Thinking of removing my power steering from my 68 mustang

[ScotiaFE]

Yes that will work.

[jayb]

That's what some of the guys were talking about earlier in the thread, and that is all you really need if you can live with the 16:1 box.

[machoneman]

Yes, this is the adaptor we thought you were speaking about early on. Makes the change over a snap. Hit the gym though beforehand and work up those arm muscles! You'll thank me later 

[babybolt]

Don't lose any of the power steering parts, hard to find the stuff these days.

I had to replace the stock steering wheel when I did these swap, the original started to crack and the rimblow feature sucked when muscling a manual steering box.

Keep your front wheel offset to zero, like a magnum, or even offset inboard if you can find wheels that clear. 

[MeanGene]

My 69 Mach1 came with manual steering but the power box, but it never bothered me because I was used to it- was a little workout with 265/50's on the front and a 427, but OK. But anybody else that drove it cried like two MF's about the hard steering LOL

[fe66comet]

Loosing the stock box alone is heavy,plus the center link, two idler links, long tie rod ends and a ton of brackets and assorted hardware. That is why people go with a rack, the mounting brackets consists of two tabs that are welded to the cross member. The power steering units provide a faster ratio for quicker handling and variable boost rate further improving the handling of the vehicle. Header clearance is improved as you no longer have the 300 lbs of steering linkage  and steering box in your way. Kinda a no brainer for a upgrade over stock as the whole pile of rack and pinion parts take far less room and weigh in far less than 100 pounds.

[bn69stang]

I totally agree with you Jon , I have manual steering on my 69 and after driving in my buddies car with coil over conversion and a power rack what difference , Carroll Shelby had unlimited funds and on all his later cars he used the total control products coil over front suspension and power or manual rack , He could have used any thing , but chose that and after driving a car set up that way i could see why ... Bud

[machyoung]

Ruined it for me. Or as Mark Martin used to say, "Ruint it for me". Either way, removed the ps and ran the manual adapter only. Ugh! Didn't even want to drive the car. Am retrofitting a Borgeson unit on my 68 Torino presently. Will post results when complete.

[ScotiaFE]

Loosing the stock box alone is heavy,plus the center link, two idler links, long tie rod ends and a ton of brackets and assorted hardware. That is why people go with a rack, the mounting brackets consists of two tabs that are welded to the cross member. The power steering units provide a faster ratio for quicker handling and variable boost rate further improving the handling of the vehicle. Header clearance is improved as you no longer have the 300 lbs of steering linkage  and steering box in your way. Kinda a no brainer for a upgrade over stock as the whole pile of rack and pinion parts take far less room and weigh in far less than 100 pounds.

Now this just misinformation Jon.
Having owned a 68 Mustang Fastback for almost 30 years and have driven the car with manual steering as a daily driver.
There is no cross member to weld "tabs" to. The cross bar is a tube that is held in place by a bolt at each end.
It really has very little structural support and would never be able to support a rack and pinion.
Lets see a picture of this light weight system you speak of.
The whole manual steering system for a 68 Stang would weigh no more than 75lbs including the road dirt.
This just a F'in disaster for me than, my all manual 67 Fairlane  will need all kinds of crap put on it to drive it then.
Funny though I drove it around the Cabot Trial this year and It was the most fun I had driving a car in years.
 

[Qikbbstang]

Re: ScotiaFE: "There is no cross member to weld "tabs" to. The cross bar is a tube that is held in place by a bolt at each end"

Not disagreeing but the Two-Bolts that hold the cross bar on are "unique" in that they are tapered like lug-nuts. The loading on the bar is substantial under hard cornering and it's safe to say the bolts/arrangement  are about as stout as the bar itself is at resisting flexing. There is considerable strength added to the subframe by it. I have been amazed at how many 385 series engines dropped in 67-70 Mustangs don't include the cross-bar I know I've seen a half dozen including one of the online sites FordMuscle (I believe) that blew-up a FE and stuffed in a 385. The cross-bar a key part of the reinforcement/triangulation of the front end with Export Brace/Monte Carlo Bar is lost -and  the chassis flexes. I'd agree using the bar to support a rack is questionable in the least. They sell a beefed up reinforced lower cross member bar that reaches down to the lower control arm pivot bolts for more strength that is based on the Boss 302 Chassis Mods book.
I believe "living w/o Power Steering requires understanding the car rolling reduces the effort to turn big time. If the cars still it requires Mr Armstrong.

