Plotting power steering rebuild

Hi. I'm going to be getting back to the Roadmaster wagon when I get out of rehab for a broken ankle. At some point I will begin rebuilding the p/s system because the box leaks like a sieve and steering is generally vague although the front end components are in good shape. I plan to upgrade the box to 12.7, replace the steering pump, and all hydraulic lines.

I hate, hate, hate Chinese parts and I would much rather have existing parts competently rebuilt than buy trash over and over again. To that end, I'm going to send my box out to be rebuilt and I don't think I have questions about that, at least not yet. But I want to rebuild the pump and I'm not sure what to do. My car has variable effort steering (N41?) and I think that those parts are not too common anymore and I don't like it anyway. This is a lifetime car and to the extent possible I want to be able to buy parts in any podunk town, so I want to convert to the standard non-variable effort steering. Can my pump be converted to that by removing the valve on the back? I know the hoses go in at different angles and I also know I could make up a hose that would suit but I want all bolt-on parts to the extent possible should I have to fix it on the road. So the question is can I send my pump to the rebuilder (or rebuild it myself; doesn't look like rocket science), or just get a good core and work from that? I read something on some other forum to the effect that the standard pump wasn't up to powering a fast ratio box at low speeds but my thinking is that the normal finger-light steering would work really well with a faster ratio. Or, does the standard pump put out less pressure than the variable-effort box? In that case I think I could remove shims for that spring or use a lighter spring in the pump. From what I think I know.

I'm sure lots of people have been there and done that. A little help? Thanks a lot.

If you unplug the connector at the base of the steering column, the variable steering will go away. You can replace it with any B-body pump when it fails. You may need a hose.

I have done a lot of what you are talking about to my 96 RMW to get the steering the way I like it and am now very happy with the way it drives. My wagon is my driver when it is not sloppy and salty out (Minnesota) since I retired 8 years ago and decided a couple of years ago to bring it all the way back by doing all the bodywork, paint, built and engine and rear axle., etc. I had tweaked on the steering an suspension the whole 8 years though.

On the steering, this is where I wound up.

Steering gear was sent to Lee Power Steering in California as they are the only ones I found that I felt I could trust to do it totally right, which they did. They also offer full customization of ratio and turning effort, which most others don't even worry about it for the most part. They aren't cheap or with real quick turnaround but well worth it IMO. I got it with a 14 to 1 fixed ratio and a 30 inch pound torsion bar on the valve. They make their own bars so you can get pretty much what you like for feel. I took their recommendation at the 30 inch pound bar as they said that was the most popular for street driven cars. They do many for Camaros it appears. Once I got all the other stuff to work right with the gear it is right on what I wanted.

I also got a rebuilt pump from them for similar reasons. The backwards turning pumps are not very common and generic rebuilders don't seem to do well anyway. I did not get a variable effort pump so normal feel. I didn't like the variable at all.

A few other things on the car contributed to getting it to where I really liked it.

I ditched the factory power steering hoses/lines as they are too restrictive, it appears. Turning was always not too bad, but return was too slow. I went to AN 6 power steering hose and ran across the front of the engine from the pump and reservoir to the gear. It was easy to do as I don't have a tow package car and the ABS control has been removed. Big improvement in return to center. You might get the most of the benefit just from doing the return line as it is likely the big issue.

The wagon would run out of adjustment at about 2.5-3.0 degrees positive caster, so I got a pair of new upper arms, cut them, added/subtracted material to them, so I could get more positive caster. I now am running near 6 degrees on the right and .3 degrees less on the left and it drives much better and returns to center more positively.

I replaced the upper ball joints with Proforged tall joints to get the upper arm to just above horizontal (I am at stock ride height as this is a driver and tow car). This changes the camber from being positive progressive to negative progressive for camber on bump like modern cars are made. The progression change also means I changed to slight negative camber alignment from slight positive. I like the initial setting to match the progression for camber so it doesn't transition from plus to minus or minus to plus in turns or bumps. This change smoothed out he cornering some and took out the feel in the middle or turning the wheel more of an effort change which the car had always had. As expected, it turns in slightly less quickly but then is more uniform after that and holds the turns better.

