Fino's 1970 Mini Build Thread

I am not familiar with this set-up at all...I saw mention of it on the big saggy swap thread....

 

James - when I fixed the front frame rails, I put the C Channel in like I do for the Saginaw. I then go through the cross member for the shaft as has been shown and my bolts sit right at the top of the frame rail. I've used AA's mount and it's good, but went to McRuff's for the last several I've done. By boxing and supporting the front and rear with solid steel (even replacing the rad cross member most of the time - ie my '63 build) I've never twisted or broken a frame rail with the Saginaw.

As to the front - just like duffer said - the D30 is the best IMOP and I love the OX locker I run in mine (front and rear).

 

I talked to Redhead steering on the phone today to discuss power saggy boxes....some thoughts that came out of it:

1) they can build a box with a 'heavier' feel valving that might be more palatable to me - there are also existing boxes for applications that could also meet this requirement (Kyle would appreciate knowing a YJ box was suggested - and that could be an easier JY find, or a cheaper option for off the shelf gears from Redhead or whomever than a 'custom' built box). We did NOT discuss price details on anything. What valving would produce the right 'heavy' feel I am looking for is a bit of a guessing game, and would also greatly depends on the width of the tire I would be running.

2) We discussed ratios quite a bit, and they recommended against VR for swb jeep application, and especially given that I would be keeping the larger diameter original steering wheel. This is a topic that also comes up when doing classic 50-60s cruisers etc, when keeping the large diameter/original steering wheels. They feel It makes the transition from one ratio to the other quite difficult to manage as the driver - but as I'll mention below, I am not 100 percent convinced of all their concerns with the large diameter steering wheels and ratio discussions.

3) Choosing which ratio is kind of personal preference - the standard choices in this is 3, 3.5 or 4 turns LTL. I typically think of a larger diameter steering wheel needing more linear (circumferential) distance to create the same amount of angular rotation (someone can confirm my memory, but I believe s = r sin(angle)). Thus, a larger wheel acts to reduce sensitivity in the steering wheel movements, and thus you can use a slightly more sensitive box ratio. But their experience with this issue is that the larger wheel also reduces steering effort due to the increased torque or the larger radius, and thus drivers have a tendency to oversteer the car - obviously oversteering a swb jeep can get squirrely quick. They recommend either 3.5 or 4 turns LTL, whereas I was wondering about 3 turns LTL given the larger wheel, and hopefully a much more heavy feeling valving to help reduce twitchy steering wheel movements.

4) Given the off-road use, typically a large piston would be recommended, but this will create a 'lighter' feel for the same valving. I don't know if I'd really need a large piston, but if one goes this route, reducing the valve sizing to keep the 'heavy' feel is needed, but at what point does reducing the valve sizing off-set the benefit of the large piston?

5) Finally, the pump can also play a pretty significant role in how 'light' or 'heavy' a box feels. basically, a 'high performance' pump often creates a lighter feel for the same size valve/piston, or pulley sizing. I joked with him that I am so limited in pulley and pump bracket options, that I don't know if I would have much options - although I remember someone somewhat recently posting up a new pump and bracket option besides the traditional high mount canned-ham style - maybe metcalf?

So, as to be expected, there are lots of variables, and with no experience to the exact relationship of how much smaller a valve I might want, or how the large wheel affects ratios, I am kind of stuck with giving a qualitative description of I want - a 'heavy' feel, for good street use and feedback, but with a large diameter steering wheel, and can handle being jammed up between rocks off-road - and hope their experience with building these would get the final result close to what I want. Or maybe a YJ box is the way to go - or at least it can be a good starting point for what combination of variables would yield the best result.

 

Some interesting saginaw discussion - from my standpoint, getting a higher pound valve is paramount:
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/1904-we-test-four-different-ratio-saginaw-power-steering-boxes/

 

Seriously, I don't even want power steering, why would I ever want hydraulic assist?

Agreed....but also remember my starting point. Using a 1-piece tie-rod with second hole to accept 'drag link' from OEM bellcrank creates a steeper angle and worse bump steer than any saggy set-up no matter the pitman arm drop...

