With the people that have already PM'd me I don't have any left. Maybe I need to look into the CNC shop to make 12+ sets. IF I do this the price will double because the CNC parts are MUCH more expensive in such small volume. They usually ask for 100"s of pieces. But the price drops as the number of parts increase. I don't expect the adapters to be any cheaper than $100 a set. I would order a minimum of 12. That is $1,200 + tax that I would have to pay out of pocket. So you can see why I get my parts done at a manual shop. Last time I did the adapters at the CNC shop I collected the money first, that would pay for the parts then ordered. They took longer than I thought and I almost sent money back to people.
I do have my own CNC lathe and could make the parts myself but time is VERY limited for me and the parts are a two setup operation each. They are also different left and right. So I would basically have to babysit the entire operation after I right the 4 programs required to make the parts. I also need to make setup fixtures to hold the threaded parts.
Some more info on identifying the right rack you need:
the 2 turns ratio rack for 84/85 has either AJ, AK, or YP embossed on the lower cap of the input pinion shaft
the 2 turns ratio rack for 86 and 87 had WT embossed on the lower cap of the input pinion shaft
the same for the 2.5 turns ratio racks in 84/85 are YM for 1 rack or CA or WL for the other rack. The difference between them I do not know, but they had different part numbers. For 86/87 the 2.5 turns rack had CA or WL embossed on the pinion cap.
I found this out while looking to replace my rack. I cheaped out and installed a good looking used rack. It was the correct one for Rick's adaptors but the year for it was unknown. A couple years later I am replacing it to correct a persistent slow leak - moral of the story: Do not cheap out! Get a rebuilt rack if you get a scrounged one.
Edit: the rack I used was the WT rack: 2 turns for 86/87. I really like it and replaced my leaky one with the same. ------------------ Daviero - 88 N* GT
[This message has been edited by Daviero (edited 05-31-2010).]
I'm finally getting back to my PS install. I need to get new bellows for my Corvette R + P. The stock '88 Fiero will fits on one side, but the side with Rick's extension needs a 3" - 4" longer boot.
What did you guys use?
The boot is one thing that needs to be changed or adapted. So I have come up with an idea that shoud deal with this issue in a more simple way. I happend to have an aftermarket shock boot for a Rancho shock. This boot looks like it could easily be adapted to the rack. The big end of the boot could be clamped on the rack and the small end may be adapted to the tie rod. It depends on the boot you find. I will see if I can dig out some of the stuff for pictures.
I'd love to have a set of adapters and mounting bracket for my ZR1 rack. So if anybody has some they didn't use, let me know.
Also, I skimmed through the thread but didn't see if Rickady88GT was willing to release his dimensions or not. If I can't buy a set I'll have to get one made.
I may have one set left? I was holding on to it just in case I needed them. The problem is not the adapters, it is the rack mounts. They take me to much time to make them to sell. So I only made the mounts for the adapters that were pre orderd.
I should have two sets of adapters (no mounts), one done in steel and one in moly.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 02-10-2012).]
Rick, let me know if this project is still active. If you have CAD files, I have access to a CNC machine.
I never had the files. The machine shop wrote the program and told me that they would keep it. All I needed to do was order more adaptors and had them the money. The problem is the cost of ordering few parts. They are VERY exensive from this shop. I had to order a lot of them to bring the price down enough to meke them worth it. THEN, the other problem is the mount. I dont want to make them. They are a lot of work for me to do with the simple tools I have. And the shop would have charged a crazy amount of money for them.
I still get requests for the F body and Corvette adaptors. If there is a way to get a waterjet and a CNC lathe to spit this stuff out, I could try to get something going. BUT before I stir up false hope of "kits" being made I need to do some more planing and price checking. I would need to make mounts to send to the shop or write the programs for the mounts and adaptors.
If RICKADY88GT will be taking orders for the Corvette adapters I would like to be on the list to get a set. Plan is to do the conversion in the fall-winter months. Please let me know if this is a possibility. Thanks Jay
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: It looks like the Cady STS rack has longer dust boots, so if you want to replace the dust boots during the swap you may want to look into replacing the Fiero boots with the newer Cady boots. They also have the vent cross over pipe that will help boot life too. You just need to make your own custom pipe to connect the two boots.
FYI the Corvette rack (mine at least) is gun-drilled all the way through, so an external crossover pipe is not necessary.
Did anyone else have to reclock the pinion on their rack? I have one of the "short" racks and the steering wheel is off by about 120 deg. The rack has been rebuilt, so I don't know if the rebuilder clocked the pinion incorrectly, or if the rack is just different than others. I reclocked my steering wheel but now the turn signal cancelling mechanism doesn't work properly, so I have to put the wheel back and reclock the pinion instead. It looks pretty straightforward: http://www.vetteweb.com/tec...n_rebuild/index.html
To answer an old question...
