First post, this seemed like the best place to put this even though the thread is old. If you've seen this user name on some other forum it is/was me. Sorry about that.
I've been researching the common issue of steering wander in my '96 ClubCab, which is what led me to this thread.
Dodge engineers are utterly clueless about steering. Ten bucks says not one of those gomers even drives what he designs.
Hum, I'd take that bet if it weren't so old. I believe Bob Sheaves may have been involved with the initial steering lay-out, he was for the Jeep XJ's steering system which employed the same design slightly earlier at MOPAR HQ. The design is called "Heltenberger" (I may have the spelling wrong) after its inventor, an Engineer at Ford, and its intent IS the toe change that everyone seems so desperate to remove.
If you cycle the suspension plotting toe-in vs. travel you will notice that the system increases toe-in in the droop portion of the travel range. Increased toe-in increases straight line stability. If you never catch air or even get the front end light on a Railroad crossing or similar then removing the toe-in delta may not be a bad thing. Otherwise some added straight-line stability during those moments when the slightest outside influence can re-direct the truck's travel path and the steering isn't terribly responsive seems like a really, really good idea to me. Though I can appreciate the undesired effect of the toe-in changing with different loadings, which may be why the HD units have the T style - they're expected to have large variance in loading. Let's be realistic, the percentage of pick-ups sold in the US that get used in the traditional manner is small and falling. Most are driven with empty beds 70+% of the time or have a permanently mounted camper; or have a camper mounted that 30-% of the time.
FWIW force is force. If you do the FBD on the steering linkage you will probably see that both the opposite knuckle and the pitman arm are the only two resisting points to a single tire steering-type force input. The subtle difference in drag link angle (T vs. Y at the same ride height) won't appreciably change the division of the force to those resisting points. Said differently, the forces at the resisting points won't change much between the two designs, only what happens within the linkage elements themselves will be different.
Please understand that I'm not saying that the trend towards the T style is faulty or a bad idea, just that it should be fully understood what is being given up.
For some idea of where I'm coming from; I've been racing (drag, then then SCCA Pro, then vintage road, then desert) for almost 30 years but only ~12 of those have been in the desert. Uncoincedentally I've been a degreed Engineer for the past 12 years as well. Not a very good one, but that's another story.
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
