Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: Jjs72D]
#2803594
08/01/20 09:07 AM
08/01/20 09:07 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,808 Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,808
Bitopia
|
Maybe rounding allowances? But I suspect those differences, in numbers, here in this discussion are limited IMO. Would be nice however to know exactly.
Anyone?
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: dangina]
#2804706
08/03/20 04:30 PM
08/03/20 04:30 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 757 Toronto, Ont, Canada
boydsdodge
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 757
Toronto, Ont, Canada
|
I've talked to a few people about a Fast Ratio arm and the Borgeson box, and they said it would be too twitchy at any sort of speed. So I'm going to start out with the stock arms as of right now. And as for the coupler. I plan on getting this Bergman no-cut adapter. https://bergmanautocraft.com/product/direct-fit-steering-coupler/ I have the boregson box, fast ratio arms (with idler bearing upgrade) , firm feel steering sector support kit, with the bergman coupler in my 71 runner (my setup for the past 5 years now) - Driven alot of miles with it on the highway, autox with it - Its not twitchy at all - actually I find it not responsive enough which is why I will be upgrading to a rack and pinion setup this winter - you guys can pm me if you want to buy my setup after i pull it out when the snow starts to fly.... I'd be interested in your set up. Shipping across country should be easy.
|
|
|
Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: Mopar Mitch]
#2805085
08/04/20 03:59 PM
08/04/20 03:59 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,491 Lethbridge, AB, Canada
dangina
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,491
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
|
Dangina -- Thanks very much for the input on the 1.8 turns lock-to-lock... that's great!... but if it can't handle quick autocross manuevers... then something is wrong and that would definitely NOT be the way to go with the Borgesnon box.
You're saying that with the longer fast-ratio arms the steering quickens more to become 1.8 lock-to-lock, BUT, with those longer arms it CANNOT keep up with fast action LRLRLR steering response.
So, it makes me wonder, is the Borgenson box acceptable on a pylon autocross ... with the "standard length arms"... in quick plyon LRLRLR manuevers without any slow-down/resistance?
Has anyone else following this thread had experience using the Borgenson box through a pylon autocross... with required fast-response LRLRLR problems? That problem is known with ALL ps pumps of Federal-design ... NOT with the Saginaw design... and further with hi-winding rpms.
Feedback? Iam curious of this as well - I am unsure as I don't have an stock arms kicking around - also another reason I want to go powersteering is I have some play in the middle like the old ps boxes - not sure if any of you others out there experience the same thing?
|
|
|
Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: Jjs72D]
#2805787
08/06/20 02:56 PM
08/06/20 02:56 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442 NW Chicago suburban area
Mopar Mitch
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442
NW Chicago suburban area
|
JS72D -- Firm Feel advertises 12:1. However, I've also read from other sources 12.7:1. I recall reading that the typical fast ratio 2nd gen GMs (Camaros, FBirds, as well as the C'Vettes of that era) were 12.4:1... and I've driven them and their steering was fast... faster than my T/A setup).
Mopar Mitch
"Road racers and autocrossers go in deeper and come out harder!"... and rain never stops us from having fun with our cars... in fact, it makes us better drivers!
Check out MOPAR ACTION MAGAZINE, August 2006 issue for feature article and specs on my autocross T/A!
|
|
|
Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: Mopar Mitch]
#2805880
08/06/20 06:20 PM
08/06/20 06:20 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 270 Mountain View, CA
68rrunner
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 270
Mountain View, CA
|
JS72D -- Firm Feel advertises 12:1. However, I've also read from other sources 12.7:1. I recall reading that the typical fast ratio 2nd gen GMs (Camaros, FBirds, as well as the C'Vettes of that era) were 12.4:1... and I've driven them and their steering was fast... faster than my T/A setup). If you get the right ones, they're 8:1
|
|
|
Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: Mopar Mitch]
#2807126
08/10/20 12:06 AM
08/10/20 12:06 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,493 Granite Bay CA
Kern Dog
Striving for excellence
|
Striving for excellence
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,493
Granite Bay CA
|
JS72D -- Firm Feel advertises 12:1. However, I've also read from other sources 12.7:1. I recall reading that the typical fast ratio 2nd gen GMs (Camaros, FBirds, as well as the C'Vettes of that era) were 12.4:1... and I've driven them and their steering was fast... faster than my T/A setup). I had a good handling '76 Camaro. I had an '86 IROC 12.7 to 1 steering box in it and can say that the steering response was pretty good. I have a Firm Feel stage 3 with FR arms in my '70 Charger. I like it but I'd like to drive my old Camaro and this Charger back to back to see which felt the best to me.
