|
Re: steering box 16:1 or 24:1
[Re: Den300]
#334062
06/04/09 02:16 PM
06/04/09 02:16 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,968
North Riverside IL & Lowell IN
GTXKen
super gas
|
super gas
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,968
North Riverside IL & Lowell IN
|
I got a 20:1 gear box from steer and gear a while back and I'm happy with it in my car. I have a stock steering wheel. Its a little stif parallel parking but besides that its fine. You don't have to do manual labor have a manual gear box but you can't be a cream puff either. My car is a bit lighter up front but I have wider tires so its sort of a wash. I had a 24:1 box before and would never go back. My buddy has a 16:1 box and its a bear to make a tight turn, then again its not a street car so who cares. There is lots of room under the hood and a significant weight reduction going to manual. IMO it looks cleaner under the hood. I still have my power steering and when I'm 75 I'll switch to the firm feel box but for now manual all the way, brakes and steering! 
|
|
|
Re: steering box 16:1 or 24:1
[Re: GTXKen]
#334063
06/04/09 04:05 PM
06/04/09 04:05 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,603
germany
440sat72
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,603
germany
|
i agree to all of the above beeing said, that the individual combo counts, but so does the personal taste and driving style. its a little like the question about mufflers beeing too loud or not - what might be a whistle in ones ear will shake the eardrum loose in another (i went through 5 pairs of heavily recommended mufflers until i found the one that floats my boat  ). so if you have a chance to get to drive a munual steered car that'd get my vote
|
|
|
Re: steering box 16:1 or 24:1
[Re: Den300]
#334064
06/04/09 07:03 PM
06/04/09 07:03 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
Rick_Ehrenberg
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
|
Quote:
I guess it was to a non optimized steering geometry.
sometimes (with the old couplers) the insulator felt off
and the alignment never looked 100% straight.
i think it went better because the flaming river one
uses a universal joint that compensates this miss alignment.
last weekend we had the biggest car meeting in north germany
and i tried the super bee from a friend. 24:1 with the
original steering wheel and the normal coupler.
it was as heavy as mine to steer. big surprise for him.
Be careful when you ditch the pot coupling, and, especially, the rag joint on cars with rubber isolated K-members or stub frames: The U-joint can't compensate for length variations as the car flexes, eventually causing column and/or chuck bearing problems.
Flaming River gets away with this with THEIR columns since theirs telescope freely (no nylon pin, no rust, etc.)
Rick
|
|
|
Re: steering box 16:1 or 24:1
[Re: Rick_Ehrenberg]
#334066
06/05/09 01:01 AM
06/05/09 01:01 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,471
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,471
So Cal
|
Quote:
Quote:
I guess it was to a non optimized steering geometry.
sometimes (with the old couplers) the insulator felt off
and the alignment never looked 100% straight.
i think it went better because the flaming river one
uses a universal joint that compensates this miss alignment.
last weekend we had the biggest car meeting in north germany
and i tried the super bee from a friend. 24:1 with the
original steering wheel and the normal coupler.
it was as heavy as mine to steer. big surprise for him.
Be careful when you ditch the pot coupling, and, especially, the rag joint on cars with rubber isolated K-members or stub frames: The U-joint can't compensate for length variations as the car flexes, eventually causing column and/or chuck bearing problems.
Flaming River gets away with this with THEIR columns since theirs telescope freely (no nylon pin, no rust, etc.)
Rick
Do you agree and/or have experiance with the universal joint having less friction/resistance than the steering pot coulper.
If you have a pot coupler and you knocked out the nylon pin would that allow for telescoping and no other "issues"????
|
|
|
Re: steering box 16:1 or 24:1
[Re: Rick_Ehrenberg]
#334067
06/05/09 02:01 AM
06/05/09 02:01 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 214
Hamburg / Germany
Den300
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 214
Hamburg / Germany
|
Rick,
I have no rubber isolated k-member or rag joint
due to the fact that i drive a 69 c-body.
but you are right, that the flaming river one
canīt compensate flexing because there is
no "play" within their coupler shaft kit.
should be kept in mind for people having this.
Hamburg/Germany
69 Chrysler 300
446cui Dual Quad
12.64 @ 110.7
|
|
|
Re: steering box 16:1 or 24:1
[Re: Den300]
#334068
06/06/09 07:15 PM
06/06/09 07:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
I swapped to manual steering in my 72 Charger. Its a 440 car, weighs 3650lbs empty, has a 13" wheel and 295 tires on the front. Its got a stock box and its a breeze to turn. BUT... i drive it fast, the tail got away from me between two guardrails at 80mph in the canyon and how i saved it i'll never know. I'm a good driver... but there was a lot ov luck involved. I had to crank that wheel FAST. I'll never take that chance again. The suspension guy who installed it for me told me to try out the stock ratio and maybe i'll like it. Nope. Too scary at speed.
I've got a 70 Challenger thats getting a big block, 4spd and some serious rubber on the front (gonna start at sticky 275/40/17's and see how wide i can get). The car wont weigh much, 3300lbs at VERY most, and thats only until i can put some more money into it. This car will also have a smaller wheel... i just like them.
So, Flaming River makes a 16:1 box, but its iron. Anyone have an idea how much heavier it is than my stock aluminum box? Weight savings is a big issue.
Also, if i have a 16:1 box and add the fast ratio pitman and idler, will this work even better? or are there issues involved with that i should know?
|
|
|
|
|