The cross bar is a tube that is held in place by a bolt at each end.

[fe66comet]

You would have to have some knollege of welding and geometry to properly install a steering rack. The bolt in kits are designed for a person who does not have the knollege to install a mount or does not want to modify the chassis. The tabs I would mount to the engine cross member and gusset them accordingly. The best location is strait on to the spindle arms as possible so bump steer is limited. The tapered rod end hole can be resized to fit the larger mustang II tie rod or conversion ends are available. I have installed racks on a lot of vehicles both off road and race and they work quite well for wide tires and limited space. The aftermarket units are much stronger and lighter than the factory units and offer options that are not available in stock form. As far as installing the pump you will need to make a bracket to mount a GM variable ratio hydraulic pump to the engine, if you already have a bracket then you can get a Flaming River pump that will mount up.  Several race car parts companies like Competition Engineering offer mounting brackets in different lengths and angles to mount a rack. If so desired a section of box tube could be used to mount the rack but two tabs welded to a 3/16 angle bracket is more than enough. Another factor I forgot to mention is that your turning radius is reduced due to tighter steering angles, the rack has more travel than a steering box is capable of.

[Cyclone03]

Jon please dont take this as an argument but your statement of "the best place to mount the rack is strait inline with the steering arms" is not correct as far as Mustangs go packaging wise. The available kits all struggle with  varying degrees  of bump steer because the tie rod ends are too short ,the engine locations limits raising the rack and the oil pan limits locating the rack farther forward. On a drag race application all the above can be lived with. On the street with just a cruiser the available kits work ok , some feel "better" but with only two high dollar exceptions all the rack and pinion kits have worse bump steer tendencies than stock Mustang steering.

Currently the "best' (IMHO) steering solution for an early Mustang is stock linkage in near new,or new,condition and a Borgesen  or CPP (I think) power steering box and Saginaw pump.

Before I knew better I built a R&P set up for my 64 Comet , made a nice 2" square  cross member, mounted the R&P inline with the steering arms all strait and in line , just turning at moderate speeds would cause the front tires to squeal. Just the body role changed the toe enough to mess up the steering.
I consulted with a very kind local chassis builder and moved the rack to within 1/8" of the oil pan (up) and moved it as far foreword as the oil  pan sump would allow. I never measured the bump steer on that car but it was drivable for over 25,000 miles,but, it was still squirmy when topping rolling hills. It also went pigeon toed  when the front end was jacked up.       

[wayne]

Didnt all true gt cars come with the 16.1 box with out power steering i have a 69 gt 428 mustang with no power and its not hard to turn.

[Drew Pojedinec]

I drive a 63.5 Galaxie with good sized tires in the front and an all iron 429 hanging on the front end.  Manual steering, no problems.  I can't imagine a mustang would be much harder to wrestle around.
Only issue as mentioned is tight parking lots, but honestly, I park pretty far away just cuz it's my 63.5 Galaxie.....  so not really an issue.  You just need to get used to it, and the style, for example you don't pull ALL the way up at a stop sign, you pull up and stop short,  when it's good to go you can start coming ahead as you need to steer, makes a big difference the lil things.

I'm not familiar with Mustangs, but I prefer manual steering to that overzealous power assist my car came with.

[jimeast]

The parts for the rack may be lighter, (I should weigh my OEM PS and MS kits as a baseline), but I don't think you get a faster ratio.  Looking at TCP, you have choices very similar if not identical to OEM manual steering ratios.

I think most people decide to get R&P based on the experience driving sloppy 40-50 yr old steering & suspension systems, or do not like the power assist (or over-assist) feeling the classic Mustang has.  One of the nicest steering cars I've driven is a 69 corvette with worm & sector steering.  I think R&P came into popularity with the OEM's because they offer better packaging in FWD cars.   Also, on the race track won't see a difference.  Don't get me wrong, I'd like to try out a TCP system in my car, but in the end, I'm not sure I'd notice much of a difference if I was switching from an OEM system that was properly set up.

Go with a rack, lighter, easier steering and faster ratio. Plus you can go power and still be under 50 lbs.