Great question. I'm sick and tired of hearing about "retaining the stock steering geometry" in the SLR setup.

It's an incorrect statement to start with since any truck that is lifted has altered the steering geometry, (increased angles of the tie rods to center link) so why retain those severe angles?

It appears Calmini has re-engineered this by using some different lengths of centerlink and tie rod assemblies to reduce the angle and help reduce bump steer.

I wouldn't be afraid of a system that doesn't retain stock geometry. If you think about it, anyone with a lift has changed the geometry of their suspension anyway.

Also if geometry is such an issue, I wonder why SLR suggests different alignment specs after installing their lift kit? What happened to stock geometry for this?

{From SLR's Website under lift installation}
Vehicle Alignment Specifications for SLR Suspension Lift

Caster -.5 to +2

Camber -.5 to +.5

Toe In 0 to 1/4

Set distance from upper control arm to upper control arm bump stop at 3/4 to 1/2" to obtain proper alignment specs.

Simply because the new upper arms are longer than stock (with any lift kit availablefor the Xterra).

In stock form, the camber angle actually decreases while cornering. Nissan spec 0.1-1.1 degrees at static height. During cornering, the outside tire stays perpendicular to the ground as the suspension compresses.
With longer aftermarket arms, the top of the tire is forced outward instead, reducing the contact patch and causing wear on the outside edge of the tire.
To remedy this, the camber spec is changed to allow some negative camber at static height.

Exactly my point.

So in essence changing "stock geometry" is a common practice for SLR as well as any company who manufacturers lifts, so why do they make such an issue of it when speaking of steering systems.

I'll answer my own question. Because it's a sales tactic that benefits their product, nothing more.

i have not seen either system in person, and i am only basing my observations on what i know about them through pictures and piecing the parts together in my head:

since any vehicle with a lift has the steering geometry changed, a redesigned-for-new-geometry steering system makes much more sense.

seems almost like CALMINI has produced a product that is designed for the lifted XTERRA, and SLR has designed a product that would be a great (and severely overbuilt) replacement for a non-lifted XTERRA.

i agree that the stock steering components need to be more beefy for off-road use, but to beef up the components without realigning the way it's assembled is really not helping the overall situation. new stresses are placed on all components, and CALMINI, IMO, has addressed this better than SLR, by beefing up the critical components AND changing how the pieces work together.

we shall see in the next year how each system perfoms and holds up. i can say that i will be buying the CALMINI system, as i believe it is superior in design.

cheap in what sense? cheap in cost maybe, but certainly not cheaply designed or made...

you make this sound like it's because of the redesigned geometry that the ball joints are going to wear, which is exactly what the new geometry is designed to help prevent.

you first say that it's duplicate geometry. then you say you've dropped the tie-rods 3/16"?? how can this be? you're duplicating the OEM geometry, right? why do you think that duplicating the geometry is the right thing to do?

Like this pile of crap ?

Wow, that's a little harsh.. Just because it doesnt have a brand name on it doesnt make it a pile of crap. I was tired of killing centerlinks on every trail run and needed a steering solution badly. No manufacturers make one for my old pathy, so I had one made to fit my truck. And, it works VERY well, thank you. Sometimes, if you cant get what you want, you have to make it yourself or have it made.. there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

That "pile of crap" had no problem surviving a 3.5+ rated trail today.. and will be tested VERY hard in the next few months. Today, the steering was put into quite a few situations where the truck was nose down on the rocks coming off of 4-5ft boulder strewn shelves. In this situation, most of the weight of the truck was sitting on the front tires, which were also needed to steer.. My truck is also lifted. Normally, that repeated type of situation would demolish a stock centerlink. I had no problems at all..

So, considering you havent seen it in person, you haven't driven my truck, nor have you had any part in constructing this setup.. your statement is at best opinion, and a pretty baseless one at that. Sure, its not "pretty". Many times prototypes and one-offs are not, this one had to be tweaked a couple times to get things right. But, in the end, it does work very well, and THAT in the wheeling world is what really matters, my friend.

Honestly, I'd like to see YOU build your own accessories... then mabye you can talk trash about what others make.

Why ? Just because I have tools in my garage doesn't mean I'm a fabricator.

Your $2000 investment would have been better spent buying a used D22 steering box and SLR or CALMINIs steering system.

In the future, I recommend finding someone who knows mechanical engineering, not just someone who happens to own a welder.

Looks good to me. I think they did a good job on that setup. If it holds up, then what is the problem? Several guys have had success with getting their own systems made. People all over the offroading map make their own stuff. If it works then what is wrong with that?

Ian,

You yourself state that you are not a fabricator, and I suspect that you are not a mechanical engineer either. How can you judge from a mechanical engineering (or fabrication) standpoint if you have no experience in either of the above?

