Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,329 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
zforce -- I guess no one really gives a rat's behind about the difference in turning radius. I offered to do the r&p radius but apparantly no one is willing to do the stock steering radius. Next problem!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,329 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Well, let's not be too hasty. I do appreciate you doing your measurement. I'll tell you what, you post yours and I'll do some research into any old books and articles I can find and post the factory specs on turning radii for the different years that I come up with...deal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Deal. I'll try and take care of it before the weekend. There's a cul de sac at the end of my street that should work. I'll post #s as soon as I get it done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,821 Posts
Is your '67 stock with power steering? I can measure mine if you need ('67 power steering). Do you measure the inside or outside radius?

This would be great if we can compare the turning radius of the various R&P setups out there vs. stock.

I don't think anything could be worse than my '95 SHO, though. 3-point turn on every 2 lane street.

Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,773 Posts
Do you guys know offhand what is the stock radius? For a Nightmist Blue '66 with manual steering, haha! I am looking at adapting the front of a Nissan 240sx to my '66. I joined a forun for that model and I will inquire about the turning radius of that car. As far as I can tell it is the closest to ideal, i.e. rear steer (R&P), true McPherson strut (as opposed to the Fox modified strut arrangement), single pivot LCA (though I would probably use the stock LCA), discs and a large aftermarket parts selection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,897 Posts
rose62 said:
Do you guys know offhand what is the stock radius? For a Nightmist Blue '66 with manual steering, haha! I am looking at adapting the front of a Nissan 240sx to my '66. I joined a forun for that model and I will inquire about the turning radius of that car. As far as I can tell it is the closest to ideal, i.e. rear steer (R&P), true McPherson strut (as opposed to the Fox modified strut arrangement), single pivot LCA (though I would probably use the stock LCA), discs and a large aftermarket parts selection.
I dont think the color of the car will have any bearing on the turning radius, but I could be wrong.

Seriously though, I appreciate those of you that are supplying numbers for this post, it will help me decide on a R&P, or stay with a stock setup. I'd offer to measure mine, but it doesnt move under its own power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
rose62 -- you are the guy we need to measure your turning radius. I have a 65 with R&P and will be doing the measurments this week. If you can measure your radius we will know the difference in the two steering mechanisms. All you need to do is find a big parking lot turn your wheel to full lock, mark the pavement, drive 180 degrees with the steering wheel in full lock, stop, get out and measure the distance from your wheel to the original mark. That should be the turning radius also called the turning circle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,773 Posts
OK...here is what I got. I hope it sounds close. Turning left the radius on my '66 manual steering coupe with 14" radials and drum brakes is 14'9". Turning right it is 6" greater. I checked both ways twice and got the same measurements each time within an inch or so.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,212 Posts
Turning Diameter is touted to be 38 feet in the Ford advertising brochure for 1966. The radius would be half that, of 19 feet. I believe they are using the outside diameter for 38', so the inside diameter would be 38' - 2 times the car track width or 38' - 112 inches. This is 28.64 feet, so the inside turning radius would be 14.3 feet, or roughly 14 feet, 4 inches.

Whew! Makes ones head hurt doing this kind of math!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
I just came in from doing my 65 FB with Randalls Rack power R&P. I've got 16 inch wheels and am running 225/50 tires all around. The diameter of my circle was 34' 4" measured from the inside wheel. My radius, therefore is 17' 2". That would mean my R&P steering has increased the turning radius by 2' 10" over what Midlife has calculated using the info from the 1966 brochure. The difference sounds about right. We may not be exactly on the money but I believe we are real close. So now we know what small sacrifice we who went R&P have to bear. Thanks guys for helping us all solve this mystery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,329 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Thanks for taking on the challenge, GWMATS.

OK, here is my end of the deal. I have included the track or tread of the car as well as the steering ratios, I am not sure why some of the cars had the same numbers for track and yet had different advertised turning diameters (see 67+68 Mustang v 67+68 Shelby??)

Specs from the advertising brochures for the Mustang,


1964 1/2, 1965, and 1966
Turning diameter = 38 ft.
Front track-6cyl = 55.4"
Front track-8cyl = 56"
Rear track =56"
Steering ratio M = 27:1
Steering ratio P = 22:1

1967*
Turning diameter = 38 ft.
Front track now listed as
"Treads" = 58.0"
Steering ratio M = 25.4:1
Steering ratio P = 20.3:1

*1967 Shelby
Turning diameter = 37.16 ft.
"Tread" = 58.0"
Steering Ratio = 16:1

1968*
Turning diameter = 38 ft.
Front track now listed as
"Treads" = 58.5"
Steering ratio M = 25.4:1
Steering ratio P = 20.3:1

*1968 Shelby
Turning diameter = 37.16 ft.
"Tread" = 58.1"
Steering Ratio = 16:1

1969*
Turning diameter = 37.6 ft.
Front track now listed as
"Treads" = 58.5"
Steering ratio M = 25.3:1
Steering ratio P = 20.3:1

*1969 Shelby
Turning diameter = Not Listed
"Tread" once again listed as
"Track" = 58.5"
Steering Ratios = Not Listed

1970
Turning diameter = 37.6 ft.
"Tread" once again listed as
"Track" = 58.5"
Steering ratio M = 25.45:1
Steering ratio P = 20.48:1

1971
Turning diameter = 39.8 ft.
Track Front = 61.5"
Track Rear = 61.0"
Steering ratio M = 27.7:1
Steering ratio P = 22.1:1

1972
Turning diameter = 39.8 ft.
Track = Not Listed
Steering ratio M = 30.2:1
Steering ratio P = 22.1:1

1973

Turning diameter = Not Listed
Track Front = Not Listed
believed to be = 61.5"
Track Rear = Not Listed
believed to be = 61.0"
Steering ratio M = Not Listed
Steering ratio P = Not Listed

OK guys, pony up (pun intended!) with your Rack and Pinion Measurements, and be sure to include the brand of your R&P as well as notes on power v manual and the year of your car!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,329 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
How about some more measurements from you rack and pinion owners??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,413 Posts
gwmats said:
I just came in from doing my 65 FB with Randalls Rack power R&P. I've got 16 inch wheels and am running 225/50 tires all around. The diameter of my circle was 34' 4" measured from the inside wheel. My radius, therefore is 17' 2". That would mean my R&P steering has increased the turning radius by 2' 10" over what Midlife has calculated using the info from the 1966 brochure. The difference sounds about right. We may not be exactly on the money but I believe we are real close. So now we know what small sacrifice we who went R&P have to bear. Thanks guys for helping us all solve this mystery.
To be in a mall and attempt to do a 90 degree into a parking space, and have to back up to correct...or to make a U turn and have to back up and correct to complete the turn are not my idea of small sacrifices. On another post, a guy put a pic of his 65 showing the wheel at max turning, with his R&P, and it was a big enough difference to be noticeable.

Was all set to go with Steeroids. The tech person on site was candid enough to give the addition in feet, while the selling dealer said it was just a matter of a "few inches"!

To spend a couple thou on an "improvement" over the antiquated PS system and have NEW limitations come into play??????????? Opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,897 Posts
I would agree with you. Does not seem to make much sense to spend that kind of coin only to be limited in turn radius. I would much rather just upgrade my manual system and have full turn radius than have to do a three point turn into a parking space.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,773 Posts
Regarding the swap to R&P: what is the design limitation that prevents a tighter radius? Is it the racks that are being used? Is it the location of the mounting as dictated by the chassis design? Nearly all new cars sport R&P and have good turning radius. The potential must be there. Are these installations using stock spindles?
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top