Rack-n-pinion steering?

Buy-Sell-Trade, Wanted, Q&A, anything Conestoga!

Rack-n-pinion steering?

Postby Conestogaman » 2005 Jan 01 Sat 10:33 am

I would like to know what you folks are using for a R&P box. I figgure it'll go aft of the x-member but forward of the oil p/u bulge in the chevy oil pan?

Any help is mucho appreciated 8)
Happy Wagoneering!

'54 Conestoga Champion
'54 Conestoga Commander "Connie"
'54 Conestoga "Rusty bucket"
'48 Stude 2R 4x4 monster truck "Tina"
'94 BMW K75 "Red"
'01 BMW R1150GSA "The Cow Killa"
User avatar
Conestogaman
 
Posts: 126
Joined: 2004 Dec 24 Fri 11:06 am
Location: Sack-o-tomato, CA

Postby Mike » 2005 Jan 02 Sun 12:00 am

Roger M. and talked about this, this afternoon.
My opinion is this -

Mustang II R&P, after it's verified that the width is right for minimum "bumpsteer". Flaming River will make the width you need. The R&P "pivots" need to be the same width as the lower control arm pivot point. Yea....try that with the lower control arm on a Stude!!!!

Second thing that's needed is the modified "quick steering arms" that are available. "Not" for their quick steering abilities but for their shorter length. Again...back to the bump steer problem. The R&P only has a small amount of space it'll fit between the pan and cross member. It needs to go "back" farther thAn the pan will allow. So with the quick steering arms moving that pivot "foward" and mounting the R&P as far "backward" as possible.....that will minumize that part of the problem.

Just in case you're not sure....the problem comes up while driving down the street, the front of the car is always moving up and down, actually the suspention is. Some streets are worse than others. With the steering now set up "perfectly" (64 - 67 Chevy II's and many others are NOT!) the wheels track straight ahead "ALL" of the time. Well, few cars have that much time spent in the original design. Most are a comprimize of time (money) and real world. Whith too much bump steer....the front wheels are always movingin and out.

That is "toe in" and "toe out" as the body vs. suspension move.
While driving straight....not too big a deal. Most don't even feel that. When going around a corner or curve in the road, the worse the geometry, the worse the car will drive around the bend in the road.

It seems that many of the Studebaker "experts" will disagree with most of what I've said. But it's REAL simple to verify everything I've said. Take measurements of the Stude front suspention, add in the measurements of thr R&P. Now buy some heavy paper from an art store. Now make a 1/4" scale stick model of the front end pieces (one side is enough). Put all of the pieces on another piece of the heavy paper and locate all of the paper dolls with a pin. Now move the wheel up and down. Since the paper can't move....what happens....everything binds up and won't move. Get the geometry right and it will move.
Another way is to buy one of the many computer programs on the market for the roundy round crowd and work that untill the geometry works out right.

The better driveability is WELL worth the effort.

More than enough for now....

Mike
User avatar
Mike
 
Posts: 685
Joined: 2004 Dec 18 Sat 3:28 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Rack-n-pinion

Postby Guest » 2005 Jan 03 Mon 1:11 pm

"Roger M. and talked about this, this afternoon. "

My ears were ringing... 8)


"My opinion is this -

Mustang II R&P, after it's verified that the width is right for minimum "bumpsteer". Flaming River will make the width you need. The R&P "pivots" need to be the same width as the lower control arm pivot point. Yea....try that with the lower control arm on a Stude!!!! "

1) So the inner ends of the r&p control rods 'should be' as close to the width of the lower control arms pivot from each other? Also, should the pivot on the r&p be in line with an imaginary line drawn thru both pivots on the bottom of the 'A' arms (angled back not straight back) causing the rack to be shorter (narrower) than the rear pivot points of the bottom 'A' arms on the backside of the crossmember? So that's like a 5-6" long r&p? :shock:

And what do you mean 'verified'? Sounds like a dis-claimer to me... 8)

What do you suppose is the maximum length before it goes from slight bumpsteer to excessive? :? I imagine as the width of the rack grows (shorter arms), so 'grows' the bumpsteer (exponentially). I would think getting the shortest possible unit may still be too long. This would make it almost necessary to switch to quicksteer arms (below) due to the short size of the rack and it's inherrant limitations (short 'throw').

