically concave shape and i wonder if this is the right spacer in the first place...

---

Yes, it is the correct spacer. The concave side that is visible in your photo has to face down, toward the spindle. If by chance you install it upside down side without the bevel will bite into the tapered ball joint stud before it is fully seated against the spindle and would result in the cotter pin hole not being completely uncovered in the castle nut reliefs.

Jeff

Thank you.

Even with the bevel down I am not able to torque low enough to free up the cotter pin hole.
I had 1mm taken off the spacers by a machine shop in Dallas, but it was insufficient. Going to take 2mm additional off and that should do it.

I am puzzled as to why it didn’t work without modification. These parts are theoretically standardized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TXJosh

Thank you.

Even with the bevel down I am not able to torque low enough to free up the cotter pin hole.
I had 1mm taken off the spacers by a machine shop in Dallas, but it was insufficient. Going to take 2mm additional off and that should do it.

I am puzzled as to why it didn’t work without modification. These parts are theoretically standardized.

---

I've done several of these and not had any issues. But variations happen and aren't always explainable. I would encourage you this won't be the first "challenge" you'll come across. "Theoretically standardized" is true I guess but there will be multiple head-slapping moments. Best to expect it and deal with it as part of the experience. These are custom builds.

A bit confused by your statement of using aftermarket boots though. Every lower control arm I've received from Factory Five had the lower ball joint and boot already installed and wouldn't be a separate inventory item. Hard to imagine that a boot would cause the problem you're describing. But still is different than my experience.

The lower control arms came with the ball joints already installed, and The tapers had disposable orange bumpers on them and there were no grease boots included. Therefore I bought the energy suspension 1313OG aftermarket boots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TXJosh

The lower control arms came with the ball joints already installed, and The tapers had disposable orange bumpers on them and there were no grease boots included. Therefore I bought the energy suspension 1313OG aftermarket boots.

---

Strange. My experience (multiple builds) is that the LCA's come with the boots. Also shown in the build manual, FF video, and parts page. Either a change or a mistake. I suspect the latter. As long as the boot you used isn't interfering with the position of the spindle on the ball joint (unlikely) shouldn't be a problem. Although I wouldn't hesitate to ask Factory Five when differences like this are found.