No need to do it all at once, I think, as I did it spread out over years of time. It also gave me good time to evaluate each change, which helped in deciding where to head next. For me, it was well worth the effort.

Thanks, Booster! It's a lot to absorb. I have always considered my steering to be too slow in returning so it is interesting about the hose.

Booster, I just re-read your post. I'm wondering why you went 14:1 instead of 12.7:1 ... that seems to be the most popular. Do you have any idea what the stock ratio is? Thanks.

I was not certain what ratio I wanted so I went with the recommendation of Lee Power Steering who built the gear. When I contacted them they said they had some of their customers would come back to change a 12 to one to the 14 to one after purchase even. The big thing that he said made the difference was the intended use of the vehicle. The folks that were looking for high performance use went with the 12 to one almost exclusively and I had seen lots of posts and discussions also saying that was the go to setup. They also used a stiffer torsion bar in those cars. Autocross, road race,off road, even the Canyon Cutter folks would all use the 12 to one and IIRC 35 inch pound bar. Cruisers, dailies, etc preferred the 30 inch pound and 14 to one. It is probably impossible to universally that would be true for any given person though. When I first got it, I did have the impression it was a tad light in effort, but not too slow, but the lack of effort question quickly went away when I got better tires and the higher caster. I do think for me any faster and it would start to feel a bit twitchy as the turning reaction is right there when you turn so the car reacts well. Very minor, probably less than 1/2" steering wheel corrections needed going down the road. I think that sometimes the huge understeer in the big old cars is mistaken for too slow of steering ratio because you turn the wheel and not much happens. Once you correct the understeer everything happens faster and with less wheel motion. IIRC the original gears were in the range of 12-16 variable or so, so faster when turned sharper and slower when near center. The would be at 16 going down the road so coupled with the big understeer in stock form you needed a lot of wheel correction to keep it straight.

Your Hotchkiss bars will knock off most of the understeer, if not all, so that will change the steering feel a lot be itself I think.

On the bar installations. In the front, the larger bar with also larger pivot bushings is a bugger to get in because you wind up with no room for a socket on bolts that hold the pivots to the frame. Save yourself a whole bunch of effort and cursing and pull one of the bolts ahead of time, check the size and thread and get some torx (or allen) head bolts to replace them to give more tool room. When you go to put the metal bracket over the urethane mount, prebend the bracket a bit in the vise before putting it on to get it as tight a possible and then put a clamp on it to pull the holes of the bracket close enough together to get the second bolt in. You might also need to grind the holes toward the centerline a bit and use a flatted side washers. I needed to all of that to get them to go in decently.

Thanks. You have me re-thinking things, which is all too the good. I just assumed I wanted the quickest steering I could get. I've had a lot of cars that had very fast steering, like Fox-bodied 5.0 Mustangs and they were not at all twitchy, but I'm mindful of the fact that they had very heavy steering and were designed from the ground up for that. OTOH, I've had much older cars, notably Hudsons, that literally take 5 turns lock-to-lock. As they all had manual steering that was necessary. You get used to it.

My car is kind of vague, which is no surprise at about 195,000 miles, but it doesn't wander at all. It goes down the road at my typical elevated cruising speeds (90-95 is not unheard of) and never feels unstable. It actually doesn't steer badly at all, just kind of slow with a good bit of play in the center. If it didn't leak so badly I would try to properly adjust it but as it is, I'm all in. I think I might consider duplicating your setup. I'm thinking I won't need as much caster as you but I will definitely be fitting an oversize return hose. That might do it right there for the slow return.

