Wurth-it vs. Gearheads 605 Steering Box

[briney]

RAWms,

I would like some unbiased input on steering gear, recognizing the fact that you went with Wurth-It Designs product, and the fact you have not gotten your vehicle on the road yet.

I have been researching steering boxes for quite a while and there are many considerations. I hope you can address my questions / facts.

I know the rack design by Wurth-it's is a Caviler rack and is designed for a light weight vehicle, with a turn clock of 3 ½.  Additionally, the rack is a good fit; however it does have some geography issues with the connections from the steering column to the rack.  Additionally, the steering radius is compromised by a small amount.

The Gearheads box is a direct fit with any column you choose, stock or otherwise. Also this box is designed for cars with a heavy weight and is less expensive.

My question is did you compare the Gearheads cruiser product 605 Saginaw product against Rick's rack.  If so could you tell us and the group why you chose Ricks rack over the Saginaw box?

I am on the fence and would really like your input before shelling out a lot of cash.


Many Thanks,

Patrick

[57 Ford Kustom]

Patrick    Go to this site there are more people that have done the conversion.  http://www.y-blocksforever.com/forums/Default.aspx  and do a search a lot of talk about R&P setups 



T 8)M

[RAWms]

Wow, thats a bunch of remembering.  I will have to go back and think about this some.  As background, I had decided on Rick's in setup in Oct. 2005.  In fact he was bringing a setup to San Diego when his wife had a serious accident and it was summer 2006 before production was back up and I received mine.  That is almost a year of waiting where not having the parts and began to negatively impact my cars progress. 

So why did I decide on the R&P?  I can't absolutely remember.   I did look at Gearheads box option.  BTW, I'm running Gearheads motor mounts for the 351W.   

My car will not be operational for awhile.  Therefore I cannot discuss the pros and cons yet.  I can tell you that every car project decision I make has a fundamental principle and that is reliability.  For example, my tire sizes for the rear will be the largest I can run and yet if a flat occurs I can change it without a problem.  Another example is I decided to build a special bracket for the 100 amp GM alternator instead of drilling out the alternator to fit a 7/16" mounting bolt.  That is because if I need an alternator in Bakersfield I can simply go to NAPA.  One more example, my '40 Ford street rod runs a Ford 8" rear end.  That is because I would have to have narrowed a 9" including the axles (btw, '57 Ford rear fit bitchin but then there is that axle issue again).  Again, if in Bakersfield I break an axle I can find one easily and R&R it it a couple of hours.  Thats more than you asked but I think it is important for you to know my conservative approach to my drivers.  I like performance and fun with a little tire chirping while grocery getting.  Also, while I love to build them once I very much do not like going back or re-doing.

Sorry for the long response.  I would rather discuss via e-mail (off line) your specific questions as opposed to a public forum.   I think that is fairer to the companies.  They work hard to serve our rodding needs by providing products that take a lot of dollars to get to market.   No one really knows my capabilities or background other than my postings which are  probably anyway.  (Wow, I finally got to use the smiley!!!!!) I know it is a lot of money and a tough decision.  Lets address specifics off line.

Regards, r

     

[RAWms]

After thinking about the topic over night a couple of thoughts come to mind.  First, I explored going to the '58 box with it's re-circulating ball.  That would have been an improvement over the '57 but still old stuff.  I think I wanted the newer technology.  btw, when the '57 is operational I have a Fatman Fabrication R&P IFS going into my '40. (Theres that going back on a completed project.  At the time I thought I was a traditionalist)   The R&P is an easy install and people I talked to raved about the driveability of the car.  Also, I thought about the onliine discussion and I'm willingl to discuss specifics.  After all that is why this board exists.

r

Now to find another bitchin smliey...

[briney]

RAWms.

Thanks for the feedback on the posting. At the end of the day I guess it comes down to a matter of preference. As you pointed out serviceability was and is an important factor in making the decision on which to choose. Additionally size, conformity, operability, reliability and newer technology are all in the mix too. While cost is a factor too, I feel it has very little weight in the decision when we are talking about a critical system which may affect your safety. To your point, if the Saginaw box goes out you can't just swap it out, like a rack module.  I would require being rebuilt, which any shop could do since it uses all the stand parts of a 605 box, but it would take time.

I know that both manufactures represent themselves well and stand behind their products and each been featured in numerous magazines.

I have spoken with others, and now know your thoughts on the matter as well, and am unfortunately still on the fence. If anyone else can shed specific experiences and facts on this matter, I am sure I and the rest of the forum would be interested.