FWIW, It is functionally identical to the stock centerlink to within .005" tolerance in all mechanical aspects. So, you could really blame Nissan for the mechanical engineering if you wanted to.

My point is, if it works well, is safe, and reliable, then there *isn't* an issue. It may not come in a spiffy box or with nifty decals, but it works well.

So, my steering is fixed.. and I'm looking forward to yet another great year of wheeling.

See you on the trails, buddy.

I don't have a degree, but I did spend the years 1983-1992 in the mechanical design/drafting field. I have worked on just about everything you can imagine, from optics to very large frame weldments (StorageTek, Rela, Otis). I understand how things work very well.

My concerns are with a few points in the design, and the overall quality.

Cutting down the centerlink because it was larger than the pivot just adds a weak link. Your large center link now has two weak spots, right where it has been cut back (not to mention it will fill with crap and corrode).

Your pitman arm gusset should have run back almost to the pivot, like the SLR design. Stopping short like that creates a point of leverage right at the center of the pitman arm.

Welding to heat treated parts is just not something that's recommended.

The welds look like my wife did them, although welding thin to thick is not easy.

Overall it's way stronger than stock, and you really didn't have any other solution, but I just find it shocking that you paid $2000 to get it built and want to charge people $900 for their own.

Clean it up, fix a few things and paint it anything but gray, and you might just have something.

I congratulate you on doing something to improve the steering of the WD21 and D21. But, I agree with Ian (I am not a Ian worshipper, he can be a prick and I can think for myself).

The gussets should encompass the entire arm, so the load is carried at the pivot point. Having it end on the arm introduces a failure point at the end of the gusset. And in the case of the idler arm I would hope it is has an idler arm brace, so the pivot pin does not carry the entire load.

The welds themselve look MIG welded and a little sloppy. A TIG welded reinforcement would look better, but the MIG weld is probablhy sufficiently strong. You might consider TIG welding for a product unit. My background is aerospace engineering, hence the user name.

One idea would be to bore out the knuckles to accept the larger D22 tie rod.

Thanks for the input. It would have been a little more civilized to do that from the start.

FWIW, I am mechanically inclined, have a degree in engineering, and have experience working for fabrication shops doing custom automotive work. I've also spent the better part of 5 years with my own fabrication projects, engine swaps, custom aluminum manifolds, automotive crash repairs, and many other related subjects.

Your points:

The slight cutting down of the center portion isnt a problem. Keep in mind that we are dealing with 1-3/4" diameter 3/8"-wall tubing. This stuff is big and very very stout to start with. Think "earthmoving equipment". This stuff would honestly almost be overkill for suspension components. You can take a good portion of it out and it'll still be 10x stronger than needed for this application. The stock centerlink was a spindly peice of cast iron...

Collection of debris inside could be an issue, but it's not going to rust away anytime soon, unless you want to wait around a hundred years or so. Plates could be easily welded in to cover the holes if needed, or the interior could be coated? One advantage to the cutaway design though is that it is welded on the outside AND inside of the tube, allowing much more weld strength than a sold tube would ever allow.

Heat treating: The parts were heat treated after construction and before the machining was done. I will be adding a small tab to mount the steering stabilizer, which will require a couple of small welds. This will work fine. The only reason one isnt on there already is because I needed to measure it out on the truck and modify existing mounts as needed.

I dont see the pitman arm gusseting being a real problem, but it could be improved. With the fully boxed gusseting, It is very strong. The idler arm would be at greater risk, IMO. Even then, IF it bends (there is always a chance, no matter HOW nice your setup is), then it'll be rebuilt even better. Thats the nature of fabrication..

Contrary to what you think about the welds, they are actually decent. They were done by a certified welder using the right welder and appropriate methods. What you are probably seeing is due to the gusseting having to be redone. This was due to a miscommunication and I couldnt afford to trash the new idler and pitman arms (another $300).. Thats why they may look a little funny. They work fine though, which is what is important.

The development cost included new idler and pitman arms from Nissan, grade 8 tapered washer sets, and the spherical bearings. The idler and pitman were nearly $300 by themselves. Several alterations were made to improve the setup. We actually had two variations of this centerlink made before we decided on this one. The fab shop was nice enough not to charge for the second one. Contrary to what some people may think, development is NOT cheap. If I wanted an off-the-shelf bolt-on system it would be a LONG wait, or likely never for an older truck like mine..

The $900 is what it costs to make, no more. I'm not getting into the steering business by any means, but felt that it would be nice for the setup to be there if anyone needed it... Unlike the Xterra, there ISN'T anything else available for us with older trucks, unless you build it yourself.

As far as the color: I really like the gray for mine. Its functional and no nonsense. I was actually going to paint it black before I found the gray paint in the garage.. Bright colors really aren't my thing.

Again, thanks for the input.. I'll keep it in mind.

See you on the trail..