Power Steering Kit

[jrw69 16]

Finally tired of armstrong steering. I am looking at Borgenson kit but need to change z bar and may have header clearance issue. I have a 1969 Mach 351W with top loader and Hooker Long Tube headers. I looked at new z bar orp 67  at Open Track Racing for changing z bar and clearing the header tube and it seems to be the answer for all clearance issues. I know from the forum some have luck and some are nightmares so wondering if this makes it. I know different headers   makes a difference so can use some advice before spending the bucks.

JRW69

Thanks

[1969_Mach1 333]

I installed a Borgeson kit on my 196 Mach 1, 351W and 4sp car.  The car also has JBA short headers.  I installed the Borgeson kit before Open Track Racing offered a modified Z-bar so I had to modify my own.  It works just fine.  My concerns with the Borgeson power steering:

1.  When collapsing the column to fit the Borgeson steering box the inner and outer column shafts fit loosely and rattle.  This is because the plastic rings Ford installs to lock the inner and outer column shafts together end up in a new position where they no longer serve part of their purpose.  This thread by another member shows the plastic rings for the inner column shaft. Collapsible Steering shaft bushings - 1969-70 Technical Forum - 69stang.com and 1969stang.com The 1969 and 1970 Mustang Supersite

2.  The steering for the most part does not return to center.  This bothers some, but I'm okay with it.

3.  If you want one finger Cadillac style power steering, then this will be fine.  There is absolutely no road feel in the steering wheel.  I tried reducing the pump pressure, but it's either Cadillac style power steering or no assist at idle.

I likely would never do the conversion again.  And if this ever has any issues I'll go back to the stock steering box.  

[Brian Conway 264]

Thanks for the post.  Refreshing to get an honest assessment on an aftermarket add on that did not meet expectations.  Brian

[jrw69 16]

Thanks to both. I also read about the issues with the collapsible steering shaft   issues with the bushings and see this could be a problem. I now have have the Flaming River Steering Box which is better than the stock but still is tough turning sometimes. I will have to think more on this before changing. I agree on aftermarket things not meeting expectations, some is totally junk. 

Thanks

jrw69

[Mike65 475]

When I started the rebuild on my 69 Coupe I ditched the leaking factory P/S & went to manual steering & added the Opentracker Racing roller idler arm. With the engine & trans in the car with the car sitting still I can turn the steering wheel with ease with one hand. I am guessing it will turn even easier once I get the F/E aligned properly. I also have a stock size steering wheel from a 1980's full size Bronco in my Mustang.

https://opentrackerracing.com/product/roller-idler-arm-manual-steer-1967-1970/

[jrw69 16]

Thanks Mike

Am looking at that as an option also.   Better than new z-bar and kit and getting everything to fit with headers and all.

[1969_Mach1 333]

5 hours ago, Mike65 said:

When I started the rebuild on my 69 Coupe I ditched the leaking factory P/S & went to manual steering & added the Opentracker Racing roller idler arm. With the engine & trans in the car with the car sitting still I can turn the steering wheel with ease with one hand. I am guessing it will turn even easier once I get the F/E aligned properly. I also have a stock size steering wheel from a 1980's full size Bronco in my Mustang.

https://opentrackerracing.com/product/roller-idler-arm-manual-steer-1967-1970/

I wish I knew about the roller idler arm before I did the conversion.  I would have definitely tried that first.  Before the conversion I had changed from factory power steering to factory manual steering.  I'm thinking eventually I'll remove the Borgeson power steering and go back to the manual steering setup.  When I do, I'll definitely install a roller idler arm.

When I did the conversion and came across the steering column shaft issue after collapsing it, I called Borgeson.  Their response was they never installed the kit on a 1969 Mustang and have never heard of that issue occurring.  I sent them pictures of the column shafts showing the plastic rings with a description of the issue and they acted like they could not understand what was occurring after the column was collapsed.  In hindsight, I should have stopped there, returned everything and used the money elsewhere.

[det0326 179]

I used the CPP which is built like an early chevy integral box except with a 13.8 to 1 ratio. A few years back when I built the front end on my car all  Borgenson had was the remanufactured Toyota box and they had a lot of complaints about them. I think the ones they have now tho are decent but can't really say because I have never used one. I really liked the CPP one tho had good road feel. If I had to describe the road feel I would say a lot like our old 2003 Toyota Highlander. So maybe why I liked it because I was already used  to it.

