quick steer

[mlplunkett]

I can't find it now but at some point I remembered reading that the longer steering arms didn't need to be used by Shelby on later model cars because Ford changed the steering gear ratio in the steering box. Since there are so many comments about headers not clearing the longer steering arms on the early cars (65-66) I'm wondering if the header clearance problem could be solved by using a later steering box. Anybody know?

[Bob Gaines]

I can't find it now but at some point I remembered reading that the longer steering arms didn't need to be used by Shelby on later model cars because Ford changed the steering gear ratio in the steering box. Since there are so many comments about headers not clearing the longer steering arms on the early cars (65-66) I'm wondering if the header clearance problem could be solved by using a later steering box. Anybody know?

Why try and reinvent the wheel? Use the longer idler arm and pitman arm which are readily available and be done with it. That is if working on 65/66. The pitman arm is not typically a big issue. However sub standard after market Tri Y headers have been a issue in the past . The factory headers were apparently made better then other different aftermarket vendors.The quick steer mod was not needed for 67-70  given that the race teams for 67-70 did not typically modify the 67-70 idler or pitman arms. 

[GT350AUS]

 May I ask a simple question regarding the heaviness of the steering action with the longer arm compared to a p/s GT steering with the p/steering removed.


Reason for my question is my 66 Shelby is a lot harder to steer than my 66 GT with the
P/s removed but the rest is standard equipment.

Ross

[6R07mi]

The 65/66 P/S box is the same as the M/S quick ratio so there should be no difference all other factors being the same.
I would not think the additional length of the pitman / idler arm would not produce significant additional steering effort, you may have some binding elsewhere in the system, gearbox input bearing preload, or stiffness in the various ball studs in the steering linkage or in the control arm ball studs??

I can only comment my 1970 "Boss 351" had the RPO competition suspension and quick ratio manual steering, with Koni shocks and 15x7" wheel and the early Radial TA G70-15 tires.

Once the car was moving above 10 mph the steering effort was not excessive, steering in a parking lot did require both hands ( +arms !).

However at higher speeds, 50~100+ the car was extremely stable, with crisp steering inputs resulting in predictable vehicle response.
My good friend had a 1970 Boss 302 with the same RPO competition suspension, but FoMoCO production shocks and P/S, the steering felt mushy, with less predictable response to steering inputs.
I did not feel nearly as confident taking that car over 100 mph unless I had a lot of runoff or wide pavement to use!

my humble opinion is you must decide the intended use of the car and then set it up to accomplish the intended performance.
If you are interested in a comfortable boulevard cruiser with good low speed efforts then P/S would be desired, if a stable track car then I would think the P/S looses it's attraction.

To adapt the later 67-70 steering system you would need to adapt the steering column also (as it uses collapsible column & gearbox with short input shaft) or look at one of the aftermarket restomod gearbox/column products.

regards

jim p

[Bob Gaines]

I can only comment my 1970 "Boss 351" had the competition suspension and quick ratio manual steering, with Koni shocks and 15x7" wheel and the early Radial TA G70-15 tires.

Once the car was moving above 10 mph the steering effort was not excessive, moving in a parking lot did require both hands ( +arms !).
However at higher speeds, 50~100+ the car was extremely stable, with crisp steering inputs resulting in predictable vehicle response.
My good friend had a 1970 Boss 302 with the same competition suspension, but FoMoCO production shocks and P/S, the steering felt mushy, with less predictable response to steering inputs.
I did not feel nearly as confident taking that car over 100 mph unless I had a lot of runoff or wide pavement to use!

my humble opinion is you must decide the intended use of the car and then set it up to accomplish the intended performance.
If you are interested in a comfortable boulevard cruiser with good low speed efforts then P/S would be desired, if a stable track car then I would think the P/S looses it's attraction.

To adapt the later 67-70 steering system you would need to adapt the steering column also (as it uses collapsible column & gearbox with short input shaft) or look at one of the aftermarket restomod gearbox/column products.

regards

jim p

Jim, maybe getting a little off track for the OP's question but I wanted to point out that regardless of if manual or PS that any reliable usable comparison would have to be where both cars had new or relatively new suspension and steering . A comparison would not be accurate otherwise. There are so many components to consider if doing a comparison . Steering box if not rebuilt in 50 years is a big factor ,inner and outer tie rods ,idler arm ,upper and lower control arms ,and to a lessor extent sway bar and endlink bushings. I have even seen a bent drag link . Any one of the mentioned components not in tip top shape could skew a comparison negatively. I wanted those reading to keep these things in mind while formulating a opinion one way or the other.

