unisteer Rack an pinion

[rlibew]

I have purchase a rack an pinion kit from unisteer and have clearance and interference problems. Rack hangs lower than engine cross member and has interference problem with steering linkage. I see many have used Wurth it designs and Tom Drummnth's wild hog kits with success, I did not go with Wurth it as he is very hard to contact. I also see that Many have used RPS out of Taurus and GM cavaliers with no issues.  What advice do you have for my install with stock A arms and 4.6 4 valve engine

[gasman826]

The center of the rack has to be close to the same height as the original drag link or you will have bump steer issues.  Any portion of the rack should not be below the engine cross member.  You do have a front sump oil pan on the 4.6?  Unisteer has been making these kits for a while, you would think it should fit.  PICTURES!!

[RICH MUISE]

Gary... I suspect his interference is with the bellhousing, and not the oilpan. When I get back to my '57 project, that's exactly what I'm working on..figuring out the best way to modify the tranny crossmember to move the engine back far enough to clear the R&P, and still have firewall clearance.
Rlibew..refresh my memory..which 4.6 and tranny combo are you using. One thing I realized this weekend, is some 4.6's have more clearance issues than others because of the intake manifold setups.

[rlibew]

I'm using a complete 03 cobra 4.6 engine and 6 speed Trans. I have the Lincoln front sump pan, my clearance problem is the rack hangs  below the engine cross brace and my scrub line. I also have interference with at steering tie rod linkage. I'm frustrated as my fabricator now wants to install a borgenson power steering box and abandon RP ?? I have looked at this and even with some mods unisteer brackets hang this rack to low ??  Just a wrinkle in the road it will get worked out, so any help or advice would be appreciated. Engine, trans and front end are off now as it has ben in paint mod for a while I will try again to post pictures.

[Ford Blue blood]

I would go with the Borgeson unit.  All issues removed, use the power steering pump and brake booster off the Mustang as well.

[Schraders]

I am the builder of rlibew's 57 Fairlane. The motor and trans are a 2003 Cobra take out, supercharged 4.6 DOHC and T56 6 speed manual transmission. The car is on track to be a complete show stopper and I am excited to hear it run and see it completed!

The Maval (Unisteer) rack is a total no starter right out of the box. When installed as directed, the input shaft faces the front of the car and tie rod adapter block they made hit the bottom of the oil pan. It took approximately 8 unbillable hours of modification to the mounting brackets and the tie rod adapter block to even bolt the rack into the car. This was with stock spindles. Unfortunately, when we later added dropped spindles the tie rod on the drivers side now hits the rotary valve housing. The rack assembly is approximately 2" below the bottom of the front crossmember.

When rlibew asked for a rack and pinion we reviewed the available options and I advised him to go with Maval (Unisteer) because I have done plenty of business with them in the past on reman power steering parts, because they are a large manufacturer and not a small or home based business and because they offered a generous warranty on the rack itself. In this industry it is very, very common that parts do not fit or work as advertised out of the box as beta testing usually is done by the installer. It seemed natural that I would have to do some massaging to make it right. Hindsight is 20/20 and in retrospect I should have just boxed it all back up and returned it. Of course, now that I have modified the thing, there is no recourse. And since I advised rlibew to go with the Unisteer rack I hold myself responsible for it's total failure to operate as advertised.

At this point I believe it will be in rlibew's best interests to abandon the rack and pinion entirely and install a Borgeson power steering box. I know it will fall into place, we just did one on a 1954 Sunliner with a 302 swapped in and it works flawlessly.

[RICH MUISE]

It hangs too low AND hits the oil pan...how is that? It sounds to me like the issue is with the Unisteer unit fitting the '57 and not the fact that your using a 4.6 dohc. Is that correct? When you say the output shaft on the rack faces frontwards...faces frontwards or leans a little to the front ( as my unit from JTfabrications does)?
I have not heard of anybody having problems with the JT unit installation, or delivery, or service...and it's probably cheaper. As far as being a big company/little company....it's been my experience bigger is not always better.
If I am not mistaken, Rob had his fab shop install the STFabrications unit and they were impressed with how well and quick it installed. I installed mine on my striped down car in less than an hour. Note that Rob is not using dropped spindles. I am, but my build is not far along enough to road test anything..no engine..lol..but the geometry of the rp setup looks like it should be good to this novice's eye anyway.

[rlibew]

 Rich engine and trans are out of car and the front end is off, so clearance problems will be address again on assembly. As far as I understand the problem is, the way unisteer  made the mounts for this application. As I have stated before this project soon got to the point that exceeded my skill level and time frame to have it on the road. Do you have pictures of your ST fabrication ??