[lanky 44]

On 4/16/2021 at 4:10 PM, 1969_Mach1 said:

I installed a Borgeson kit on my 196 Mach 1, 351W and 4sp car.  The car also has JBA short headers.  I installed the Borgeson kit before Open Track Racing offered a modified Z-bar so I had to modify my own.  It works just fine.  My concerns with the Borgeson power steering:

1.  When collapsing the column to fit the Borgeson steering box the inner and outer column shafts fit loosely and rattle.  This is because the plastic rings Ford installs to lock the inner and outer column shafts together end up in a new position where they no longer serve part of their purpose.  This thread by another member shows the plastic rings for the inner column shaft. Collapsible Steering shaft bushings - 1969-70 Technical Forum - 69stang.com and 1969stang.com The 1969 and 1970 Mustang Supersite

2.  The steering for the most part does not return to center.  This bothers some, but I'm okay with it.

3.  If you want one finger Cadillac style power steering, then this will be fine.  There is absolutely no road feel in the steering wheel.  I tried reducing the pump pressure, but it's either Cadillac style power steering or no assist at idle.

I likely would never do the conversion again.  And if this ever has any issues I'll go back to the stock steering box.  

Nice to hear from someone that shares my opinion on Borgeson setups. I DID go from a roller idler with the factory manual steering (PS box) and a ~15" steering wheel and it was unbearable to turn at lower speeds. Wish I had bought something else as the return to center is awful and the pump is noisy.

[TexasEd 188]

I went with factory rebuilt from Chockostang.  With the new bushings, better suspension and everything else it drives like a dream.  Only leak I had came from the pump pressure side but I put a bead of head gasket seal on it under the nut that butts up against the housing and it is gone.

I like the road feel and drivability.

[dcm0123 15]

In 1971 Ford went to the an integral power steering box similar to the Borgeson in the Mustang.

Has anyone ever tried to adapt this system to a 69?

I see differences in size such as the length of the shaft going to the pitman arm but I not sure if mating parts such as the pitman arm compensate for it.

[jmlay 80]

I suppose anything may be adapted. But if it were easy I think we would have a vendor selling the 71 up conversion already. The 71 up box mounts higher, frame rail and shock towers changes to accommodate this. Also the frame rails are further apart on a 71,72,73, thus more room for the box.

[aslanefe 333]

On 4/17/2021 at 7:24 PM, det0326 said:

I used the CPP which is built like an early chevy integral box except with a 13.8 to 1 ratio. A few years back when I built the front end on my car all  Borgenson had was the remanufactured Toyota box and they had a lot of complaints about them. I think the ones they have now tho are decent but can't really say because I have never used one. I really liked the CPP one tho had good road feel. If I had to describe the road feel I would say a lot like our old 2003 Toyota Highlander. So maybe why I liked it because I was already used  to it.

How is the return to center on CPP400 box you are using? 

[1969_Mach1 333]

On 4/17/2021 at 4:24 PM, det0326 said:

I used the CPP which is built like an early chevy integral box except with a 13.8 to 1 ratio. A few years back when I built the front end on my car all  Borgenson had was the remanufactured Toyota box and they had a lot of complaints about them. I think the ones they have now tho are decent but can't really say because I have never used one. I really liked the CPP one tho had good road feel. If I had to describe the road feel I would say a lot like our old 2003 Toyota Highlander. So maybe why I liked it because I was already used  to it.

How did the CPP steering box fit?  I looked at those and when I contacted CPP they told me the shock tower in the steering box area often has to be clearanced with a hammer for the steering box to fit.  They didn't know why it fit on some cars but not all.  That was the only reason I went with Borgeson which then caused it's own set of issues.

[fvike 173]

Go for the TCP Rack and Pinon. Woodward internals, clears long tube headers. It's a truly bolt-in deal. You need not modify a single part on the car, but you'll not get a great result with a factory Ford PS pump. The KRC pump that they sell is excellent The flow valves i n the pump can be swapped out for tuning.. Going for their manual rack and an electric assist steering column might also be a option.