"Second thing that's needed is the modified "quick steering arms" that are available. "Not" for their quick steering abilities but for their shorter length. Again...back to the bump steer problem. The R&P only has a small amount of space it'll fit between the pan and cross member. It needs to go "back" farther thAn the pan will allow. So with the quick steering arms moving that pivot "foward" and mounting the R&P as far "backward" as possible.....that will minumize that part of the problem. "

2) Is this a complete spindle assy or just the arm? I got too much crud on mine to see well. Does this arm come off? It looks like it's part of the spindle. Are these arms a stock part produced by the factory, or an aftermarket part made for the Hawk and Avanti crowd? :? If it is the whole spindle, I guess this would be the point to look for a dropped spindle and disc brakes. I had planned to go with the Turner Brake adapters for my discs, but if I gotta replace the spindles... 8)

This seems like I should try to get as much straight push/pull as I can with the rack located (as close to) directly in plane (both horizontal and vertical) with the steering arm pivot points (mounting points) with the car at rest (unladen).

"Just in case you're not sure....the problem comes up while driving down the street, (...snip...) With the steering now set up "perfectly" (64 - 67 Chevy II's and many others are NOT!) (... snip...)"

I read a piece years ago about the Novas and an article about a 'T' bucket... I'll have to do more research... :? Logic dictates that I should locate the r&p as close to the same plane as the lower control arms or above it slightly, although it's restricted from going too high by the engine's underside. I'm thinking, with the car at rest, the rack arms 'should' be as parallel to the ground as possible for minimum b-steer as the suspension works.

"More than enough for now.... "

Man, I'm glad there are forums like this. I never considered the length of the rack to be a factor, just it's location... This is my first r&p install and bumpsteer wasn't even a factor for me... til now...Thank you for opening my eyes! :shock: I have been working on a bumpsteer remedy on my 4x4 Chevy rockcrawler (crossover steering) but that design isn't an option for me on the Stude. :roll:

If you can relate any other peculiarities with mounting a rack to a stude (I asked in other 'hotrod' forums and got NO response so far) I would appreciate it immensely. Thanks for the heads up and giving me a better understanding of the Stude's steering geometry and how to work with it instead of aginst' it.

Makes a complete chassis swap look more affordable all the time...imagine...a S10 chassised 4x4 Conestoga... 8)

No more chains in the mountains...no fabbed motor mounts...just a few body to chassis mounts to make...

I'm just rambling at this point...(drool down the side of my face...)...


I haven't been able to post pics as all my pics are monster file size and I havn't figgered out how to downsize the file without downsizing the size of the pic... :roll:

You can see some lame pics here www.pbase.com/conestogaman
Guest
 

oops

Postby Conestogaman » 2005 Jan 03 Mon 1:18 pm

"Roger M. and talked about this, this afternoon. "

My ears were ringing...

(BIG snip)

You can see some lame pics here www.pbase.com/conestogaman

:oops:

I guess my session timed out and shunted me to 'guest' mode...
Happy Wagoneering!

'54 Conestoga Champion
'54 Conestoga Commander "Connie"
'54 Conestoga "Rusty bucket"
'48 Stude 2R 4x4 monster truck "Tina"
'94 BMW K75 "Red"
'01 BMW R1150GSA "The Cow Killa"
User avatar
Conestogaman
 
