Thread: Vega steering conversion

Tweet

One update for you Jay, the newer Borgeson joints will go to 35 degrees. The challenge will be knowing whether you're buying someones older or newer inventory. For anyone at that point and needing the extra angle a call to Borgeson on how to tell the difference might be a good idea.

Thanks for the info Bob.

I'm curious to know what you think about the U-joint/vibration damper.

So far, I haven't really found a need for one.
Balanced engine, balanced driveshaft & balanced tires make for a smooth running car that doesn't vibrate back through the steering wheel.

My opinion so far is that they are an answer to a question never asked....

Good question. I haven't given them any thought, maybe for the same reasons as you. Being a creature of habit I just keep doing what's worked before until motivated otherwise.

I wonder if it's a matter of experience/expectation. You and I may not perceive a need, whereas some later arrival to the hobby/sport/whatever who's frame of reference, and driving feel preference, is a "numb" steering feedback. On the other hand, it looks like one of those "couldn't hurt" options. Never used one, or knowingly driven a rod with one to know if there's any meaningful result.

I have never used a vibration dampner---like Bob, I have never seen the need for one. They are probably a great idea, but none of the cars I have built ever acted as though they needed one. If you have endless $$$, they probably can't hurt .

C9x, couldn't help but notice your through-the-frame brake line fitting in one of your earlier pictures. As described on another thread (Master Cylinder?) I am having trouble sealing one side (left front) using a Speedway stainless through-the-frame fitting but yours looks slightly different. What is the source for your fitting through-the-frame? I find this thread useful since I have a Vega box with the cross steer '35 Ford style double-hole on the right front as shown earlier on this thread along with a flat pitman arm, but I do not have the steering universal in yet. My bracket came as welded on by Brookville and it looks like the pitman arm is parallel to the floor so I may have to use several universals as Brian did, but anyway I am watching this thread for tips. What about the brake line fitting?

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Guys,

Just had a chance to read your comments.

C9 - I will post a side view pic tomorrow.

I hope I won't have to reconfigure the crossover mount. Like you have said, I'll have to layout things to know for sure.

Just trying to limit the buy & return phase. I really wish the Chicagoland area had more walk-in shops.

Talk to you later and "Thanks Again"

Joe

Originally posted by Don Shillady
C9x, couldn't help but notice your through-the-frame brake line fitting in one of your earlier pictures. As described on another thread (Master Cylinder?) I am having trouble sealing one side (left front) using a Speedway stainless through-the-frame fitting but yours looks slightly different. What is the source for your fitting through-the-frame? I find this thread useful since I have a Vega box with the cross steer '35 Ford style double-hole on the right front as shown earlier on this thread along with a flat pitman arm, but I do not have the steering universal in yet. My bracket came as welded on by Brookville and it looks like the pitman arm is parallel to the floor so I may have to use several universals as Brian did, but anyway I am watching this thread for tips. What about the brake line fitting?

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

The fitting is a standard Earls aluminum 90 degree AN bulkhead fitting male both ends.

3/16" brake tubing is adapted using an Earls tube sleeve and tube nut.
Available in both aluminum and cad iridited steel.
(Mine are aluminum.)
The stainless flex line is a standard hot rod aftermarket item.
I think from the Deuce Factory, but am not sure.
Anyway, it has the 37 degree AN fitting angle and the line bolts right on.
(It'll help to make an extra long wrench to slide up inside the frame to keep the 90 degree bulkhead fitting from swiveling when doing the install.
Get a cheap-o Chinese end wrench, cut off the head and some of the handle and braze it inside a piece of 1/2 x 1" rectangular tubing.

A lot of speed shops - at least the ones that have been around a while have the machine to make these braided flex lines.
You can buy braided stainless Teflon lined flex line and the fittings and do it yourself with hand tools, but working with the smaller (#3) Teflon lined line is a total bitch.
Way better to buy it already made up.

Originally posted by Joe Cool 34
Guys,

Just had a chance to read your comments.

C9 - I will post a side view pic tomorrow.

I hope I won't have to reconfigure the crossover mount. Like you have said, I'll have to layout things to know for sure.

Just trying to limit the buy & return phase. I really wish the Chicagoland area had more walk-in shops.

Talk to you later and "Thanks Again"

Joe

Move to Arizona and we'll loan you our 'dummy' steering box.... 8^)


All kidding aside, I don't think you'll have to alter your motor mounts.
It looks like the box will hang down about the same as the ones in my roadsters.

Height can be judged by noting where the bottom box mounting bolt holes end up.
They have to be low enough to access the bolt hex with a wrench or socket and that's as high as they can go.
1 to 1 1/2" lower should be ok as long as the mounting plate is gusseted to the underside of the frame rail.

It also looks like the decreased diameter aft end of the steering box - albeit short - will allow the box to snuggle up against the motor mount ok.
U-joint bolt access should be ok even if the U-joint proper is close to the motor mount tubing.

C9,

Speaking of Arizona, I have a standing offer in Goodyear.
Probably won't move though.

This pic is dead on:

This pic is looking slightly downward:

The steering universal is lower because of the broken bracket.

This one is shoot higher, shows good relatioships of 6" drop axle, frame & motor.

Looks like plenty of room for Drag link, cross bar etc.

Thanks again,
Joe

Looking from here it sure looks like a do-able deal.

Your motor mount looks to be farther back than the motor mounts in my cars.

I think too the steering box U-joint will nestle under the motor mount tube without a problem and without hanging down too low.

Looking at this pic of my 31 and comparing it to your above pic, it appears your engine is set back further on the chassis than mine.

The long engine bay of your Plymouth is a big help.

For those who are curious, my 31 has a 4" recess, but there's still plenty of legroom. (I'm 6' tall and have a 32" inseam.)

The length of the 31's hood top is 32 3/8" measured down the middle.
(Rootlieb will build custom length hoods for a moderate extra price.)

Fwiw, stock A & 32 hoods measured the same way are:
27-28 A = 27 3/4"
30-31 A = 31 5/8"
32 . . . = 32"

This pic shows just how far forward my balancer is.

No pulley at the time of the pic.

Hey guys...sorry to open up an old post but had a question on the DRAGLINK orientation as viewed from above. I see most of the above images show the draglink running pretty parallel to to the tie rod (as viewed from above)...how much misalignment can you go? I'm running a custom frame on my project and if I use the "STOCK" 6" long pitman arm, it places the steering box right where my radiator should be! I have plenty of room to move the box more towards the firewall but it ends up with a 10* angle from the pitman arm to the spindle arm. Would this work or should I do some more "engineering"? --Thanks!

The "ideal" is to have the drag link parallel in both vertical and horizontal plains. The vertical is most important because of the inputs from following a different arc when the axle deflects up and down. Since the pittman arm end is essentially fixed to the frame, starting at "0" minimizes variance in reaction. What you're asking about in the "from above" sounds like you're asking about the horizontal. Pete & Jakes advises the pittman arm end not be more than 6" back from the tie rod. Personally that seems like a lot to me, but have no engineering principle to challenge it. My preference is to have multiple "actuators", for want of a better term, working in a similar way to avoid conflicting movements so I move the steering box and/or bend the pitman arm to get to that point.