GT's 78

Some of the problems are self imposed, like beating on the end of a splined shaft with a hammer.

MalibuVLX

My install of the Borgeson unit was piece of cake. Love the results and have recommened it to several who are very satified with outcome as well.

Mike Ward

It makes a fair and reasonable counter point to those that think that everything different is better.

Criticism of the stock GM system about what 'might' happen or 'could' happen can be applied to any mechanical advice. The Borgesen system is not without potential and actual problems as Paul has rightfully pointed out. The GM system was used from 1963 to 1982 in the Corvette application and many more years previous to that in other products. If anything it's proven itself to be dependable, durable and reliable.

This stuff is not much different than people ripping out their 40 year old headlight vacuum systems because 'they suddenly failed and that proves they're GM crap' and replace them with electrical actuators switches and relays. Different, but not better and a whole lot of pain and expense to get there.

Hitch

Mike once again you stick your head in the sand and ignore that there are better solutions that have been provided in the last forty years..

aussiejohn

It was my understanding that brake lines prior to 1974 were OK but after 1973, the lines needed to be moved just a little. On my 1974, I had to "tweak" them slightly, but no big deal.

For Paul and the others who don't like this conversion, I'll say this: the old system, no matter how good Gary and others rebuild them, is stuck with a 16:1 ratio with four turns LTL. It has four hoses hanging under the engine, along with a ram and control valve, some of which might need to be removed if you need to pull the oil pan. The power assist is pretty constant at any wheel position, not ideal when trying to cruise in a nearly straight line.

The Borgeson kit offers a "sportier" 12.7:1 ratio with 2.7 turns LTL. The power assist is dependent on how far the wheel is turned; there is almost no assist when cruising, up to full boost when parking. Just like EVERY modern car on the road.

There are only two hoses, neither of which goes under the engine, keeping them clean and out of the way. The only fault in the system is that the return line to the pump has to make a 180 degree turn to connect with the nipple on the pump reservoir. I solved this by sweating out the old line from the pump housing and brazing in a -6 AN male fitting.

I then used a -6 female 90 degree fitting to connect that with the by now shortened return line. The fault above is not Borgeson's, it's just that they have to supply a hose that is long enough to connect to the factory pump return fitting. If you alter the factory return fitting, then the Borgeson return hose routing is a lot simpler.

As for the "failed" rag joint in aaronvette's car, you should have contacted Borgeson, as they have a factory warranty on all their products. Putting in a solid or U joint is not ideal, as these cars have a rubber mounted body-on-chassis design. These rubber mounts can collapse with age and cause the steering shaft/input shaft misalignment that others have mentioned.

A rag joint is designed to accommodate this misalignment, a uni joint is not. An over-tightened rag joint is waiting to fail, so maybe that was the reason for its failure as you have mentioned. Borgeson has been in the steering joint business since it was founded in 1914, so it's a safe bet that they know what they're doing and supply parts that are fit for the job.

Granted, there is a number of "complaints" posted about troubles that some people have had with their Borgeson conversion, but the numbers pale compared to the problems encountered with some R&P conversions offered by other vendors. Check them out.

Here are some tips to help any future Borgeson convertees:

1. Use a hoist to get the car up to a safe working height.

2. Try to measure the gap between the end of the steering shaft and the input shaft of the factory steering box. Write this down.

3. Put a ring of masking/painter's tape on the steering shaft about 2-1/2" below where it comes out of the lower column bearing. Using a piece of aluminum or brass between the splined end and a hammer, hit the shaft up until the tape is about a half inch from the bearing. Test fit the box and check the gap between the two shafts and tap the steering shaft up further if necessary.

4. If the car is fitted with manual steering, you can leave the Pitman arm attached to the drag link.

5. If you want to make the fitting of the return line easier, remove the pump and modify the return line fitting by rotating it 180 degrees or attach an AN fitting as described above. You will probably need to shorten the supplied return line if you do this.

6. On a lathe, make up a drift that fits inside the supplied ferrules and use a hammer to properly seat the ferrules in the steering box. I made one out of some 3/8" mild steel rod. This should prevent leaks in this area upon start-up. Don't ask me how I know this!

