I have manual steering in my 68' with a 302 and C4 behind it. I was looking to do a manual rack and pinion conversion, but wanted some advice and opinions before I do it. Does the manual rack and pinion really help that much more? Trying to look at this in a cost/ benefit way. Thanks for any help and input!
Well the most common reason to change to RP is for the teeth ratios from the original equipment is to retain power when bigger tires are put on a vehicle. The torque can be increased by a ratio change when there is enhanced pulling or higher take off power from a dead start.
They last somewhere in the ballpark of 80,000 to 100,000 upwards 140,000 miles depends on how you use it, what you use it for
to which it needs a simple to fair amount of repair (like everything on a car)
ex: weekend driving <1,000 miles/month vs intense competitive auto-cross event
In my opinion, the main advantage of rack-and-pinion over recirculating ball in general is that there's fewer parts to wear out, so steering feel will be maintained for longer. A secondary advantage is that when installing an all-new system, it's possible to upgrade the geometry and get rid of bumpsteer. That alone will greatly improve confidence. For me, I'm going all the way like Romayo, except with a Griggs GR350 system that uses a Fox rack and SN95 spindles.
But for just the R&P conversion, I'd probably go with Total Control Products. They make quality stuff, and they correct the bumpsteer without screwing up other geometry. Also, you can reuse your column. Costs about $1500.
[...] For me, I'm going all the way like Romayo, except with a Griggs GR350 system that uses a Fox rack and SN95 spindles.
But for just the R&P conversion, I'd probably go with Total Control Products. They make quality stuff, and they correct the bumpsteer without screwing up other geometry. Also, you can reuse your column. Costs about $1500.
Having road-raced the pony cars (mustang specific) in the late 70's in SoCal, I can suggest this.......IMHO I preferred the oem style suspension to the Mustang II conversions....much more stable, responsive & consistant. there is a slight different in the alignment specs for a street use versus track use car, but the street specs (which for the 60's cars are is the same as for the 70's mustangs- which had radial tires- otherwise the spec's are for bias ply and I guarantee you that if the alignment specs were for 1965, that will cause a handling issue with radials).....will work on the track (not excellent but good).
Now just another IMHO....these cars because of their basic core design are better muscled through a corner than driven.......let me explain a little better- hopefully.....with my uncles porsche, he had to drive the car through the corner because of the light front end....he could very/more easily slide if he throttled it through where with the mustang, the lighter rear end was the issue.....as long as we/I kept the rear aligned within 6" of the front through the corner, while the tires & rear end was "barking" a tad, when exiting the turn, just past the apex of the corner, full throttle (rolled on), traction/stablity was never a issue....and 300+ hp & 350+ lbs torque at 70+ mph in a corner can make for a lot of tire/chassis "barking"!
With todays tire/suspension technology, you can definitely make the stangs drive more like a porsche...but, if the issue is steering effort due to tire size, then go with the oem power steering...again, easy, well designed & very effective.
With regards to reliability, there is no R&P unit that lasts as long as the old school oem components...that power race cars up to 150 mph & delivery trucks for decades (30-50 years)
if I may suggest, you can get the oem steering box rebuild kit (including fast steering which would reduce the number of turns by about 20%) by these guys at less than what you are looking to spend on used parts....
FYI- Test done (and published) by Traco & Guldstrand engineering back in the early 80's....clearly demonstrated a multitude of shortcomings and with the readily known (and even recently published retracts by many of the major perf publications that back in the 70's pushed the great idea....which on the falcon/mustang chassis reduced turning radius by 1+ feet and induced increased chassis flex which (as well known) is typically seen on a daily driver type vehicles in the form of stress cracks at the 5-8 year mark.
IMHo This is an excellent assessment of oem vs aftermarket suspension for the mustang…
http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vintage-mustang-forum/655080-expecting-too-much-suspension-2.html
Thanks for all the input and information! The car is going to be a street/ strip car, so I don't think the R&P conversion is worth it cost/benefit wise right now. Building the motor, trans, and suspension is priority right now.
Yeah, good move for now. you can always do it later if you are just cursing and some times steeping in on the throttle every now and then. I'm waiting for my engine break in ~102 miles so far.
But I hate it, so much! how it behaves as of now. There is so much bump steer in the car I freak out while driving on the freeway. I death grip the steering wheel.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ford Mustang Forum
3.7M posts
229.4K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to Ford Mustang owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, modifications, reviews, engine swaps, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!