[robhaerr]

It hangs too low AND hits the oil pan...how is that? It sounds to me like the issue is with the Unisteer unit fitting the '57 and not the fact that your using a 4.6 dohc. Is that correct? When you say the output shaft on the rack faces frontwards...faces frontwards or leans a little to the front ( as my unit from JTfabrications does)?
I have not heard of anybody having problems with the JT unit installation, or delivery, or service...and it's probably cheaper. As far as being a big company/little company....it's been my experience bigger is not always better.
If I am not mistaken, Rob had his fab shop install the STFabrications unit and they were impressed with how well and quick it installed. I installed mine on my striped down car in less than an hour. Note that Rob is not using dropped spindles. I am, but my build is not far along enough to road test anything..no engine..lol..but the geometry of the rp setup looks like it should be good to this novice's eye anyway.

Correct...I am using stock spindles with 1990 Aerostar springs. The S&T Fabrications r&p unit is working great. The shipping/delivery/crating was great. The guys are top notch when it comes to wanting you to be totally satisfied.

Here is the video of Bobby Walden (Walden Speed Shop-Pomona, CA) talking about the S&T Fabrications unit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygVACkWA1oo

...and a video with more photos with the brackets and linkage...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy95Fx83Cdg

I had a local alignment shop dial it in. He has experience with hot rods installing these kind of units...so that was a bonus...straight as an arrow! Auto & RV Specialists in Rancho Cucamonga, CA 909-981-4622. www.autoandrvspecialists.com

Hope this helps...
Rob

[Schraders]

Yes, the rack sits too low and it hits the oil pan. You are correct, the problem is with the Maval rack kit and not the motor. I don't see how this rack kit would work with any motor.

Actually, the way the kit is designed is totally different than Wurth's or the other kit pictured. Those kits use a bracket formed at 90 degrees to locate the tie rods under the rack where the Maval rack uses a 2" thick billet steel block to set the tie rods off the rack body straight ahead. Maval also uses their own tie rods where the Wurth rack uses the stock ones. Not sure what the other one uses.

Thanks so much for the video of your project, it shows some good detail of the installation. Your input is also angled forwards slightly, the Maval (Unisteer) rack is angled so far forward that the second u joint is almost in a bind when installed as directed. Your rack also sits below the crossmember but much better than what we are working with. Looking at the control valve on your installation also reminds me that routing the power steering hoses will be a little unusual for these applications. They will pass around the outside of the frame and back over the top to make it to the pump. Functional but certainly less than ideal.

[RICH MUISE]

Schraders: jmho, but it sounds to me like if Rlibew has his heart set on a R & P, you should order hin a STFabrications unit, and talk to unisteer about at least a partial refund...after all, you were attempting to make their unit usable. With that said, I've heard good things about the Borgenson unit, but it doesn't have the "cool factor" of a R & P that we know so many guys have been happy with performance wise. btw, my cudoos to you for telling it like it is.

[hogwagon]

 I'm going to jump in here strictly as minor input as we have installed the Borgeson unit in a 57 Ranch Wagon. The big reason for this choice was and still is how simple and clean it turns out without tie rod problems or the need for multiple u-joints in the column. Our application is different as we installed a 302 and the car will be driven by my wife. The 302 may make it easier but my wife behind the wheel is the most critical factor. The car is also an automatic with 4 wheel disc brakes so the choices are towards what works well as a road car towing a small RV trailer.
I believe a rack may be setup to work great and own a late model that came with it and realise wow factor has a lot to do with it but clean working smooth steering is pretty cool. The Borgeson
unit was a breeze to install after you commit to cutting or changing the column which has already happened I'm assuming.

[Ford Blue blood]

I did a "rack" install in a 51 Chevy with a kit from Butches Rod Shop (now Butches Cool Stuff) using the Cavalier rack and adaptor for the tie rods when I was doing cars for a living.  Installation was easy and worked well, had to modify the column.  Major draw back was the turning radius was slightly reduced.  If Borgeson would have been available I would have used it (1996) as they are truely a bolt in installation and none of the stock geometry is changed, just have to modify the column.  A friend put one in his 57 with an FE and there is more room between the exhaust and the box then the stock box, almost an inch.  His offers great feel and is really easy to manuver in parking situations.

Having driven both cars I can say there is no advantage of one over the other from a drivability stand point other then the slightly reduced turning radius.  BIG difference from an installation point of view and connecting the hoses, Borgeson is much cleaner looking in the end and installation is a breeze.  IMHO the Borgeson is the way to go.

[rlibew]

I want to thank everyone for their input, I have learned a lot about the different approaches/applications to steering on a 57 Ford. I agree the RP has the cool factor, but more important to me is clean simple and best functionality . I want my Car as low as possible and plan to drive it year round, the car club (Cal-Rods)I'm in, take 100 mile trips regularly. I also want or at least hope to do the power tour in this car.

The 1957 club has help me in so many ways on this Project, Thanks Again 

[gasman826]

I tested my R&P system on nine days of Power Tour.  I'm major pleased with all aspects of the steering.  You do have to get acclimated to the increased turning radius.  With fenderwell headers, I had the issue anyways. 

The R&P system is not completely all about bragging/wow factor.  Weigh all the parts and it is lighter.  It has fewer moving parts.  It eliminates several potentially mushy, moving parts.  There is a reason for them being on all the new cars!