Finally, it's not a hard job if you follow my tips and Mr. Green's photos. Good luck!

Regards from Down Under.

aussiejohn

jb78L-82

I am certainly not knocking the Borgeson box. I think the comments are all about choices folks have for their steering on the C3's.

1. Those that are perfectly happy with the OEM steering and components. They don't know or just don't care about other options and want to retain originality.

2. Those folks like me that want to improve the OEM system but do not want to change the OEM system-They own a C3 and want to keep it a C3, not a hybrid of some sort. These folks go the GTR1999 custom blue print/ rebuilt box and see a vast improvement using the OEM components for short money-much less than the 2 options below.

3. Borgeson-Those folks who want a different steering system than the OEM system that looks fairly stock with none of the issues of the OEM system and components. Having the 12.7:1 ratio versus the 16:1 steering ratio would appeal to me but may not to others. has advantages and disadvantages as well on the street. 2X as expensive as option #2 but certainly appealing to some folks.

4. Which brings us to option 4-Rack and Pinion steering! Probably the best option for those that want modern steering in a 50 year old car line. These folks are not interested in originality, are not deterred by the 4-5X more expense versus option #2 or double the expense of option #3, nor deterred by the work involved in the install. They just want the best steering that can be had for a C3-period. Just about every car made today has R&P.

All about options and what folks can afford, changes that they are willing to make to the OEM design, and personal preference.

Option # 3-Borgeson-is probably the best compromise for somewhat originality with vast steering improvement with less headaches than the OEM system. Just my thoughts!

71-Stingray

Great thread guys ...

I'm in the middle of my restoration ... rolling chassis almost complete ... was debating the rebuild of my stock box. After reading through numerous posts this weekend I will take the plunge with the Borgeson conversion.

Along with the benefits of improved steering ratio and assist, I think eliminating many wear/leak points (ram, control valve, hoses) beneath the car makes this an ideal solution.

oldalaskaman

good for you , imho
its the best ,safest , change you can do to your vette, be sure to reset the alignment per their instructions. its one of those upgrades you can install , set the alignment and completely forget worrying or even thinking about

Mike Ward

Of course you can find tons of posts about the stock system- probably 99% of the half million C2/C3s built still have their original system vs. 1% with Borg steering. Any mechanical system is going to need repairs and maintenance after 30-40-50 years service in a hostile environment. I can't think of a more irrational apples an oranges comparison.

If we're going to get into the 'tech' stuff from a 'safety' point of view- is partially but permanently collapsing the steering column shaft a good thing? What studies have been done to confirm that this reduction in collapse margin and the method of smashing on the shaft with a sledge hammer to shorten it will not have negative and potentially fatal secondary effects in the case of a frontal collision?

aaroncorvette

This is a good thread

If anyone is wanting to restore/change their steering system I think it depends on what's shot at the moment and what you want to use the car for.

Here was my thinking...

I had a '71 Vette that I was building as a pro tourer, I wanted the car to steer, brake and handle like a c3 never did so along with all the other mods was the steering...

1 - I want whatever I change to work and not have to keep changing parts until it does.
2 - I want it to steer accurately
3 - I want quicker steering
4 - I want to get rid of that POS valve in the steering
5- I don't care for originality

Coming from Mk1 Ecsorts, which I could power slide one handed, the C3 steering system is a horrible convoluted mess. The escort system is a column, a uj, a rack and two steerings arms, simple and brilliant. The vette system is a joke.

I weighed up the cost and benefits of the Borgeson vs rack and the cost of the Borgeson won out for me as i'd heard a lot of stories about bendy brackets on the racks.

In hindsight I would have gone with the rack and strengthened the brackets myself as the movement of the chassis rails does slightly interfere with the steering as the box is located on one side ( which you can see moving if you pop the hood and move the wheel) and the idler arm on the other side which will be affected by movement.

To conclude -

If you want very good steering go with the Borgeson.

If you want really good steering go with the rack.

I'm putting a cage in mine to stiffen it up so i'll stay with the Borgeson.....until someone makes a front steer rack for the c3 WHICH IS WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE HAD FROM THE FACTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aaroncorvette

P.s - I had a '71 Camaro that would run rings around my '71 vette, why?....Front steer baby ( and a stiffer frame)

For those that think that stock steering is what 'GM intended' is actually wrong because the '71 Camaro was a newer car than a '71 Vette, and had better tech than the vette, the vette was using outdated parts by then and should have been upgraded to Camaro spec as it was their flagship car.

ezobens

Not sure I buy the whole 'stiffer' frame story-
The Camaro was uni-body with a front sub-frame (based off the Nova was it?). Corvette has a full perimeter frame.
I'm guessing the Camaro's sub-frame wasn't any thicker than the Vette's either so I'm not sure how it's any stiffer?

Front steer on a C3?
Have you looked under a C3?
There is no way to fit one-
Probably explains why no one makes one either.
It's all about the packaging..

I had a 72' Vega GT that would literally run circles around a Camaro-
Was it superior frame stiffness and steering geometry? Hardly..

vettebuyer6369

OK, 2 different moderators have had to delete and clean up posts. Everyone has had their say. This thread seems to have some value to the people who are interested. Please let us keep it open.

Please leave the conflict out of it. If you want to civilly disagree about ideas, feel free but please cease the personal bickering.

aaroncorvette

I've had both a '71 vette and '71 Camaro, the Camaro is a lot stiffer than the vette. Camaro unibody is very stiff with a front subframe, vette frame is floppy ( jack one up and watch it twist), this is one of the biggest flaws of a c3 ( the out of date frame).
It is taking considerably more cash to get the c3 anywhere near the Camaro with much less spent on it.

The stiffer Camaro with it's front steer setup is great and as I said, is what the vette should have had.

I own a c3, it's rear steer and if it can be modded to front steer then i'll go for it, perhaps swap the spindles over or use spindles from another car and weld in a new crossmember.

My experience is throwing around both cars and wrenching on them, any chassis guy will tell you the same thing.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Mr.Green

No idea on that. Good question though. I hope to never find out personally. It's a chance that I'm willing to take though. There are posts about how people have physically shortened the shaft by cutting it and either re-machining the splines, or welding the old splines back on. I decided to follow Borgeson's instructions, except I did mine with the steering column in the car still.

If anyone can find any data on the safety of the Borgeson mod, I'm sure we would all like to hear it.

Mr.Green

Didn't mean to strike up a controversy, to each their own! I just decided to post up some detailed instructions for anyone wanting to attempt the mod!

Vettebuyer said it well:

'75

Seems like the collapsed shaft would reduce the amount of space that the box could move rearward in a front impact by the amount it was collapsed(obviously) during the borg box install. But given the amount of force needed to get them to start to collapse (noted by many who have done the mod), they may not have collapsed in a crash anyway, or at least not easily enough to save the drivers chest. 30 or 40 years ago, probably would have. After the install there is still a couple inches of travel left, but will move much easier. Probably best to not crash.

Mr.Green

That sounds like a good plan to me. I sent an email to Brogeson to see if they had any data or insights. I'll post up their reply if they send me something.

Mike Ward

Very honestly the first time I heard of doing such a thing I thought the guy was just joking, and was amazed to later learn that this was really the manufacturer's suggested procedure. In today's litigious society it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they end up getting sued after an accident for having suggested that an OEM safety feature be tampered with or disabled.

When I toured the Ssnake-oyl facility in Texas years ago the owner described to me the hoops they had to jump through to manufacture and overhaul a simple thing like a seat belt.

Screw around with a complex assembly like a collapsible steering column? Not me.

Mr.Green

I asked Borgeson about any safety data they may have and they replied with this:

We certainly understand that some people are concerned with the decrease in the amount of collapse available in a collision. It is a trade-off that is necessary to improve the drivability of the car. Some people will disagree and not feel that it’s an acceptable compromise and we understand that as well. Unfortunately we have not come up with an ideal solution but we do appreciate your interest in providing other people with all the available information.

Thanks,

Gil Evans
Borgeson Universal Company