manual steering box on '65 Barracuda

[mr.petrolhead]

Hi A-body fellows,
Can anyone please supply information on a swap from power steering to 16:1 manual.
I am bulding my car for historic road racing and would prefer to have manual steering instead of the +25kgs power steering job.

I have asked the company Flaming River if the steering box they advertise for a '66, if it will fit my '65, but they do not have information on his.

Are the '64-'65 car different i.e. is the K-frame different and and is the steering boxes also different?

It would be nice if anyone could help

Thanks in advance
mr.petrolhead

 

[cosgig]

Same box, same everything save for a few trim differences!! Go for the 66 unit! Geof

 

[65 Dartman]

What he said^^^^^^^

 

[mr.petrolhead]

Thanks a lot for your swift replies.

 

[65cudalover]

I hear you and love my manual steering on the 65 formula S would not want power steering on it ever! It cruises so well down the road and turns tight no problem. I love it just the way it is! Now parking in a tight spot that's a little work but so what it comes with the age and beauty of the era!

65 Cudalover

 

[cosgig]

I like my manual steering also! And with the graphite grease in all of the joints and such it turns like a power steering car, only much more road feel!!

 

[clifftt]

I'd love to upgrade my manual steering from the 24:1 to the 20:1 or 16:1, but I'm afraid of the extra effort required to steer, especially parking. I'd also like my wife to be able to enjoy driving it.
But for racing, Mr. Petrolhead, you might consider the quicker ratio boxes.
If anyone has experience with these boxes, I'd love to hear any feedback.

 

[BillGrissom]

Doesn't lend much confidence that Flaming River is clueless. I think the manual steering gears were identical from 1963 to 1972 in A-bodies. Even power gears were the same, except the hydraulic fittings probably changed when they went to the Federal steering pump (1970?).

 

[C130 Chief]

Manual Steering boxes were substantially similar, but not all the same. Early A bodies had smaller mounting bolts, and bushed sector shafts. In 67 A body boxes went to the same mounting bolts as the other cars, and 8 cylinder cars had roller bearings on the sector shafts (and I've seen later 6 cylinder boxes with rollers).

This is only a problem if you try to fit an early box to a later car, as you'd have to drill out the mounting holes on the box. If you're putting a later box on an early car you can bush the holes or just bolt it on as is. I would bet that Flaming River boxes have larger mounting holes.

 

[KosmicKuda]

I'd love to upgrade my manual steering from the 24:1 to the 20:1 or 16:1, but I'm afraid of the extra effort required to steer, especially parking. I'd also like my wife to be able to enjoy driving it.
But for racing, Mr. Petrolhead, you might consider the quicker ratio boxes.
If anyone has experience with these boxes, I'd love to hear any feedback.

I changed from a non-working, leaking, slimy,cast iron lump of power steering box to an original 1969 low mileage 16:1 manual box using a correct factory manual column. I always say if you want to simulate the effort, just take the belt off a PS car and drive it for awhile. it's basically the same ratio. I had been running my car that way for a few years before I gathered the parts to rebuild the front end and when I converted I could detect no change in effort from the manual 16:1 and the power-less PS it replaced.

68 cuda, small block, no PS, manual disc brakes, 215-60x15 Kumho radials on front, 73-76 front suspension with Moog offset bushings w/ 2* caster. Yeah the effort is increased but I make it a point to never turn the wheel w/o the car rolling. The worst is parking for sure. The road feel is great and I never have any problems (simple is good!) but.......if I were doing a lot of low speed quick maneuvering (autocross maybe) I would consider power because I'm not sure I could keep up.

On a drag strip the 24:1 is best. I believe the old Direct Connection developed the 20:1 parts for Nascar after Petty requested it. I have a NOS 20:1 chuck in my stash but it's still in the wrapping so I have no experience with it. It'll eventually end up in either the 68 or 69 .

I let a 108# female friend drive my car for about 10 miles of combined city/country driving after first warning her the steering and brakes were uh..."manly". I only wish I had taken a picture of her behind the wheel as she had a blast and couldn't stop grinning. Especially when she opened the secondaries.

 

[66fs]

I changed from a non-working, leaking, slimy,cast iron lump of power steering box to an original 1969 low mileage 16:1 manual box using a correct factory manual column. I always say if you want to simulate the effort, just take the belt off a PS car and drive it for awhile. it's basically the same ratio. I had been running my car that way for a few years before I gathered the parts to rebuild the front end and when I converted I could detect no change in effort from the manual 16:1 and the power-less PS it replaced.

68 cuda, small block, no PS, manual disc brakes, 215-60x15 Kumho radials on front, 73-76 front suspension with Moog offset bushings w/ 2* caster. Yeah the effort is increased but I make it a point to never turn the wheel w/o the car rolling. The worst is parking for sure. The road feel is great and I never have any problems (simple is good!) but.......if I were doing a lot of low speed quick maneuvering (autocross maybe) I would consider power because I'm not sure I could keep up.

On a drag strip the 24:1 is best. I believe the old Direct Connection developed the 20:1 parts for Nascar after Petty requested it. I have a NOS 20:1 chuck in my stash but it's still in the wrapping so I have no experience with it. It'll eventually end up in either the 68 or 69 .

I let a 108# female friend drive my car for about 10 miles of combined city/country driving after first warning her the steering and brakes were uh..."manly". I only wish I had taken a picture of her behind the wheel as she had a blast and couldn't stop grinning. Especially when she opened the secondaries.

This is what I've always heard also. 16:1 manual is harder to turn at a stop or very low speed, but once you get rolling it feels at very precise at speed.

 

[Commando66]

I have a 20:1 in my car and love it.

 

[ntsqd]

I also have a 20:1 in the Valiant and I like it a whole lot more than the 24:1 it came with, but I can't help wondering how the 16:1 might feel.....

For pure road racing or auto-cross I wouldn't bother with the 20:1, but for a driver the 20:1 seems about right.

 

[65cudalover]

I finally got my 65 Barracuda Formula S out of the garage today for its first ride of the new year. The day was nice the road salt is gone and she started right up! We drove out to my golf course shop and gave her a bath, then cruised around for about an hour. I had several people smile and thumbs up us on our cruise. Just for a reminder I often hold my cool wood steering wheel with just a few fingers with the manual control steering. It was aligned last spring with new tires and rides sweet. No push or pull at all! Turns easy and I would again not want power steering for any reason in this ride. I enjoy feeling the road and when cruising doing the finger steering when able too is cool! Always two hands to turn corners is the rule also! Mopar or NoCar is my motto!

65Cudalover

 

[Commando66]

I also have a 20:1 in the Valiant and I like it a whole lot more than the 24:1 it came with, but I can't help wondering how the 16:1 might feel.....

For pure road racing or auto-cross I wouldn't bother with the 20:1, but for a driver the 20:1 seems about right.

I couldn't agree more. I've driven a Valiant with 16:1, but it had super skinny front runners so low speed effort wasn't bad. I think wide tires with 16:1 would be a deal killer for me.

 

[cosgig]

I have whatever came in my car, and that's good enough for me!! Geof