Gents, I'm putting back the power streering on my 69 bb. Going to buy a kit as I have nothing. Anyone tell me the issues I may face? Does the steering box remain the same? Do headers interfere with the installation?

 

Steering box is the same, although I think they relocate the steering linkage to a different hole in the Pitman arm with the conversion to power. Have you considered installing a Steeroids rack and pinion kit, or one of the other upgrade kits that guys on this forum like? I have the Steeroids kit and its a huge improvement.

 

steering arm not pitman arm

 

Guess you're aware that while it will certainly require less effort to drive at parking lot speeds with power steering, the sacrifice will be a big portion of true road feedback, yes? Should your outer tie-rod ends not already be in the "slow" ratio position of the steering arms, simply making that basic adjustment would reduce your low-speed steering effort significantly. If you must have PS, I'd also look at the Borgeson option before a final decision. In any event, due to previous experience what I personally would NOT do would be to reinstall the factory slave cylinder setup. My $.02

 

Years ago I did my own rack install before any kits were ever mentioned....and of course the Borgeson install beats anything for simple install....I had to make/get made/modified upon advice all on my own ....total cost about 250 bux, still in the car, junk the stock steering crap 3.7 turns lock to lock 16-1 ratio.....I have 12-1 ration at 2.7 turns L-L.......now which is better with modern wheels/tires??

 

Gents, thanks all for the advice. I agree PS not required for the track but for my purpose and old elbows I must go for power. While #'s matching I think is rediculous (all of us without #'s say that) I like to appear original so I'll not go with the rack.
My Tie's are connected in the fwd hole of the steering arms, at the very least I'll move them aft.
Gonna take a closer look at the Borgeson. May have to pick your brains again soon.
Thanks again, Rog

 

FYI...


You'll gain ~15% mechanical advantage by moving to the rear holes. Stock box ratio is 16.1:1, with overall PS/"quick" 17.6:1 and manual/"slow" 20.2:1. The Borgeson PS box is 12.7:1, which should result in a "quick" ratio of ~13.9:1 and "slow" of ~15.9:1, assuming my maths are correct. Hope that helps.

 

Thanks

 

Gents, looks like the smart money is on installing the Borgeson PS conversion box. Does anyone have the dimensions for it, specially I would like to know how far towards the header it will go. I don't have a lot of room to play with.

 

If they are in the forward location, they are already in the PS location. For stock PS the tie rods need to be in the forward, quicker ratio, position, there will be clearance issues if they are installed in the rear position.

You will need the cylinder with mount - the mount is attached with 2 u-bolts that go thru the frame - the control valve, drag link, pitman arm, and pump with pully. Depending on other options how the belt is routed, and other pully options may be different. You will need to find out how the belt should be routed.

 

I went Rack and Pinion because BBC with headers was an issue using the Borgeson from everything I read.

 

I hate to drag this thread back up, but can you explain this a bit more for a novice?

 

No problem...

Power steering masks feedback from the road by overpowering a good deal of input that would otherwise reach the driver back thru the steering wheel via a strictly manual linkage, serving to somewhat disconnect the driver from what is actually going on at the front tires. Cranking in additional caster with PS typically provides better feel relative to steering angle*, but the info being transmitted to the driver remains filtered to the degree of power assist being delivered by the PS system in question. Of course, there's plenty of gray area here as to how much or how little "assistance" one may desire. * FWIW, the function of camber thrust generated within the tire itself is another topic altogether.

Although steering box ratio would be unaffected by doing so, moving the outer tie-rod ends changes their leverage point at the steering arms, thus changing the effective ratio between steering wheel movement and that resulting at the tire. The forward holes (stock PS position) at the stock steering knuckles yield roughly 15% quicker effective steering ratio than do the rear holes (stock manual position). These rear holes will not be drilled out in later C3 steering arms.This ~15% difference also translates to steering effort, but is only noticeable at parking lot speeds.

My shark's original PS system almost put a passenger and me in a box. While merely cruising down a 4-lane road one day (now many years ago), it suddenly decided to go full lock to the left, putting us across opposing traffic. Fortunately, there was enough of a gap that no one hit us and I was able to bring it to a stop just short of going head-on into a telephone pole. And, regardless of what macho illusions anyone may have of themselves, no, you would NOT have been able to overcome it. I was forced to cut the belt in order to drive it home, whereupon I proceeded to do a full conversion to manual before ever driving it again. Had the other C3s I've owned not already been manual, I would have converted them too.

HTH

 

The Borgeson is a nice setup. Mine cleared the 2-1/8" Hooker headers on my 555"...but my heads have the ports raised .600"....so that may have helped. Since them I've installed the twin turbo setup using a set of McJack's shorty headers from Corvette Central...and they clear just fine also.

JIM