[jrw69 16]

Contacted Opentracker  Racing and ordered the roller idler arm. $85 plus shipping. Thought I would go this route first. If it improves steering then it's good enough and won't have the hassle of fitting Borgeson and header and z-bar issues. Have gotten good feedback on this from Mach 1 and others. When I get it installed I will post results.

[det0326 179]

On 4/20/2021 at 8:40 AM, aslanefe said:

How is the return to center on CPP400 box you are using? 

I was happy with return to center but I did a few things to the front end when I built it to get as munch positive caster as i could. I think I wound up with about 5.5 degrees positive.

[det0326 179]

On 4/20/2021 at 1:34 PM, 1969_Mach1 said:

How did the CPP steering box fit?  I looked at those and when I contacted CPP they told me the shock tower in the steering box area often has to be clearanced with a hammer for the steering box to fit.  They didn't know why it fit on some cars but not all.  That was the only reason I went with Borgeson which then caused it's own set of issues.

It fit good no denting the shock tower but had to dent one tube on the dougs tri-y headers and I think that is because there's an adapter plate between box and frame rail which moves it toward the headers by about a 1/4 inch.

[aslanefe 333]

2 hours ago, det0326 said:

I was happy with return to center but I did a few things to the front end when I built it to get as munch positive caster as i could. I think I wound up with about 5.5 degrees positive.

With 5.5 degrees of caster, does it come back to straight ahead when you let the wheel loose after a turn or do you have to steer the last 15-30 degrees to go straight? Also, does it hit the stops at the ends of strut rods when you do a full lock, in other words, did you loose any turning radius?

[det0326 179]

12 hours ago, aslanefe said:

With 5.5 degrees of caster, does it come back to straight ahead when you let the wheel loose after a turn or do you have to steer the last 15-30 degrees to go straight? Also, does it hit the stops at the ends of strut rods when you do a full lock, in other words, did you loose any turning radius?

I have since sold that car but I don't ever remember having to steer it back straight, if it didn't come back dead center it was by such a small amount I never noticed it. Turning radius was just like stock box, stop to stop. 

[Vicfreg 771]

I did a Borgeson conversion on my '68 and my '70.  I used a GM style steering pump, and the manual centerlink and Pitman Arm.  I also used Open Tracker roller idler arm.  The Borgeson setup likes a lot of Caster.  The steering column cut was not a big issue. I used the Borgeson lower bearing setup to keep the steering shaft aligned.   Make sure you get the 6 cylinder hoses, as they are longer.  Otherwise if you have headers the hoses will need to be wrapped in heat shield.

On my '70, I ran the hoses in my fenderwells. I used AN bulkhead fittings and Earls Power steering hose and fittings.  Works great, and is out of the way.  Also on my'70 I used Global West "+3" UCAs, which have the center of the UCA at the ball joint moved back. So, they have a "built in" 3 degrees of Caster.  This will avoid front wheel interference issues.

Pic #1 - Steering Column Bushing

Pic #2 - Hoses in Drivers Side Fenderwell

Pic #3 - CVF Serpentine Belt System with GM Pump

 

 

[lanky 44]

Just to have on forum record, I ran up to 6.5 degrees of caster on my Borgeson setup with the last 10-15% never returning to center. Very frustrating. I'm still trying to figure out what my plan is. AKA caster isn't always the fix apparently.

First I ran manual steering with roller idler, return to center excellent but super high effort to steer at low speeds. Then kept the manual CL and roller idler with Borgeson. 

[Vicfreg 771]

Lanky, thanks for the info.  I have heard a lot of the same from other Borgeson users.   My upgrade is pretty recent, in last 3 years or so.  Perhaps they changed their design or something. Are you using the GM style pump?

[lanky 44]

I used the pump included in the kit. Which is noisy, just as noisy as my factory pump. At least fluid doesn't spray out of the filler neck like my factory pump did. Mine was from almost exactly 2.5 yrs ago.

[jrw69 16]

Update, Installed new roller idler arm, made a big difference in steering effort especially at low speed. I would recommend this before buying and installing the power steering kit. Not power steering but a good improvement. Roller bearings make the difference over the rubber bushings.