I hear you about the understeer and you might well be right. I am currently running a 9C1 bar in the front with poly bushings (which of course makes the understeer worse but it really does corner pretty flat for such a big car) and I just bought a 15mm Panther bar for the back. Bigger would be better but I am both poor and cheap and I couldn't turn it down for the money. I am planning on running regular rubber bushings on that end as I want to keep that semi-luxury ride. I put in new stock LCAs soon after I bought the car because some dummy used one as a jack point and I will check the upper rear control arms when I get under there. This is going to be fun!!

Yours sounds a lot like I had. It went straight and was not horrible to keep in a straight line at all, and the faster I went the better it felt (I think because the caster gets more effective the faster you go). I had the stock 1 3/8" front bar in it (don't know how big an 9C1 bar is to compare) and I think it was 15mm Crown Vic bar in the back. You are correct in that a bigger front bar will make it understeer worse. Without the rear bar and with hard as rocks 75 series LTX light truck tires it took 4 pounds more pressure in the front to get it better, not perfect, for understeer. Better tires in 60 series touring style got it better and down to 2-3 psi more. The Hotchkiss bars are hollow so hard to compare, but the 1 7/16 front bar might even be a bit lighter than the 1 3/8 stock bar, but may be better material and be stiffer also. Rear bar is hollow also and 1 3/8 so front does not take much more than the rear to be balanced. There is no noticeable understeer now and I can run equal pressure or even more in the rear so I can carry load and it is still good, very forgiving. I haven't done loops with it to see which end will actually let go first though.

The twitchy is very subjective and some people are not sensitive to it. I am not overly sensitive. The Mustangs may have had a lot of caster in them and that will reduce the twitchiness also, plus they were probably all rack and pinion which has totally different feel in most cases. I did the caster increase first so I never ran it without it but with the bigger hoses so can't say for sure how much you will gain. Most likely it would split up unevenly with the caster helping center feel the most and the hoses helping to speed up the return the most. I am a very lazy driver as my preferred position in one hand lightly on the wheel near the bottom of the wheel so I like a vehicle that needs very small corrections and moderate effort so that works easily. I go for no more the about 1/2" in normal driving with minor curves so pretty small. I would guess the Mustangs were there easily but heavier effort.

One thing that I have noticed on newer vehicles with power steering is that a lot of them seem to have put in artificial "road feel" that shows up on return of the steering wheel. Both the wife's 09 CRV Honda and our 07 Chevy Express one ton van (not rack and pinion) have that feel. They feel springy if you turn and back off a bit. They also go very quickly to center if you let them, but immediately stop when they get to center. No overshoot. It is like they are putting a bit of hydraulic on them to help return speed and feel. A one year older exact same van feels just like the Buick and has a same looking gear in place, but the 07 has a bigger, funny shaped valve end on it so the valving is not the same most likely. The Honda seems to have two speeds on return. If you turn sharply like a fairly quick right turn and then let go of the wheel to let it go back by itself, it goes about half way back very fast and then does an instant slow down by a bit and holds that speed the rest of the way to center and stops suddenly at center. The glitch in the middle is very visible to see. Just not how the wheels would be returning the wheel which would uniformly taper the speed as the wheel came back based on how much turning force the tires were seeing.

I think you are going to have a good time as I have. I find this stuff very interesting and challenging.

Sorry for all the questions. Do you happen to recall how thick the t-bar is in your box? I'm back to studying up on P/S parts since that is what I will likely tackle first. The Lee box is soooooo expensive, and so is Powersteering.com. So I've been looking hard at the Borgenson boxes. Much cheaper and seem to be of good quality but some folks, mainly MOPAR and old Mustang guys, say they are slow to return. It sounds like they supply some alternate pitman arm for these cars that for some reason upsets the geometry and causes binding. Since I will be re-using my pitman arm that will not be a problem. However, as far as I can tell they come with a 12.7 ratio, no 14:1. Rumor has it they have a .210 t-bar, which combined with the 12.7 might make for pretty firm steering. I found a chart that says the biggest t-bar ever on b-bodies with 12.7 was 205. I know I'm asking you to speculate but do you have any opinion on how well this would work?