Originally posted by Fastback 86:
Possible dumb question, but can a power steering rack be used without the power part? Could someone who just wants a better ratio do this and cap off the hydraulic inputs and outputs on the rack and use it as a manual rack, or does the fluid also lubricate the PS rack or something?
I've been driving with my rack depowered -- it's empty of fluid, and I capped off the ports. It's drivable but barely. The steering effort is pretty tough. I'll be hooking up the lines sometime next week. Note that I also have a smaller diameter steering wheel than stock. It was pretty hard to turn even with the stock rack.
With the ports looped instead of capped (so there's no air pressure buildup), and the hydraulic cylinder seals and piston removed, the effort should be noticeably reduced. I don't know if it would be reasonable with my 2-turns rack, but with a slower rack I bet it would drive just fine. That should make this conversion a lot more enticing to the power-steering haters out there.
Did anyone else have to reclock the pinion on their rack?
I have done a few racks on 88's and I dont remember a reclocking issue? I cut a new "key" into the lock ring and all was well. On My LS4 with the 06 Monte Carlo columb, the same mod did not do as well. I have the same issue you have. But I dont care to much about it.
Originally posted by Steven Snyder: There are kits available for pre-88s from WCF and other vendors. Rick may have done one with the F-body rack on pre-88s as well.
Who does it other than WCF? After seeing posts like Bmwguru pop up, I'm not sure I want to order from there anymore. - I hope that's temporary, I like Chris, and his built quality is fairly good, but I haven't interacted with him in a few years, and it's been even longer since I've held any of his products.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: I have done a few racks on 88's and I dont remember a reclocking issue? I cut a new "key" into the lock ring and all was well. On My LS4 with the 06 Monte Carlo columb, the same mod did not do as well. I have the same issue you have. But I dont care to much about it.
What do you mean by cutting a new key into the lock ring? I'm not sure which lock ring you're referring to.
There's wayyyyyy too much boost with the W-body (Lumina Z34) pump. There is almost no steering feel and it's way too easy to turn the wheel, even when stopped. I'm going to see about reducing the flow with a smaller restrictor hole in the pressure relief valve.
You may look into the pressure spring? It works like a oil pressure relife valve. More spring more presure. The pumps I have used so far have never made to much "boost".
It's my understanding that the spring just controls the bypass pressure, which really only matters when the fluid is very cold or the steering rack hits one end of its travel. The amount of fluid flow determines the steering assist by how fast it fills the cylinder in the rack.
I found a shop in the San Fernando valley that can rework the spool gear in the rack to change the assist. Alternatively, restricting the flow from the pump will work as long as there's still enough maximum flow to accommodate rapid change in steering angle.
Power (HP) = Flow (GPM) X Pressure (PSI) / 1714 (the basic hermaphroditic approximation of fluid power.) The simple fact is for less power you can lower either of the two inputs, lowering the pressure will lower the gain in the cylinder, lowering the flow will slow the fill time of the cylinders. Either the system pushes less or the driver pumps more. I think it may be wiser to have a stiffer torsion bar installed in the rack with reduced flow to the rack, combined with a lower system pressure. (A weak torsion bar with heavier input shaft torque sound to me like a recipe for failure.)
Power (HP) = Flow (GPM) X Pressure (PSI) / 1714 (the basic hermaphroditic approximation of fluid power.) The simple fact is for less power you can lower either of the two inputs, lowering the pressure will lower the gain in the cylinder, lowering the flow will slow the fill time of the cylinders. Either the system pushes less or the driver pumps more.
That's a bit of an oversimplification in the case of power steering since there's a flow metering valve (the spool valve/torsion bar assembly) in the system, but reducing the pressure should reduce the flow gain and cause no other problems as long as the spool valve can source enough flow from the pump. So I can reduce the pressure to reduce the flow gain, as long as the bypass pressure isn't so low that the pump no longer flows enough fluid to the spool valve.
I think it may be wiser to have a stiffer torsion bar installed in the rack with reduced flow to the rack, combined with a lower system pressure. (A weak torsion bar with heavier input shaft torque sound to me like a recipe for failure.)
Good point. I imagine the torsion bar was designed to hold up to being torqued hard with the rack limited out (or the wheels stuck), so it probably isn't a failure point, but that's certainly a consideration.
[This message has been edited by Steven Snyder (edited 09-25-2012).]
The pump has a fixed displacement and operates at a extremely large rpm range at system pressure and flow under almost all conditions, a lower pressure should not greatly affect flow rate. Remember we are dealing with a largely immeasurable compressible fluid.