Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I swapped a rebuilt factory power steering system into my '66 convertible and found the center link is rubbing the oil pan. The old manual steering had plenty of clearance and no issues. The center link doesn't look bent, all of the linkage appears to be in the correct positions and installed correctly. The system was rebuilt by a reputable shop many on this site have used and I think the rebuild was done well and has no issues. I had a 7qt pan on the car and replaced it with an original 5qt pan and still have the same problem.

Any ideas? I had seen a thread on bent center link's touching the pan and another on the motor mounts being different for a '66 convertible. Apparently some say the convertible had mounts that made the engine sit higher than a coupe or fastback. I'm stumped and don't want to swap back my manual steering yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
I swapped a rebuilt factory power steering system into my '66 convertible and found the center link is rubbing the oil pan. The old manual steering had plenty of clearance and no issues. The center link doesn't look bent, all of the linkage appears to be in the correct positions and installed correctly. The system was rebuilt by a reputable shop many on this site have used and I think the rebuild was done well and has no issues. I had a 7qt pan on the car and replaced it with an original 5qt pan and still have the same problem.

Any ideas? I had seen a thread on bent center link's touching the pan and another on the motor mounts being different for a '66 convertible. Apparently some say the convertible had mounts that made the engine sit higher than a coupe or fastback. I'm stumped and don't want to swap back my manual steering yet.


Don't know if you got this from us, or not, but here to help.

Did you buy the "Quick Steer Idler/Pitman"??

The Quick steer are longer, which extends the centerlink out.

The Centerlink, if bent, will be visually noticed.

The aftermarket aspect does have to considered?? Don't know, Just questions.

Dan @ Chockostang
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,892 Posts
A pic from the left side, so we could see the contact, would be very helpful.

As for height, all 289 engines were mounted at the same height. The only variation comes from poorly made non-Ford insulators. The urban legend around this height thing is amazing, it just won't die.

Mustang Smallblock V8 Motor Mounts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Tie Rod ends are on right. The impact point on the pan is in line with the factory indentions, not on the back of the sump. I'll look at the idler arm, but I am pretty sure I used the standard one and not the Quick steer. Thanks for the ideas so far, I'm sure it will turn out to be something simple in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,225 Posts
Neither the P/S nor the Manual centerlink should hit the oil pan- even
when utilizing the quick steering kit.
The reason why the different engine height rumors exist is because
statements appear in more than one header manufacturer's catalog
such as- "use the taller DOZZ-6038-G engine mounts to avoid
interference problems."
(I've seen at the retail parts counter that even the aftermarket
manufacturers like anchor have at least one Ford mount that is
different in height- I have the number down as 602-1152
and it was 1/4" less than those used on a '66 Mustang)

Don't have a K code but part of the rumor may be because those
factory mounts supposedly put the block at a different height.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,892 Posts
The reason why the different engine height rumors exist is because
statements appear in more than one header manufacturer's catalog
such as- "use the taller DOZZ-6038-G engine mounts to avoid
interference problems."
Because they are ill-informed.

(I've seen at the retail parts counter that even the aftermarket
manufacturers like anchor have at least one Ford mount that is
different in height- I have the number down as 602-1152
and it was 1/4" less than those used on a '66 Mustang)
You mean this one. The C6OE and C7ZE are physically different, but when mounted in the car at their respective different angles, give a resulting height difference of "zero". I once spoke to the guy at Anchor who decides such things, and asked, since the 2257 won't fit 67's or convertibles, if they would re-issue the 2286. He asked if I wanted 10,000 of them. When I said no, he pretty much laughed.



Don't have a K code but part of the rumor may be because those
factory mounts supposedly put the block at a different height
I do have a K code and they don't. I have seen people use early K code mounts on standard frame brackets, and they end up way too high. The K mounts use special deep frame brackets. Very, very, hard to find. After 11/1/65, the 289HP used the same mounts as any 289 2V.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,935 Posts
Are you sure the centerlink is from a 66 mustang?
It could be Maverick, Torino etc, all look very similar.

Leave me a PM with your e-mail and I'll send you pics
of a PS setup from a V8 66 Mustang that is out of the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Pics

If these pics don't post well I'll try another way. The new oil pan is black and makes it a little hard to see, but the point where the center link attaches with the ram is just touching the bottom of the pan. Hopefully this makes some sense to someone. All I can come up with is that either the center link is bent up or the motor for some odd reason sits far too low. And remember, I had a manual steering system on this car for over a year with no issues like this.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
786 Posts
Did you change the idler arm? They list one for power steering and another for manual steering. You say you changed from manual to power. I don't know if it makes a difference, but it may be why they have two styles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,892 Posts
I can't really tell if the centerlink is straight or not, but I have seen such rods where someone put a jack under them. Doesn't have much clearance, so even a little bend makes a difference.

You have another problem, though. The hose routing is a disaster. The return is not supposed to loop down toward the ground, the band clamping the tubes to the valve is missing (this guarantees you'll get leaks) and the bracket that holds the hoses up is missing.



This later car has slight hose differences, but the valve clamp and bracket are clearly shown:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
Larger Pics
Yes, that is a leak--FIRE about to happen.

Once you get the hoses routed by the Control as the first picture GT shows, The tubing will need to be clamped to the control valve like Ford did. (Missing the clamp in the picture)The clamp stabalized the tubing, making the rubber do the flexing, not the tubing.

Believe me, the tubing will break the way they are.

Dan @ Chockostang
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,109 Posts
...another observation
While looking at the first pic, were the strut rod washers on backwards?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Here is the power steering system out of the car and compared to the manual steering center link I had in the car. Looks to me like the power steering one is bent up and twisted, it doesn't match the manual one very well.

Is there something different about the angles I'm missing on the power steering center link, or am I correct in that it is bent?

If I replace just the center link, do I need to do anything special for the control valve other than unbolt from the old center link and bolt onto the new one?
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
The old power steering center link was bent up. Hard to see without comparing to another center link, but it was bent enough to ruin an oil pan. New one is in and working fine, car is back on the road. Hope this helps in case someone else has a similar issue.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top