[6R07mi]

Jim, maybe getting a little off track for the OP's question but I wanted to point out that regardless of if manual or PS that any reliable usable comparison would have to be where both cars had new or relatively new suspension and steering . A comparison would not be accurate otherwise. There are so many components to consider if doing a comparison . Steering box if not rebuilt in 50 years is a big factor ,inner and outer tie rods ,idler arm ,upper and lower control arms ,and to a lessor extent sway bar and endlink bushings. I have even seen a bent drag link . Any one of the mentioned components not in tip top shape could skew a comparison negatively. I wanted those reading to keep these things in mind while formulating a opinion one way or the other.
[/quote]

Bob, I agree completely with your observations, the whole steering system should be inspected and serviced as a interdependent system.
and I apologize if I've taken this discussion off into the weeds!

Regards

jim p

[gt350hr]

   Let me offer this. When Cyclone built the Tri Ys , "I" doubt the quick steering arms existed. It is "my " opinion a standard HiPo 289 Mustang was used . MY original tri Ys have "flats" where the pitman and idler arms hit during  the 50,000 miles it got in the eight years of use it got prior to me. The only other "possibility" is that the guy who prototyped them didn't check for "lock to lock" interference. Every original tri y I've owned was flattened ( more or less) in the same locations. The ones for 477 are still in the rafters.
    Randy

[gt350hr]

   The steering arms would interfere even more with the 67 up stuff. The pitman arm is way more "robust" because of the big block usage.

[GT350AUS]

Jim and Bob.

I didn't want o high jack the original post so maybe I should've started another one.

In any case, the steering box has been rebuilt with he correct pre load apparently being set, so best I have the remainder of the components looked at,

As a side note steering is precise when moving but heavier than the GT, tires are 235's so I considered that that may add to it as the GT has 205's. Did a wheel swap but no difference.

[SFM5S000]

   Let me offer this. When Cyclone built the Tri Ys , "I" doubt the quick steering arms existed. It is "my " opinion a standard HiPo 289 Mustang was used . MY original tri Ys have "flats" where the pitman and idler arms hit during  the 50,000 miles it got in the eight years of use it got prior to me. The only other "possibility" is that the guy who prototyped them didn't check for "lock to lock" interference. Every original tri y I've owned was flattened ( more or less) in the same locations. The ones for 477 are still in the rafters.
    Randy

Randy,

Is this the flattened spot you're talking about? See pics

Cheers,
~EarlJ

[CharlesTurner]

Is this the flattened spot you're talking about? See pics

That would probably be a mod for better Z bar/shifter clearance.

[Rocket]

Looks like passenger side header to me The steering on 550, when I bought it in 1967 with less than 3400 miles was hard to turn at slow speeds. l think the combination of wide tires and the quick steering set up was the cause. Ron

[6T6/7]

The longer pitman arm increases steering effort as well quickening the steering.

[gt350hr]

   Let me offer this. When Cyclone built the Tri Ys , "I" doubt the quick steering arms existed. It is "my " opinion a standard HiPo 289 Mustang was used . MY original tri Ys have "flats" where the pitman and idler arms hit during  the 50,000 miles it got in the eight years of use it got prior to me. The only other "possibility" is that the guy who prototyped them didn't check for "lock to lock" interference. Every original tri y I've owned was flattened ( more or less) in the same locations. The ones for 477 are still in the rafters.
    Randy

        Charles ,
       That is pitman arm clearance . The clutch linkage is "behind" the tubes , closer to the block.
      Earl ,
        Mine were caused by "use" ( there is a witness mark for the idler arm on the pass side too.) from the eight years before I got it. Your picture "to me" looks like "the universal Ford tool" made it. Mine are far more subtle .The only other "possibility" is the Mustang they were built on WASN'T an K code and the different motor mounts of the "standard engine" had the engine in a slightly different position/ height. After 55 years it is going to be tough to find the guy who did the prototype IF he's still with us.
Randy,

Is this the flattened spot you're talking about? See pics

Cheers,
~EarlJ

[Helmantel]

I can't find it now but at some point I remembered reading that the longer steering arms didn't need to be used by Shelby on later model cars because Ford changed the steering gear ratio in the steering box. Since there are so many comments about headers not clearing the longer steering arms on the early cars (65-66) I'm wondering if the header clearance problem could be solved by using a later steering box. Anybody know?

The later cars have shorter steering arms on the spindles, which quickens the steering the same way longer pitman arms do, although to a lesser extend (about 5% vs ~15%).