Yes, but again, I've run traditional tie-rod under the knuckle config for quite a while, and it also gets wheeled alot....not sure that tie rod is really all that exposed under there. There is a lot of bangs, bends and scrapes on the underside of the my cj, frame damage, broken leafs etc, but I've never hit the tie-rod. The biggest benefit I see is getting the drag link angle improved (especially given the high position of the bellcrank) which helps with bump steer, and in a manual steering arrangement, would hopefuly reduce the steering effort as the drag link becomes more parallel to the tie-rod etc. I get that its a pretty easy mod with little to no downside, and if the steering is apart - its a might as well do it - but this is another one of those mods that I think gets oversold a bit. But hey, you guys know I am just a bit grumpy about some this stuff and think most mods are oversold...

Considering I've put over 40k miles on my cj in 8 years (and given that the odometer didn't always work in the early years), and that most of that mileage is on road, I'd say getting the steering reasonably enjoyable is important. In many ways, I spend way more hours driving the jeep on road than off-road, and thus its worth some trade-off to have a nice road handling jeep at the expense of some off-road benefit (much in the same way keeping the front diff open is a trade-off I have made). That being said, if we are talking about going through a series of on-road tests with different steering box specs (like in the motortrend article) - well, yes that is probably beyond the scope of what I can do. But we can use the description of the relationships of the variables to outcomes, along with our own personal experience of driving power boxes that we like and don't like, to make a best guess as to what box specs might work...and thus the idea of increasing the valve pressure to reduce the assist seems critical to me, and possibly also allows for a decrease in ratio as a heavier feel often allows for more controlled fine movements....but I don't know....and unfortunately I don't know the specs on the power boxes that I have driven and did not like. I am hoping I can find (or maybe someone like Redhead) the specs on a 80s era cj7 box as well as the FSJ box I have in the 58. I was considering pulling that box and trying to figure out what valve and ratio it is, and maybe changing or replacing the valve - not sure how difficult of a project pulling apart a saggy box is, but its hard to make reasonably judged changes going forward if you don't know where you are starting from....

....in other words, I guess I am doing nothing to improve the steering anytime in the near future....

 

no....I didn't have one sitting around when I did the knuckle stud conversion, and that was an 'on short notice' project as you know. But I don't think it would help with my steering concerns - whcih are play and slop related, not steering effort or bump steer related....With the cross-over steering with 1 piece/additional hole tie-rod set-up, you don't get the death wobble associated with opposing bump steer issues like with the dual tie-rod set-up, and steering effort is not really an issue with the Ross box with the OEM steering wheel. Sure, it still has some bump steer, but at least its predictable - and honestly, maybe I've just grown accustomed to it over the years, but the bump steer isn't really that bad. Partially, it requires the spring to flex to get bump steer, and even with the BDS kit, its not like they flex all that much, especially with shocks at higher speeds. Certainly, the 2 hole knuckle reduces the the drag link angle and bump steer, and should also reduce steering effort as the drag link is more parallel to the tie rod and the additional length of the steering arm on the knuckle....that is why I suggested adding one if I were to keep manual steering and added the powr-lok to the front, as the steering effort would increase. But for the increasing sloppiness in the steering that is developing with the Ross box, I don't see a two hole knuckle improving that.

From old fashioned testing of having someone move the steering wheel while different parts of the linkage are held etc, most of the slop in my jeep is in the ross box - the worm gear and (sector shaft) pins. Of course, there is some at the spherical ball joints at the end of the pitman arm and forward drag link and at the bell crank joints. The bell crank itself doesn't have much slop on its center pivot shaft. Its ross steering - there are lots of linkage with connections that come with more play than most set-ups. I want to remove the slop and play in the steering, not make the steering effort less, and I'd rather not loose the decent road feel the ross provides (when its relatively fresh and not overly worn at all the joints). Still seems to me that manual saggy box is a good compromise, and way better than putting money into rebuilding a ross box and associated steering linkages.

 

As Rich would say....if you know....you know....
Before:


After:


While at it, swapped the later model, thin OEM diff cover for an earlier/military thick cover (thanks Wheelie - it took me a couple years to get to it, but I did eventually get to it!):


Its way thicker - maybe not aftermarket bomber stuff, but still a substantial upgrade:


Used a lubelocker gasket - see how that goes....wanted to make it easy to get back in there if needed...


Mostly buttoned up:


hopefully more to come as parts trickle in....