New to the forum, I am restoring my 72 mustang conv, it will be stripped down to bare bones, am considering converting to rack and pinion steering. Is there a good conversion kit available (other posts mention Unisteer and to run from Flaming River)? This seems a good time to convert since I plan to replace front drum brakes with front disc brakes from a 73 donor car.
Rack and Pinion conversion
- Thread starter drepo7
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
I probably aint the only one thinking this, but I have to ask if you have checked out the borgenson kit? It's not rack and pinion, but its an intergral steering box (similar to chevrolet). I plan on doing one of these when I get the cash, you have a tighter turning radius and from what I have read very very good handling for driver cars. And they are usually cheaper than the rack swaps. Get another opinion tho, for I havent done either one, I still have the old bendix power steering.
mustangmutt
Member
MustangB
New Member
TCP Rack
I have a TCP rack on my 65. That single change made the biggest difference in how the car "feels". I also changed to TCP's coil over front suspension, so that helps a lot too.
This rack is not cheap. I have never driven a Unisteer setup so I can't comment on that.
Once you get the TCP dialed in, it is great.
I have a TCP rack on my 65. That single change made the biggest difference in how the car "feels". I also changed to TCP's coil over front suspension, so that helps a lot too.
This rack is not cheap. I have never driven a Unisteer setup so I can't comment on that.
Once you get the TCP dialed in, it is great.
PM 65
Active Member
Just to go for sure. With "get the TCP dialed in" you mean aligning the suspension to correct camber, caster etc. ? Or is there a wider meaning to this phrase?
Only thing I have done after I got my TCP rack was get it aligned. There is nothing to dial in on it.
After you drive it approx 1000 miles you may need to tighten up the backlash. I have done that once and that is the only maintenance I have done to mine and I have several thousand miles on it.
If you have to get different fittings when you make your lines, make sure you get AEROQUIP HIGH PRESSURE FITTINGS only.
The cheap brands like earls from summit/jegs will have thinner wall tubing and the inside diameter was smaller even though it was a -6 fitting.
I did have to end up making a couple 180 degree bends for the pressure and return at the rack out of .035 wall stainless 3/8 stainless tubing. This was because of my headers. If you have shortys or different headers you probably wont have to do this and the supplied parts will be fine.
After you drive it approx 1000 miles you may need to tighten up the backlash. I have done that once and that is the only maintenance I have done to mine and I have several thousand miles on it.
If you have to get different fittings when you make your lines, make sure you get AEROQUIP HIGH PRESSURE FITTINGS only.
The cheap brands like earls from summit/jegs will have thinner wall tubing and the inside diameter was smaller even though it was a -6 fitting.
I did have to end up making a couple 180 degree bends for the pressure and return at the rack out of .035 wall stainless 3/8 stainless tubing. This was because of my headers. If you have shortys or different headers you probably wont have to do this and the supplied parts will be fine.
Psydwaze
Founding Member
TCP does not have a kit that is specifically designed for the '71-73 Mustang, but we have had customers install our racks without too much grief. The main difference is that the later Mustangs do not have a removeable (bolt-in) tubular front crossmember, so a bit of minor fabrication and measurement is required to correctly position and mount the rack.
I've seen this tackled in a couple of different ways.
Some customers have elected to cut the crossmember out completely, replacing it with a radius rod and heim joints to serve as the structural components between the lower control arm mounts. This brace works in addition to the rack and pinion unit itself, as long as the fabricated mounts are ridgid enough to allow the TCP rack to act as a crossmember as it was intended.
The other solution I have seen is to trim away only the rear portion of the crossmember, similar to this '66-67 Fairlane installation (LINK). Inverted channel or 1x2" box tubing is welded to the bottom of the frame rail. A mounting hole is drilled through the lower wall of the tubing and then the regular TCP rack brackets can just be bolted in.
Lino
Chassisworks/TCP
I've seen this tackled in a couple of different ways.
Some customers have elected to cut the crossmember out completely, replacing it with a radius rod and heim joints to serve as the structural components between the lower control arm mounts. This brace works in addition to the rack and pinion unit itself, as long as the fabricated mounts are ridgid enough to allow the TCP rack to act as a crossmember as it was intended.
The other solution I have seen is to trim away only the rear portion of the crossmember, similar to this '66-67 Fairlane installation (LINK). Inverted channel or 1x2" box tubing is welded to the bottom of the frame rail. A mounting hole is drilled through the lower wall of the tubing and then the regular TCP rack brackets can just be bolted in.