I did go the y-blocks forever site but did not find any specifics there.

Thanks,

Patrick

[hrsky]

To RAWms.  Do you have pictures of your Wurth It Design r&p set up.  Do you know what year the Cavalier r&p is from.   Thanks HR

[RAWms]

I was told it was a Cavalier ~'83 to 94.   Here are two picts of the install.   Good luck, r

[hrsky]

Thank you very much for the pictures.     The setup seems to be a big improvement in steering and handling.   Thanks again. HR

[dgasman]

I can talk about the 605 box . I have one in my 58 that I had built . The 605 box is a good box and it also has a 3 1/2 turn at the wheel . I had built a few of the boxes for members of the original forum and only herd good things about them  . I even posted on the original forum how to build your own. the only thing with the 605 box is that the coupler from the box to your column is in the interior of the car about 2 inches . You need to build up your floor around the coupler or use a boot to cover the hole . I don't know about Gearhead box, but you can only use a auto trans with the 605 box I made .I do have a column shifter on my 58.  I did have one person modify his box and make it work with his 4 speed . I hope this helps .
Kent

[Spare Parts]

RAWms,I'm copying the r&p setup you're using but doing it a little different. I'm using a plate coming off the r&p but connecting to the stock center link, doing away with the idler arm and using the stock tie rods. I'll try to post a picture later after I get everything figured out ,  but wonder do you have the part number of  the u-joint comming off the r&p?I can figure the rest out but need to know the u-joint from the r&p.

























7p




















7
























7

[RAWms]

I went through my technical information file and do not have the Borgeson information.  The u-joints came all together with the rp setup.  I do not remember any part numbers on the part containers either.  If there were I would have probably filed them. 

I pulled my Borgeson catalog and on page 3, there are 14 offered.  There is one with "GM" be side it.  It's "Nominal Size Spline" is 5/8-36, "Approximate Diameter over splines" .625, "Number of full splines in a full circle" 36, and "Borgeson Designation" is 636 with a "*" that states 636 is not interchangeable with the 636C which is for Chrylser.

Hope that helps, r

[Spare Parts]

Thanks anyway.Glad to know their Borgenson,I wondered if they were Borgenson or Flaming River.I'll give their tech dept. a call ...they should know which one he uses.I finished up my mounting brackets this weekend.With a r&p and the metal to make up the brackets ,I have only $100.00 invested so far.ALL I need to do know is figure out the steering linkage from the r&p to my stock column.

[briney]

Roger,

I have decided to try the Gearheads cruiser product 605 Saginaw power steering solution.  Both product solutions are viable.  I think there are various opinions as to which are better, right or wrong, and I don't think there is a clear answer to the question. I think they are just different. I ordered the parts January 2nd they are supposed to arrive in about 30 days.   

I will post my progress of the installation and include pictures and my opinions under the steering section of the forum.  I have been looking at both products for about 18 months now and done a lot of homework contacting owners who had installed both setups, Wurth-it's and Gearheads.  Overall the comments were mostly positive about both, other than the delivery delay in Rick's product.

Some things that have influenced my decision to go with Gearheads included the following:

More clearance in the engine bay with the Gearheads solution

Non loss of turning radius, which with the rack the turning radius is reduced   

The Saginaw box was designed for vehicles with a similar weight so the box will not be underpowered or over worked

I had concerns regarding the longevity of the Cavalier rack because it was designed for cars that weigh much less than the 57's, which in my mind may possibly compromise the racks mechanical integrity. 

Visibly, I didn't like either solution's connecting joints.  I came to find out that the rag joint that Gearheads uses can be replaced with small Borgenson joints and actually hidden in the end of the stock steering column shaft making the installation virtually hidden.

I have elected to replace the stock 57 column with a 58 to update the horn and signals, yet retain the stock look.

I may later change the column to a more modern tilt unit which would be easy with either solution.

As to cost, the Gearheads product is significantly cheaper but that was a very small factor in my choice.
Below is a link to Rod and Custom which reviewed Gearheads product if anyone is interested in reading it.

http://www.rodandcustommagazine.com/techarticles/135_0404_1950_1960_ford_steering_kit/index.html

Thanks,

Patrick 
Dallas, TX

[shopratwoody]

Patrick,
Excellent article from Rod & Custom. I copied for future reference. Something that I'll use later on.
They're never finished you know.
Later, Ron 

[briney]

Ron,

You're right... They are never finished....

What fun would that be! 

Patrick