Posts: 126
Joined: 2004 Dec 24 Fri 11:06 am
Location: Sack-o-tomato, CA

R&P

Postby Half Fast One » 2005 Jan 03 Mon 1:46 pm

It may be a little hard to follow but Mike is correct. If you ever get lucky enough to see his work you get educated very quickly. I was a factory Rep for FMC.( the manufacturer of front end equipment and such ), so I too know a little about it.
I've been trying to explain the same process to a friend and he just could not get it. Until he saw what Mike had done on one of his vehicles.
Caster, Camber and Toe-In. All combined with Bump-Steer. Simple stuff, that can drive a guy crazy. That's why you need to have a expert set it up for you or at least give you good advise. Any dummy can make a vehicle go down the road straight. It's having that same vehicle go around corners, safely, comfortably and at speed that counts. Oh yea, don't forget about the tires lasting longer with the right set-up also.
If you what to rely on OLD geometry that was easy to build but worked, thats OK. Just remember it definitley was not manufactured for todays high speed highways and traffic conditions. So if you decide to change anything be sure it will work properly. You can't even trust all the companies out there trying to sell you replacement front suspension kits and pieces. The stuff may work, but some is NOT much better then the stock stuff. Do your homework and don't always think about cheap, easy or makeshift. It's like brakes, drums stop you, disc are better, then theres ABS etc.
Roger
Half fast one - Say it fast, says it all ....
Half Fast One
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 2004 Dec 18 Sat 9:00 am
Location: Hemet California 92545

Postby Mike » 2005 Jan 04 Tue 12:44 pm

Conestogaman....

Hey, just a thought....
It might be easier to give me a phone call with your questions. That way less will get lost in translation too. I'll try to help as best I can.

E-mail me at ocr1@earthlink.com and I'll get you my phone number.

I've done and helped with a "few" reworks/upgrades on the suspensions, both front and rear.

Roger M. (if you're watching), thanks for the vote of confidence on my work.

Mike
User avatar
Mike
 
Posts: 685
Joined: 2004 Dec 18 Sat 3:28 pm
Location: So. Cal.

R&P

Postby Half Fast One » 2005 Jan 04 Tue 2:30 pm

Mike;
Compliments given where deserved. I guess you or I should have taken a picture or two if we knew this question was coming up.
Roger

Conestogaman;
Money spent for long distance phone calls will be money well spent. Call Mike after 6:00 PM, if I remember correctly..
If you can get Mike to take a few pictures of the set-up on his one vehicle, I'm sure they will help A LOT......
Congratulations, you are already smarter then the average Shade Tree Mechanic. Most guys ask questions and then want to argue. My friend that went to see Mike with me was SO impressed :shock: with his work, that's all we talked about on the long ride home. I'm just sorry Mike doesn't live next door. So is my friend.....
Good Luck
Roger
Half fast one - Say it fast, says it all ....
Half Fast One
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 2004 Dec 18 Sat 9:00 am
Location: Hemet California 92545

This might cause a headache...

Postby Conestogaman » 2005 Jan 07 Fri 10:29 pm

Thanks for all the excellent replies! After posting and reading the replies, I started searching the Internet, and found this... :)

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads ... ype=thread


Which led me here... :)

http://home.houston.rr.com/baker53/


And this seemed to be just what the doctor ordered (along with a nifty airbag suspension)... :D

http://home.houston.rr.com/baker53/Sect ... %20pan.jpg
http://home.houston.rr.com/baker53/ft%20air%20bag.jpg
http://home.houston.rr.com/baker53/lowe ... %20mod.jpg


I was elated!! 8)


Then I ran across this topic... :?

http://hotrodders.com/showthread.php?s= ... 10+chassis


And I searched some more and came up with this topic... :)

http://hotrodders.com/t53273-15-1.html


Which had a post from UtahTorque about this... :D

http://hotrodders.com/t53273-15-3.html


And led me to pictures of this... :D

http://community.webshots.com/photo/137 ... 1768MKienq
http://community.webshots.com/photo/137 ... 2093OCdiEl

And he did this to it!!! :shock:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/137 ... 6360VRCRfC
http://community.webshots.com/photo/137 ... 2233lsZxFC

So, thanks to the Internet and all those out there 'hooked' up and freely giving away information, I have gone from a simple rack and pinion install, to a Caddy powered AWD Conestoga wagon with 4 wheel independant suspension (not lifted)...

