oz68-Tried getting those measurements for you, kinda difficult to get a scale in with so much stuff in the way the one diminsion I WAS able to get is 5 1/2 inches from the top of the frame to the top of the cast aluminum cover on the box...hope this helps you, but from what I've read on these installations it's gonna be hit or miss for you guys with big blocks w/ headers

qwank-I'm seeing about 1 1/4" between the rag joint and #7 header tube, I'm on my fourth year with this box, no issues with deteriorating rubber yet(double-checked while getting the info for oz68vet)

 

Using Hooker headers (p/n 2134), I had plenty of clearance from the Borgeson installation. Although I used the u-joint because I was unsure how close the rag joint would come, it is clear that the rag joint also would have had plenty of clearance from the header tube.

 

the rag joint is pretty big. It would be as close as mine if you used it

 

I'm at a crossroads here. I'm about to either have Gary R. blueprint my factory box, and then I'd replace the rest of the PS components at no small cost due to age and leaks.....

Or I'd consider the Borgeson system. The problem is, the last time I looked at it, the info on the forum was that it wouldn't fit with a big block and headers. Now I'm seeing that it might fit. I would seriously consider it if I knew it would fit. Can all folks with big blocks tell me what they know- one way or another? Firsthand info could make all the difference. Thanks.

 

Just put a small block in it. You can get a nice one for pretty cheap from GM.

I have a spare intake and carb you can use.

https://sdparts.com/details/gm-goodw...gines/10067353

 

Great idea, but I'm pretty sure that would force me to scramble the digits in the 1/4 mile stats in my sig and that's just too much work. Thanks anyway though.

 

I'm at the exact same cross road. I thought that it was a no-go with the BB and headers (mine are 2" primary) but some say it's possible. There is an old thread (maybe by 427Hotrod?) about a write up in a mag, but I can't seem to find the story (believe it's from 2010 so maybe it's been taken offline?) Anyway - I rebuilt the steering box and front end and am not happy with the steering feel, or the effort at low speed. From the measurement given by 682XLR8, the borgeson is about 1 inch higher than the manual box. But I really need some information on how much closer to the engine the box is. I believe from another thread that the box can be ground a little, and my header could be dinted a bit more, but probably only another 1/8". It would be great if some BB guys who have done the conversion could share their experience a bit?
Here is a better shot of the current clearance, it's at a bit of an angle but it give a good idea, very tight in there:

 

Oz,
My Hedmans have 2" primaries too. For some reason I have a bit more clearance than you do and that tube doesn't have a dent in it- I want to keep it that way. I plan to talk to a Borgeson rep tomorrow to see what they have to say. I don't expect good news but, whatever it is, I'll post it here. I've broken down the costs roughly and for me it would cost about $250-300 more to stay with the factory system, blueprint the box, and get new parts for the rest of it- assuming the steering box needs new gears. If Gary said the gears are OK, cost would be pretty close to even but after 43+ years I would think the gears need replacement.

In your case, if you got a rebuilt box from one of the normal sources that could be a big part of why you're not happy. From everything I've read, a blueprinted box by Gary is leaps and bounds better. If I stay with the factory system there's no doubt that Gary will be getting my box very soon to do his magic.

 

Okay, I just took some measurements in an attempt to help resolve some of the clearance questions regarding the Borgeson swap into a BB with headers. I attempted to measure the distance from the center line of the shaft (the horizontal one that connects to the steering column shaft) to the furthest point on the box next to the motor. Admittedly, it was difficult to measure the Borgeson box since it is already in the car.

Based on the best measurements that I could make, the distances were almost identical, being approximately 3 5/8 inches. An important note is that the point to measure the locations furthest from the center line of the shafts are different on the two boxes as in the boxes are not the same shape (which I did not realize until now). If you take a quick look at your original boxes and then the photographs of the Borgeson boxes in this thread you will see what I mean. This could be good or it could be bad depending on the exact location of where each persons closest header passes by relative to the box.

Sorry, all I can provide is this non-answer answer. Do good intentions count?

 

here's the rag joint clearance with the headers:

 

oh, and my inner tie rod grease fittings are hitting my lower control arm. I'm going to have to grind a little off the control arm.

 

Larry,
While viewing your pic, can you tell me if the steering box location shifted to the left or right from the stock box location? If so, do you have any idea how much? This could really make a difference for those of us with big blocks.

I just talked to Jeff at Borgeson- their main guy for tech info. He said he believes the box will fit on big blocks with headers. He cited a C3 Vette with a 572 with 2 1/8" primary tube headers that has their system installed w/o a problem. Not knowing the port height or header configuration, this doesn't necessarily mean it would work for us with mere 427s or 454s. He said there's slightly more clearance at the centerpoint where the stock box protrudes a bit more than the Borgeson, but there's a bit less clearance at the corners. You can see what he means when you view both from above. That's why knowing where the box sits front to back on the car matters for the big block guys. He said his box protrudes 2.5" towards the engine from the flat part of the frame rail. I'll try to hang a line from the stock box and measure it's distance from the frame to get a comparison. Don't expect pics because just getting positioned to measure will probably be hard enough to do. I'll post results later.

 

As far as I know, the inward penetration of the Borgeson box is the same as the stock box.

Using the Borg box, I did not have to use any spacers to move it inwards at all - it all lined up nicely.

 

Thanks Larry. I actually did a pretty poor job of asking my question. The part I'm concerned with is the squared off section with 4 bolts that sits between your #1 and #3 header tubes. You may have answered with that in mind but I'm not sure. Do you know if that part is located any differently from the same part of the stock box, left to right, as you view from above as in your pic?

 

Other than being taller, I think that the axis is the same as stock.

 

Thanks Larry.

 

Great information Les. I think with looking at the photos, the borgeson might just fit, as my #3 header sticks out the most right where the box is, the shape of the borgeson and extra height may actually place it further away. That and the info that Les got from them is leaning me towards buying one as I don't think it will be impossible to clearance. Lets just hope I don't get one of the defective boxes as some earlier in the thread have experienced! Will let you know how I go. Now to choose who from and wait for the airmail....

 

These are 1.7/8 SS headers.

My box is almost finished, but is there an alternative to the very hard supplied hoses?

 

For those of you that have had interference issues with the drivers side tie rod? Is there a difference between the PS pitman arm and the Standard pitman arm?

Hitch

 

This will work for the return line, you can use push on hose and bend the fitting to an L shape.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/rnb-800-170