Lino
Chassisworks/TCP
MustangB
New Member
My rack was set too tight from the factory. When I turned the wheel, I could feel a "clicking" as the pinion moved the rack. I got onto the TCP website and found out how to loosen it, which I did. After that, it was smooth as glass.
PM 65
Active Member
Thanks for the info guys! I really like the TCP rack, one day when i have a place to tinker on the car, i will go for the order!
Um, the factory PS on the 71-73 Mustang was a Saginaw integral box, which IS what was used on the Chevy.
Converting to Factory PS in one of those cars would be a snap. A pump and bracket, coupla hoses, and a gearbox, and you're done. Except for the pump brackets, any NAPA could sell you that.
When ordered on a mach1, the PS was a variable ratio type, very nice.
Thanks for all the suggestions my 72 Mustang has power steering but it feels loose and sloppy compared to newer vehicles that I now drive. I'll check into some of the suggestions before I consider cutting away frame supports. Sorry for the long time delay on my response but I don't often get to check e-mail and forums.
StangDreamin'
Founding Member
"Loose and sloppy" can be caused by several different things. First would be old worn-out parts in the steering linkage... tierods, idler arm, pittman arm, etc. New parts (you can even get the idler arm "roller-ized" which gives a tighter, more responsive feel) will probably take out a lot of the loose and sloppy. While you're at it, the steering box itself could be "loose and sloppy" and in need of a rebuild/replacement. Secondly, you could hunt down a smaller diameter pully for the P/S pump. I had a '73 Gran Torino, and the steering was very.... "remote" I guess would be the term. Could slam the car lock-to-lock with my pinkie finger between one steering wheel spoke and the rim; and "feedback" was almost non-existant. Junkyard-dived for almost a year ("underdrive" pullies weren't even thought of back then) until I found a pully about 1/2" smaller in diameter that still fit on the P/S pump shaft; it lowered the pump pressure somewhat, enough to make the potholes in the road overcome the brute force of the power steering system.
NOW I could feel the road!
"While you're replacing stuff".... the upper and lower control arms could probably use new ball joints. I'd just go with new replacement arms; probably new springs and spring perches would help, too. Get good quality stuff from a reputable suspension manufacturer, like Moog. Tightening up the front suspension (everything between whatever steering mechanism the the tire tread) will tighten up the steering.
R&P steering is very cool; but even if you do everything I suggested AND hang an R&P unit on the car; it's STILL not going to feel like most all modern cars! This is an issue that you'll have to solve with the application of dollars with many zero's behind them - because, even with all the changes, you'll still driving a rear-wheel-drive car that's being pushed down the road by the rear wheels; instead of being pulled down the road by the same wheels (in front) that do the steering. Now if you have the money to turn your '72 into a front-wheel-drive Mustang, you're golden. But you're talking about major changes to the front of the car as well as needing some super deluxe 'full-cage' subframe connectors to drag the a**-end of the car around without twisting the heck out of the unibody.
The basic structure of the car would need to be radically changed; and then you'd have a classic 'pony-car' that handles like the neighbor's Honda.
Just sayin'
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
StangDreamin'
Founding Member
Yes, I did mean larger. Less pump RPM=lower pump volume=lower pressure at the box.
My back decided I didn't need to sleep three nights ago; it still thinks I can sit up all night 3 mights later. Presently waiting for the Flexoril (washed down with a beer) to convince the nerves/muscles otherwise. If I'm on here much longer tonight.....
My back decided I didn't need to sleep three nights ago; it still thinks I can sit up all night 3 mights later. Presently waiting for the Flexoril (washed down with a beer) to convince the nerves/muscles otherwise. If I'm on here much longer tonight.....
I'll have to think about the front end changes U suggested. I replaced upper control arms, lower control arms and balls joints 30 yrs ago (but only 25,000 miles ago) and replaced the coil springs 25 yrs ago ( 10,000 miles ago) I would think that they'd still be in good shape. The car was garaged stored, driven 2000 miles/yr since 1988 and not driven since 2004, is now stripped to the body waiting for sand blasting before it will have rockerr panels/frame rails cut out/replaced since they have rusted to the point the body sags ( convertible-no top to keep the frame stiff). I figure that this is the time to make changes to steering and suspension before rebuilding, painting and putting the engine and tranny back in the car. This is already $$$ before spending $1800 on a rack and pinion conversion kit, I want to be certain everything fits without the expensive cut/weld/adapt modifaications suggested with some of the above suggestions.
Similar threads