dwardo wrote:

Sorry for all the questions. Do you happen to recall how thick the t-bar is in your box? I'm back to studying up on P/S parts since that is what I will likely tackle first. The Lee box is soooooo expensive, and so is Powersteering.com. So I've been looking hard at the Borgenson boxes. Much cheaper and seem to be of good quality but some folks, mainly MOPAR and old Mustang guys, say they are slow to return. It sounds like they supply some alternate pitman arm for these cars that for some reason upsets the geometry and causes binding. Since I will be re-using my pitman arm that will not be a problem. However, as far as I can tell they come with a 12.7 ratio, no 14:1. Rumor has it they have a .210 t-bar, which combined with the 12.7 might make for pretty firm steering. I found a chart that says the biggest t-bar ever on b-bodies with 12.7 was 205. I know I'm asking you to speculate but do you have any opinion on how well this would work?

No problem on questions, it is great that you are considering all your options and trying to get the best solution for your build.

The only thing I can comment on from first hand experience is the cost of the Lee box and others because I had looked at them also. And yep, they are crazy expensive. I was hesitant to spend that much also on the Lee, but decided to because of past experience with other rebuilds, their get reputation, the fact that I could get ratio and feel options, and also based on past stuff, the fear that any non vehicle specific, but "fits", box would mess up the geometry. Street rodders who stay with gear box type steering instead of rack and pinion fight that battle all the time. Personal choice as to whether it was worth it or not, but I would do it again. Even though this isn't a high buck concourse resto or anything near it, the cost of the gear was worth it to me when compared to cost of some other parts as I feel the benefit on every drive.

In general, I don't think you can compare bar turning force at the steering wheel to bar thickness unless the bars are in the exact same box with exact same steering wheel diameter. The inch pound spec they give is wheel turning force at the rim so diameter changes it in the same system if the diameter is changed. The same goes for the mechanical advantage on the bar in the box. A shorter bar would probably be stiffer than a longer one, wider stiffer the narrower would be stiffer. Actuator arm to the valve length longer would reduce effort etc. All those parameters are set by the box design, so a generic box could be way different than a stock or other generic one.

Thanks for the response. I hear you on the wisdom of spending more for more, but I think I have crossed Lee off my list for now because of the turnaround as much as the expense. I am mining the internet for either a quality new/rebuilt box or one that is so inexpensive that I can afford to experiment with the ratios. If I go that route I'll no doubt spend as much as I would have just going first class right away, but I am stubborn. You have got me thinking that maybe 14:1 is as sporty as I want to go and that narrows the prospects quite a bit because there are actually quite a few 12-to-1 boxes out there that may be of unknown quality but won't break the bank. I'm just starting to look now at 14's seriously. One thing that might make a difference between our cars is you are running substantially bigger wheels.

I have always resisted the urge to put fat meats on it because I think if anything they are a detriment to performance and my long experience with Hudsons has taught me to dread changing big tires on the side of the road when the rear fenders cover the wheels. On the Hudson the fender cutouts are extreme and you sometimes have to disconnect a shock. I'm done with that. I have Firestone Firehawk 500s on it now and I like them very much and they are not worn badly at all, but my fondest hope is to go to Texas to visit my sister (and maybe hit Wagonfest on the way) and I'm not making that drive with tires I bought in 2009. The tires I anticipate buying will be a near-stock size and they are strictly summer tires so ought to stick pretty well.

I think you have a reasonable decision and may help others in the future, no matter how it turns out.

On the tires and wheels I think you may be misreading it a bit. The wheels are larger diameter at 17 vs 15 inches but the tires went from 75 series to 60 series. Overall diameter is the same as my 225-75-15 stock tires was. Width was only taken from the 225-235 so really not very much at all. I could have gone with 245 width, but the tire selection sucked and it could get wicked in wet or sloppy weather, so 2535 was the sweet spot.

All of this was very carefully planned to fit the over the years retro thing I kind of wanted to do. I don't like at all the look of big wheels, low profile, tires and wheels on older cars, or even newer ones for that matter. I also left it at stock ride height with only a tiny front rake for stability.

As it turned out, it looks balanced to me, but others would prefer it to be slammed or with the donk look. To each their own on that. I didn't even mind the original look and stance with factory wire caps, but wanted higher quality tires than I could get in 15" and aluminum wheels to reduce the weight a bit. The suspension has been improved enough so that the tires were undoubtedly the limiting factor on handling, stability, and field so an upgrade was needed, even for using the car as a daily for me. (retired so not commuted, though)

I rebuilt my own pump, and I'd recommend anyone handy do the same. The variable effort part is all separate. Honestly what causes problems is the steering sensor on the shaft just outside the firewall. It can be disassembled and cleaned.

Pump rebuild pictures here.

Thanks! i like the way your car looks, very much. It's different from most. Mine will wind up being more stock looking mainly because it is a very clean car for the most part, and the cost of a paint job is definitely more than I would like to spend. White is not my favorite color and I'd love to have a wood-delete car in a dark color, but oh well. If I put any paint on it I will remove the woodgrain from the sides (not including the trim) and spray some really cool design where it was. In my opinion, flames are always in good taste as long as they are not red and yellow.

Thanks for the encouragement. I will definitely try rebuilding my own pump. It works fine and doesn't leak but I need to do it to call everything else done. It has been abused sometimes by letting the fluid go low but I doubt it's badly hurt. Interesting that you can do it without removing the pulley.

Since you've been there and done that, please answer me this: If I remove the variable effort valve from the pump, does it then become a regular (N40?) pump in all respects? If I get an N40 return hose will it hook right up?

BTW, I am going to pursue your mod where you make the return AN6. I see most hoses like that are "cut to fit". That being the case, I may put a cooler in the line. Back in the day, Ford power steering coolers were the go-to motorcycle oil coolers for the budget-minded biker. I'd say 60s or 70s, maybe later. They were just two passes in a u-shape through the fins and very sturdy. I think I remember the one on my mom's Country Squire being bolted to the A/C compressor. i don't remember the tubing size any longer. If I could find one of those it might be ideal. I also think I have a small Lockhart motorcyle cooler somewhere. Time will tell.

I wish I had been lucky enough to be able to use the trim on woodgrain areas, but mine was too far gone with lots of dents and some broken retainer. There was a pic of a silver paneled one on the forum a while ago that had stripped and polished the trim and it looked very nice, IMO. I agree on the flames being a time honored tradition, but not the gawdy red, yellow, blue ones. I am a big fan of the ghost flames that you can barely see until you look closely. I wish I had the artistic skills to do them, as I think the silver side panels on my wagon would have looked nice with blue/silver mix paint ghosts.

I am not up on the pump numbers, but I did use a standard LT1 pump without the variable effort control solenoid and originally used a Caprice non variable hardline on it until the AN6 change to both lines. The return line, if you do just it in AN6 is not a high pressure hose so you can use anything with with 100 psi rating even. IIRC, I used the push lock hose on my return because the AN6 official power steering hose wasn't flexible enough to go on the reservoir. I will have to look to see for sure what I did as it was a bummer to have the extra PS hose I didn't use. It may be my imagination, but I think the non variable pump runs a lot cooler than the variable one did. I wish I had taken a temp of the old one.

Yes, if you remove the variable effort components from the back of the pump, you'll need a regular (N40) high pressure hose. They're 90 degrees different in their mounts, and the hard line will collapse if you try to bend it. You'll also need a new regulator fitting to screw into the back of the pump. I'm sure they're readily available; GM only made about 100 million of them.

Thanks, guys! What I hope will be my last question: what is this "regulator fitting" you speak of? Is it the thing that I'm supposed to add or subtract shims from if I don't like the pressure? I guess that's the relief valve? Or is it the electrical switch that raises the idle when you turn the wheel? How come the N40 is different from the other one? Sorry for the questions. I can't see my car or my FSM right now. I'm trying to figure out everything I'm gonna need. I looked at a couple articles on rebuilding the pump, and I am appalled but not surprised that there is only a bushing in the front, not a proper bearing. What holds the other end of the shaft up? A bushing that you can't service? Good old GM had a knack for making things "just good enough", but those pumps do run a long time. That one is probably original.

I want to get to this pretty soon after I am released from here. First thing to do is put tags on and a battery in and drive it, a lot. See what has gone bad while it was in dry dock. Then if all is well, off to the tint shop. I figure the guy can do a better job if the interior door panels aren't on there, and they won't get broken in the shop. Once that is done I can start on the P/S system.

Booster, I almost said something about ghost flames on your car. Those would be natural. I agree about those nasty yellow and red flames, although they are nice and traditional on a highboy or something. I like blue flames. I had a Norton Commando painted with blue and silver pearlescent flames over black. That did look good. Ima try to get my wood looking as good as possible before I do that. This would be a really stupid and expensive hobby if I couldn't drive it.

It may be a regional thing, but when the red/yellow flames, mostly covering the hood and both front fenders on street rods, morphed into adding similar intensity blue color with read and yellow. That was also the era when they all had painted on "pictures" often of cartoon characters like Tweety Bird, Wile E Coyote, Sylvester, Tasmanian devil, etc. on the trunk, and a friend of mine back then painted on his own Jessica Rabbit. He was very artistic in general and also painted his own silver blue ghosts on his black, I think 34, Ford. They were the nicest ghosts I ever remember seeing as he did a great job of matching the fender shape and the flames were artistically woven perfectly. He did just the front fender sides. I really like the highly silvered blue ghost flames.

Yep, it way too easy to make a car too nice so that you are scared to drive it. When I decided, after 7 years of having it, to paint the Buick I decided early on that it would be driver quality. Base and clear, epoxy primer, 2nd tier PPG Omni paint, no wet sanding and buffing unless I got a clearcoat run and needed to get rid of it (I did have two small ones that came out well), didn't paint jams or door unseen jam frames. Didn't even paint the top at all as the paint was still nice and the right color. It did need a hood and I went a bit overboard on that, but glad I did. The aftermarket steel hood on it didn't fit well at all. I did have to do quite a bit of body work, mostly to repair poorly done earlier repairs and also to weld shut and smooth all the moulding holes. It appears on all the wagons the doors have a slight flair at the leading and trailing edges that looked to be there intentionally. Probably a misalignment design or production problem they allowed for. Many of the older cars had similar, even my 1970 Dodge Challenger. It takes skim coating the entire door to get rid of those kind of things and then lots of blocking to totally flat and the right contour. I did do it on the Chally and it came out really straight, but took forever and it only had two doors. That one was not concourse, but very nice, wicked fast, but only used for cruising the countryside and occasional shows. Had it almost 30 years and we just weren't using much anymore as my wife hated having windows open all the time as it did not have AC. I might be able to get out what I have spent on the Buick, but maybe not. Most of the money is in drivetrain and suspension though and that is what makes it such a fun car to drive as it does everything quite well.

Thanks guys. My way is now clear, thanks to your input. I'm going to rebuild the pump myself, that's a given. I may or may not use an AN6 hose on the return, although I like the idea. I'm kinda thinking that all the twists and turns, especially if I add a filter and maybe a cooler, will negate the added flow of the larger hose.

I've been mining the interweb intensively with the idea of finding a "cheap" box that may be sacrificial but would allow me to experience some different ratios and road feel. It looks like the Jeep box remains the best choice as all GC models within a certain year range (some people say 93-98 but I think it may be only 96-98) had 12.7:1 and a .195 T-bar. I don't know the diameter of the Jeep steering wheel and they probably have pretty big tires so it's hard to say how that works in them, but it looks like most b-bodies with 12.7 had .185 bar so less resistance if other things remain the same. OTOH, as far as I can tell the FE3 option (mostly police?) had a .195 bar so for all intents and purposes it seems like the FE3 box and the Jeep box are the same.  If anybody knows any facts contradicting the former, please let me know. So, I started looking for a cheap reman Jeep box. Rock Auto has what they claim to be one dirt cheap, but I decided I'd rather spend more and get one from a parts store so I can play with it on the counter before buying. I can check for excessive play and see if the threads in the flange are screwed up. Those two things seem to plague reman boxes, judging from the reviews. I can't tell anything about the T-bar but I can approximate the ratio. The Jeep box has the same swing as ours, which is close enough to 90 degrees that I couldn't tell without a protractor. I'm thinking I can rotate the input shaft through its range and see how many turns it takes to go lock-to-lock. You never know what you're really getting with a chain-store reman box but the difference between 12.7 and something more should be obvious. I'll try my car to see how many turns it takes lock-to-lock before  I do this. I don't really go quite lock-to-lock cuz the tires rub on the sway bar a little but it will be close enough.

Anyway, it's either a Jeep box or an Impala SS box. NAPA carries them both. The Impala box is much, much cheaper because of the $170 core charge for the Jeep box, but it seems like they are basically unavailable except for shipping from the warehouse to my house, and maybe not even then. The Jeep boxes are in stock at NAPA but I don't like the price. So, I found that Auto Zone has a box that is said to be a Jeep box for a reasonable price and they are in stock. So I'll go there and plunk my money down and play with it a little, and if I think it's a good bet I'll take it and put it on. If I like it and it proves durable then I'm a super winner. If I don't like it then I probably know that 12.7 is too much for me and I'll put my hand in my pocket for a real box. I can report any findings to the pod here. So, I'm not as confused as I was.

I'm remarkably stupid so please don't take my research at face value. I welcome corrections or ideas from anybody but otherwise this is what I'm going to do.

I think that sounds like a very good set of tests to run and we can all learn something from the results.

I will be particularly interested in what you find if you get the SS box from Napa. I can't say the comments I saw when I was reading up on this a few years were about Napa boxes, but were about store bought SS rebuilt boxes. Bottom line on them was that many of them were not really SS boxes, may have been made from claimed SS cores and such, though. Wrong ratios and t bars, along with normal mass rebuild sloppiness were the main issues.

A couple of things on the Jeep boxes or other non OEM boxes would be to get a good look at exactly where, at and at what angle, the outlet shaft of the box comes out the box when bolted in the car. That location and rotation axis determines the actual movement path of the pitman arm. Plumb bobbing to the floor of the garage and marking the positions of the pitman to center link connection should be able to let you see what the actual steering linkage movement looks like use. Tape measure to the linkage for vertical locations, plumbbob marks on the floor for horizontal locations. Many times, this is the one thing that messes up box swaps, as i mentioned with the street rods, as it can mess up the relative turning of the wheels in relation to each other as you turn.

On the return line and filter, it would be good if you can get a pressure drop spec from the manufacturer. I have never seen a spec in the past. Any filter on a low pressure return line in most any kind of application can be hard to pull off without affecting things. When you are starting with only a few psi in the line, any drop can hurt you badly by percentage. Nearly all hydraulic pump systems for other purposes use a high pressure line fine filter and just a screen in the return, if anything. I think to get a low pressure drop in the return would require a very large and not very fine filter, but have no testing on that. When you figure that the two relatively short metal line sections of the stock line made a noticeable difference in return compared to the -6AN line (the rubber sections of the OEM are about the same as -6AN for size), it doesn't take much restriction to be able to notice.

A cooler, you can get the restriction and pressure drop very low so not as much of an issue. I did notice that with the latest setup of normal pump and no variable ratio, plus the larger lines, the system does run noticeably cooler, but don't have before and after measured temps. I noticed it when I felt the reservoir temp by hand.

Have you seen any published specs of the Jeep and other boxes are run at for pressure in their stock applications? It is very possible they run them higher or lower to get the properties they want in the vehicles they were in, so they may react a bit differently if your pump pressure is different. I have toyed with making the very similar pump on our LS powered one ton van adjustable somehow by making the regulator in the pump adjustable. It is hydroboost and I would like to get a bit more boost to the brakes, even if it reduced steering effort a little also.

Hey, as usual you've given me a lot to think about, but in this case I'm not going to overthink.

I thought about the pressure drop issue when using a filter before ... I know a lot of people are using filters and the companies that sell the boxes often say that a filter is required to obtain the warranty. So I thought that if not in the return line, then where? The input line runs at a hella pressure so I'm not sure any of the filters I've seen would take it. In the supply line, eh, I don't know. I guess the pump provides a good amount of suction but pumps usually don't like to suck too much so maybe that would not work well. Final analysis, all my projects (spectacularly, rebuilding my Norton Commando) have been subject to "mission creep" and I see where this is going. Modifications always beget more modifications. I've been thinking about how much I have to do or would like to do on the car if I am to make it to Wagon Fest and it's a lot for a guy as busted up as I am right now. So I'm gonna revert to my inclination to make everything as off-the-shelf as possible and use the factory return line, possibly with the lame 9C1 cooler. I never had a problem with overheated fluid so far but if I do then I can easily revisit the cooler. As far as the filter is concerned, I think it will be better not to mess with Mother Nature or GM for right now. So, I will get the crackerbox steering gear at a local chain store and if it passes muster while I'm there I'll install it and see how things go. I will try to remember to measure the things you asked me to measure but as far as I can tell with the car being some miles away they should be the same. I think. I will also rebuild the steering pump myself and in a masochistic way I'm looking forward to that. I'm going to clean up under the hood, too, as in repainting the inner fenders while I'm taking stuff apart. All that takes time and I probably don't have as much as I think.

Rant mode off. Sorry, but I'm crabby today. The incompetence and corruption of this crappy rehab center is really getting to me lately. I can't even get a hot meal most of the time and I've been fighting with the management about the food since I've been here. Ugh.

Nothing wrong in taking a step back, and yes project creep is a real thing that I, and many others probably, fight on a daily basis. I ran engineering projects for my work for decades so know creep very well.

Just as a reference point on the pump system. This is not a closed loop type system where the return line can see full pump suction, as far as I can tell. The plastic reservoir cap appears to be vented as it will leak if over filled, and it would likely collapse from the suction. The pump inlet does see a tiny head pressure because the reservoir is a bit higher than the pump inlet.

Huh. Interesting about the closed loop system vs open. I had not thought about that. This seems more complicated than an armchair engineer (me) can fully comprehend so all the more reason to stay close to factory. Unfortunately, swapping in an alien gearbox may introduce more variables than I like without even going to revising the plumbing. I feel better about this now. Was really overthinking.

I have a dumb but necessary question about evaluating the gearbox at the store before I buy it: how hard is it to turn by hand, especially since it's brand new?? I never tried that before. I need to be able to turn it halfway in one direction and all the way in both directions. It's gonna be embarrassing if I can't move it. I'm thinking that if I pull out a pair of channel locks or whatever and grab the input spline it won't go over too well. I won't have the old one out when I get the new one (maybe I should though). Anybody who has done that please chine in.

I can't say that I have ever tried that, but I think it would be hard to turn. If you could find a socket that would fit the spline or box wrench I think it would turn OK. I am basing this on the fact you can turn the steering wheel pretty easily with the front wheels off the ground, even though you are probably fighting a bit of fluid in it and the linkage drag.