Thanks for all the replies guys.
"..... Only thing I might change is to go with a hydraulic clutch to really cut down on pedal effort......"
Thanks. I'm going to play a bit with the ratios on the mechanical linkage first and if I leave it a stick the hydraulic clutch is one of the things I'm looking at.
Gene (poorboy) pretty much summed up the rack and pinion situation.
“……Once the steering box and shaft are out why not cut it and fit a rag joint or trunnion joint in like 60's cars have. sure would make it easier if you ever had to do repairs again…….”
About 10 years before I built the Plymouth I built a 57 Dodge Coronet 2dr post car. The 57-58 Dodges have engine compartments, suspensions and steering that are identical to the 57-58 Plymouths.
57 Dodge by
M Patterson, on Flickr
I ran a dual quad 440 with a 64 pushbutton torqueflight. Originally it was a manual steering car but with 69 C body HIPO manifolds and I had plenty of room for the larger factory power steering. I originally changed over to a 57 power steering gear before the engine went in. The 57 PS was actually worse than the 58 and later units. I found a later unit in a car in the junk yard and figured as I had the car up in the air on the fork lift I’d just drop it out thru the bottom. I quickly found out that with an engine in the car there was not a hole big enough to drop the gear out without removing the torsion bar…….something you definitely don’t want to do unless you have to on these cars. Coming out thru the interior, the column actually makes a decent handle to hold on to while you thread the unit out thru the hole in the floor.
“……..Would that smaller replacement Borgeson (came in Jeeps maybe) PS box for the "newer" Mopars work?.......”
The biggest problem with most newer boxes is the length of the pitman shaft. The 57-62 (?) used a long pitman shaft to place the pitman arm where it needs to be.
sg by
M Patterson, on Flickr
The only readily available stock PS box I’ve come across with a long pitman shaft is on the mid 70s Ford F150s.
F150 by
M Patterson, on Flickr
The major show stopper on that box is that it is designed to bolt to the outside of the frame rail…..the second problem is that it’s huge.
The Tri 5 Chevy guys had kind of a similar issue with their steering and many years ago came with this solution. It’s a 605 Saginaw box with a custom longer pitman shaft and an add on casting to support the bottom of the shaft.
57 Chev by
M Patterson, on Flickr
If I had more room between the steering box and engine (like with a big or small block instead of the HEMI) I’d probably research this one a bit more. It would likely have to be close to bolt in (length wise) to make sense as having a one-off custom built pitman shaft made would likely be cost prohibitive.
Sheldon your question did get me thinking along an avenue I hadn’t consider before. To use a smaller modern PS box “as is” would require dropping it way down to get the pitman arm in the right location….. but at the same time it would alleviate my steering box to manifold clearance problem.
The issue then becomes the steering column. The column is supported at the top under the dash and at the bottom where it goes thru the firewall. There is only about 6” that comes thru on the engine side of the firewall.
57 Ply by
M Patterson, on Flickr
If I cut the column on the firewall side and try to run an intermediate shaft to connect the column to the dropped steering gear on the engine side the angle the joints would have to run would be too steep to work without binding. I might be able to get decent joint angles if I cut the column up in the passenger compartment. That would just leave figuring a way to support the bottom of the shortened steering column. I don’t know what other show stoppers I might run into…..just like every other option I discarded over the years, but I think it’s something I’ll explore some more.