I'm not sure if I'm blessed or cursed... :roll:

Thanks again, and hope some of this can help someone else...

Back to searching... 8)
Happy Wagoneering!

'54 Conestoga Champion
'54 Conestoga Commander "Connie"
'54 Conestoga "Rusty bucket"
'48 Stude 2R 4x4 monster truck "Tina"
'94 BMW K75 "Red"
'01 BMW R1150GSA "The Cow Killa"
User avatar
Conestogaman
 
Posts: 126
Joined: 2004 Dec 24 Fri 11:06 am
Location: Sack-o-tomato, CA

Postby Mike » 2005 Jan 08 Sat 1:55 pm

Wow........

I didn't look at all of the sites you put up, just the few of the chassis at the end.

Well......good luck. I'm not one to discourage anyone from much of anything unless it's fundementally wrong.
Although this to me comes very close....but......
Hey...done right, it might turn out to be a nice project.

Again, good luck

Mike
User avatar
Mike
 
Posts: 685
Joined: 2004 Dec 18 Sat 3:28 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Conestoga SUV (emphasis on 'sport')

Postby Conestogaman » 2005 Jan 09 Sun 1:32 am

"Although this to me comes very close....but......
Hey...done right, it might turn out to be a nice project. "

I like the emphasis on 'done right'...

As I type this, Highway 80 & 50 across the Sierra-Nevada are closed due to a blizzard. When it re-opens, chains will be required...except for 4 wheel drive w/ snow tires. I want to stay cozy inside and not have to deal with puttin' on chains should I want to venture out in the elements.

That's my rational, anyway. Besides, the cool factor is off the chart!!! 8)

Since I havn't even hardly turned a wrench on it so far, I figger I can go thru all the headaches with my keyboard, not my knuckles. I need this car to be practical and a daily driver. It has to take me wherever I want to go, whenever I want to go there, within reason...

Unreasonable is what I built my truck for... :shock:

A stock GMC chassis with all GM parts just sounds like it would work out alright, and I already speak, fairly fluent, General Motor-ese :wink:

I'm about to seperate my body and chassis, and, to me, it would be just as easy to replace the chassis with a S-10 4 wheel drive unit, put in a Caddy AWD transfer case, and turn it with a SMC, overdrive tranny, and soft lock the axles. I'll keep the tires to an aggressive, low profile, mud-n-snow sport SUV tire similar to the Cayenne/Toureg, etc. and I'll keep the stance low but aggressive.

For all the fabrication needed to mount the body to a complete chassis, I'd have to fab the power rack, motor mounts, and piecemeal the braking together in the very least with my stock chassis. It may save me money today, but replacement parts could be a logistical problem down the road.

Then there's subframing it with MII or Camaro which involves good fabrication skills to get it right. Either way I go I'll still have to put in the shifter, brake pedal assy, m/c and booster, steering column, steering box hookup, and throttle assy.

Since I've done body swaps before, but no subframes, I'm kinda leaning to a reframe just from past experience alone. The more I think about it, the more it feels right.

Now, if there are any donations... :wink:

Please feel free to toss advice on these subjects. Tell me I'm crazy, say I'm brilliant, tell me if this sounds like it'd be 'done right' and I'm on the right track. What could (and prolly would) come up to foil my plans?

I got a bit of time before I make the 'final' decision and get started with the wrenches, so this is when I need the most options. I plead to you, would this new path do a Conestoga justice? I feel it'd be a classy direction to take this 'practical man's' car. After all it was designed as a durable family utility vehicle. Wouldn't this just enhance it? 8)
Happy Wagoneering!

'54 Conestoga Champion
'54 Conestoga Commander "Connie"
'54 Conestoga "Rusty bucket"
'48 Stude 2R 4x4 monster truck "Tina"
'94 BMW K75 "Red"
'01 BMW R1150GSA "The Cow Killa"
User avatar
Conestogaman
 
Posts: 126
Joined: 2004 Dec 24 Fri 11:06 am
Location: Sack-o-tomato, CA

Next

Return to ALL THINGS CONESTOGA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron