I have a 1960 Ford Ranchero, and it dosen't have power steering. :/ I am wondering what years of power steering are able to be hooked up to my Ranchero. (It has a 1966 200ci Ford Six with a 3-speed). Can any year fit or is there a difference? HELP!

 

This ain't cheap:

Total Control Products

But the OEM power steering set ups are linkage assist, and IMO were/are crap.

You could find a OEM set up from a Ranchero, Falcon, Mustang, etc, and make it work. Note as OEM, they used a faster gear box with power steering, so you may or may not want to swap in the faster box as well if you go OEM style.

FWIW, I'd live with manual steering before I'd go with the OEM set up. I drove a 289 Mustang without power steering for almost 10 years and it didn't kill me.

 

the falcons and mustangs had power assist steering. it was a hydraulic piston that was bolted to the steering linkage to make it a bit easier to turn.
and they were not very effective.
i had power assist in my first 65 falcon, and it really was not much better than the manual steering in the current 65.

 

I believe there are a couple aftermarket companies that offer an integral power steering gears for the '67-'68 Mustangs. These gears would bolt to the Falcon chassis, and as long as they have the 1" sector shaft the Falcon steering linkage would fit. These gears were designed to do away with the Ford power assist systems found on the earlier cars.
The only hang up with these is the separate steering shaft / column. The Falcon shaft is integral with the gearbox. You would need to convert your column to a later style.

Power steering pump, brackety and hoses could be sourced from a mid to late 60's Mustang with the 200" engine.

Good luck.

Roger Carter

 

the 65 and newer steering components were completely different from the mid year 64 and older components.

 

No argument from me. Your statement is 100% correct.

For what it's worth, the '60-'65 Falcon and the '65-'68 Mustang used at least 10 different steering boxes. The key to what I proposed (and have done) is the similarity in these boxes, not the differences.
The mounting bolt pattern is the same between all 10 and the sector shaft is either 1" or 1 1/8" diameter.

I am not suggesting replacement of anything other than the steering gear and column. The new aftermarket integral PS boxex will bolt to the early Falcon chassis and the early Falcon steering linkage will fit up to a 1" sector shaft (stock 1960 Falcon size) integral PS gear.
Modification/adapting a column assembly will be necessary since the original Falcon shaft is integral with the steering gear and the new integral PS gear utilizes a rag joint connection to the steering shaft.

RC

 

most people don't bother with that anymore.
with the low cost and superior quality of the new mustang 2 rack and pinion setups, they are now the hot thing for front suspensions swaps.

 

I would respectfully disagree......

Having road-raced the pony cars (mustang specific) in the late 70's in SoCal, I can suggest this.......IMHO I preferred the oem style suspension to the Mustang II conversions....much more stable, responsive & consistant. there is a slight different in the alignment specs for a street use versus track use car, but the street specs (which for the 60's cars are is the same as for the 70's mustangs- which had radial tires- otherwise the spec's are for bias ply and I guarantee you that if the alignment specs were for 1965, that will cause a handling issue with radials).....will work on the track (not excellent but good).

Most of the "Must-do" with R&P's date back to the late 70's when P&J & a couple of car mags did a real high profile marketing how to on this new thing....even goig back to those days, they never performed worth a crap- looked good but that was about it.

The oem steering systems are of excellent design...but many because of their age are just getting tired...but after 40+ years, well, to be expected. These same steering systems were more than adequate in the 427 race cobra's, GT350R (race spec) and much of NASCAR through the late 70's (back when they were running literally production cars).

This is an excellent assessment of oem vs aftermarket suspension for the mustang by others who have used their cars for street & road racing.…
01-20-2013, 03:19 PM by dav65mus
Expecting Too Much From Suspension?? - Page 2 - Vintage Mustang Forums
I had a MII kit in a 65 fastback I built. Unless you are doing a big block/mod motor/ls swap and need the shock towers removed any MII kit is a mistake. I have been experimenting with different suspension setups along with frame connectors during the last 15 years on 3 different 65 mustangs. The MII in a fastback, ron morris complete coilover conversion in another and stock suspension in another. After driving all 3 my conclusion is stock suspension with poly bushings, roller perches, progressive rate coil springs, and good shocks will handle as well as any other aftermarket system at a fraction of the cost. As far as steering, the borgenson conversion feels very "rack & pinion" like without the high cost, turning radius issues, and exhaust clearance problems that rack & pinion retrofit kits suffer from. You can improve the handling of your classic but you will never get the feeling of a modern car like your focus without building an entire streetrod type rolling chassis and fitting your body to it. I have been there and tried that and kept my bank account emptied trying to get modern car handing and feel.... wish I would have spent less money trying.

Dave
Poste by 22GT
There is no inherent handling advantage to the Mustang II front suspension. It's main advantage in 64-73 Mustangs is it allows the use of really large engines, such as the 4.6 DOHC. A properly set-up stock suspension can easily out-handle the MII setup. Simply doing these items from TXMAG's list would be superior to typical MII.
Arning/Shelby Drop
Roller Idler arms
Good rebuild or new steering box
Performance alignment
Roller UCA/LCA
Front sway bar around 1" in size
Monte Carlo Bar
Export Brace
Eliminating the shock towers also often eliminates a lot of triangulation bracing. Haven't seen your car, but I've seen a lot of MII conversion cars at shows that had less front end rigidity than a stock six-cylinder coupe. Sometimes people use fancy-looking cross-bracing with Heim joints to make up for it. Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but a Heim joint is a pivot, designed to flex. Kinda the opposite of what you'd want in a chassis brace.

I hope this helps.......

 

i am only going by what the guys in the falcon group are doing. almost every one wit ha modified car has dumped the stock suspensions for the M II R&P setup and swear it is a 1000% improvement

 

I understand.....IMHO...many of the "crowd" follow the PR & marketing with little to no knowledge or experience for that matter on actual performance, design limitations and functionality. Most of the enthusiast who I have met, have never driven an oem system that is properly set up and in good condition......they just know what they have been told, the PR materials and now that it is all new, it is much better.

The gents whose postings are quoted are semi-pro drivers who have been involved in road racing type competition for close to 15+ years and are very successful. Much of the "crowd", well...what can I say.....

 

the average age of members on the falcon forum i belong to is 55 to 60. most of us have owned our cars for over 20 years, with a lot of the guys being original owners

 

The they would have knowledge of the Test done (and published) by Traco & Guldstrand engineering back in the early 80's....clearly demonstrated a multitude of shortcomings and with the readily known (and even recently published retracts by many of the major perf publications that back in the 70's pushed the great idea....which on the falcon/mustang chassis reduced turning radius by 1+ feet and induced increased chassis flex which (as well known) is typically seen on a driver type vehicle in the form of stress cracks at the 5-8 year mark.