|
|
|
Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: Kern Dog]
#2807294
08/10/20 02:15 PM
08/10/20 02:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442 NW Chicago suburban area
Mopar Mitch
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442
NW Chicago suburban area
|
Those 3rd generation Camaros/Fbirds have amazing steering response.. BUT.. they also have a shorter wheelbase (~101").. far shorter than our Mopars. The shorter wheelbase makes for quicker transitions, tighter radius, etc.
Our current late-model Challengers suffer from a longer wheelbase vs the much shorter Camaros and Mustangs.. for handling, turning radius, etc, as well as overweight design.
Mopar Mitch
"Road racers and autocrossers go in deeper and come out harder!"... and rain never stops us from having fun with our cars... in fact, it makes us better drivers!
Check out MOPAR ACTION MAGAZINE, August 2006 issue for feature article and specs on my autocross T/A!
|
|
|
Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: Kern Dog]
#2808878
08/14/20 02:31 PM
08/14/20 02:31 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442 NW Chicago suburban area
Mopar Mitch
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442
NW Chicago suburban area
|
Those Camaros were coolest as the IROC was on the coming forefront.... and the IROC race series of events. Those with factory p/steering were pretty good performers in the SCCA Solo II races, although my own T/A Fast-Ratio setup, with the help of a smaller steering wheel, would be just as fast in response to their's. The 2-gen GM's only advantage was a 2" shorter wheelbase (mine at 110", but the 'Cuda e-body was 108"... advantage to the shorter wheelbase' Cuda! On road course, the longer wheelbase would be a little more stable.
Last edited by Mopar Mitch; 08/14/20 02:32 PM.
Mopar Mitch
"Road racers and autocrossers go in deeper and come out harder!"... and rain never stops us from having fun with our cars... in fact, it makes us better drivers!
Check out MOPAR ACTION MAGAZINE, August 2006 issue for feature article and specs on my autocross T/A!
|
|
|
Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: Mopar Mitch]
#2915473
04/26/21 10:32 PM
04/26/21 10:32 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,164 Los Angeles, CA
JF_Moparts
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,164
Los Angeles, CA
|
With the Borgeson box, is it possible, and has anyone done it, to use a long Pitman arm (not "standard length")... of the length of the long "fast ratio" Pitman arm... regardless of large or small sector shaft size? Yes, I have this on my Satellite. I love it.
|
|
|
Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: JF_Moparts]
#2915780
04/27/21 04:35 PM
04/27/21 04:35 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442 NW Chicago suburban area
Mopar Mitch
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442
NW Chicago suburban area
|
T/Anks.. and did you also install the longer (required) Idler Arm (1970 C-body length)?
Any interference issues with exhaust header tubes... both sides.. driver and passenger? If yes, what brand/model headers?
Do you have a BB or SB?
These are critical issues.
Last edited by Mopar Mitch; 04/27/21 04:35 PM.
Mopar Mitch
"Road racers and autocrossers go in deeper and come out harder!"... and rain never stops us from having fun with our cars... in fact, it makes us better drivers!
Check out MOPAR ACTION MAGAZINE, August 2006 issue for feature article and specs on my autocross T/A!
|
|
|
Re: Borgeson Box upgrade, which should I get
[Re: JF_Moparts]
#2929176
06/01/21 02:00 PM
06/01/21 02:00 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,770 Windsor, ON, Canada
Diplomat360
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,770
Windsor, ON, Canada
|
So I've got to ask this question because I lined up the Box along with some other misc. parts to make this swap on my Diplomat.
The engine is currently out so it's easy to get at everything.
The one thing I've been trying to work through is the use of either the Borgeson coupler, or the Bergman one. However, as I look at the Bergman one I keep on asking myself this question: isn't this just the Mopar fctory unit with the bottom piece having been replaced by the Borgeson 312500 steering coupler welded on?
That 312500 coupler is a '11/16-36 spline x 3/4- smooth' setup.
So provided that I have a welder whom I can trust (and I do, he races on the dirt), why would I even consider buying either Borgeson or Bergman coupler if I already have the 312500 coupler ready to go and it's just a matter of getting it welded on?
|
|
|
|
|