U-joint vs pot coupler

-

Abodysrule

FABO Gold Member
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2018
Messages
241
Reaction score
64
Location
California
Hi All,

I have a '67 Dart and I'm about to rebuild my steering column. I had already rebuilt the pot coupler, but my steering column lower bearing was pretty worn out when I got the car, the retainer spring ('67 had this) between the retention collar and the lower bearing finally broke and the bearing popped out of the bushing, so I'll just rebuild the whole column while I have it out. It's like the only thing I haven't rebuilt/refurbished on the whole car.

Question: Borgeson U-joint or pot coupler? I have a Borgeson steering box (waaay better than the factory slop box) and so if I'm pulling out my column to rebuild it, it would be a great time to install a U joint. I realize there are two camps on this. The pot coupler is supposed to be ideal as it allows for movement along the axis of the column due to flex in the K-frame/steering system. I have gusseted my K-frame, added a FirmFeel bearing sector kit to support the steering as well. Those steps took a lot of play out of my steering, but I assume there is still at least some flex.

Any experiences anyone can share about installing a U-joint vs the pot coupler would be great. Good, bad, pitfalls? Installing the U-joint is a one-way street, as I have to cut the column shaft.
 
The parts you don't add don't cause you no trouble!

Keep it simple keep it stock,

If you are doing auto cross MAYBE you would notice a difference. But a good condition slip joint should have near 0 rotational play.

Just my 2 cents
 
Personally, I went from the Pot Coupler to the U-Joint when upgrading my suspension from factory components to RMS AlterKation with Rack and Pinion steering.

Worked great, easy to install, no issues. I think the pot coupler is supposed to help with dissipating energy transmitted back up through the shaft when hitting variations in road surface and keeps the lower column bearing from getting damaged by shocks to the steering system while driving. I read that somewhere (I think Mopar Action Magazine) but I stand to be corrected .

Much more knowledgeable members on here who know about this . I'll be very interested to hear their response to this.
 
I installed a u-joint from Flaming River. It seemed to tighten up the steering on-center lash. Been there for over a decade, haven't noticed any problems.
 
Thanks all, even the U joint has a bit of give, so I think it's probably OK. I don't drive my Dart a lot, only on good roads. I'm leaning toward the U-joint.
 
I have a 67 Dart for handling. I fitted the borgeson box with the Bergman (BAC) extended pot coupler. Works great. No cutting required. Some say a little pricey but it is a fully engineered, thought out solution.
 
The U joint will transmit more vibration to the steering wheel.
I don't subscribe to every factory design....
Lean Burn.
Bulkhead wiring.
Ammeter.
9 inch drum brakes.
Having a starter, ATF cooler lines, shifter linkage, KD linkage, transmission wiring and speedo cable on the same side of the car.
BUT in most cases, the factory was damn good.
The pot coupler allowed fore and aft flex. It softened vibrations. It is fairly simple and parts to rebuild them are cheap.
 
For me, the potential problem is stress axially on the shafts, perhaps damage to the steering box. Either the factory coupler, or the larger, round couplings used on older GM had axial movement. The shaft used on the Dodge RAMS/ Dakotas has a pair of U joints BUT the shaft telescopes.

Anybody that things these girls don't move around is nuts
 
I went with the Borgeson u joint after cutting my shaft in the 66.
So much smoother than the factory unit.

43844D09-57FB-4561-9A13-E1B071CB73D0.jpeg
 
Yeah, I was sizing up the Borgeson coupler yesterday. I noted that if I want to catch both splined portions on the Borgeson steering box shaft, the set screw is not centered on the trough between the splined sections, it actually just lands on the spline section closer to the box. I imagine one wants to engage both splined sections. You can see from Syleng1's pic just above, that centering the set screw in the trough doesn't give you much engagement with the lower splined section. Thought: why use the set screw at all? If you leave it off, then this allows for the axial movement along the column, just like the pot coupler, no? There's more than 1" of engagement splines in the coupler, couldn't one just let that end float, grease the splines? No way there's enough flex for it come off, am I right?
 
I use a vibration dampening Borgeson joint with a telescoping section of steering shaft added into the steering shaft (not using the original crush section for that). I also have a roller bearing added to the lower end of the steering column. Solves the "plunge" issue and gets rid of the factory coupler. Threads for what I did are here

How To Replace your Lower Column Bearing: Better and Cheaper!!!

Steering shaft upgrade

img_1167_zps1597d539-jpg.1714974422
 
Just rebuild the pot. A proper pot has no more slop rotationally than a U-joint, and allows for chassis flex, as mentioned.

People will put frame rail connectors in these cars all day long and shout to the heavens about how much of an improvement they feel, then put a u-joint in the steering column (which connects to the frame rail on one end and the unibody/firewall on the other) and act like everything's fine. The frame rails just kinda hang off the front of the car, there's not really any triangulation to the firewall on a stock A-body, and that steering column connects the two.

Or, let me phrase it another way: What do you think is causing that steering pot to wear out? If there's no plunging/axial motion, then the rotational motion between the shoes and coupler housing would be basically zero internally. They wear out because when you're driving down the road, that thing is jamming up n' down inside that pot like a **** star with a short stick. Every braking event, acceleration event, pothole, washboard, etc. etc. is plunging that pot coupler.
 
I use a vibration dampening Borgeson joint with a telescoping section of steering shaft added into the steering shaft (not using the original crush section for that). I also have a roller bearing added to the lower end of the steering column. Solves the "plunge" issue and gets rid of the factory coupler. Threads for what I did are here

How To Replace your Lower Column Bearing: Better and Cheaper!!!

Steering shaft upgrade

img_1167_zps1597d539-jpg.1714974422

This is a cool mod! Thanks for posting it!
 
After rebuilding it, the original coupler is fantastic. Tight and slop free, smooth as butter!

In comparison, early mustangs(?) used a bolt together rag joint that can fall apart. The Chrysler design is miraculous in comparison
 
Just rebuild the pot. A proper pot has no more slop rotationally than a U-joint, and allows for chassis flex, as mentioned.

People will put frame rail connectors in these cars all day long and shout to the heavens about how much of an improvement they feel, then put a u-joint in the steering column (which connects to the frame rail on one end and the unibody/firewall on the other) and act like everything's fine. The frame rails just kinda hang off the front of the car, there's not really any triangulation to the firewall on a stock A-body, and that steering column connects the two.

Or, let me phrase it another way: What do you think is causing that steering pot to wear out? If there's no plunging/axial motion, then the rotational motion between the shoes and coupler housing would be basically zero internally. They wear out because when you're driving down the road, that thing is jamming up n' down inside that pot like a **** star with a short stick. Every braking event, acceleration event, pothole, washboard, etc. etc. is plunging that pot coupler.

Hmmm , interesting point!

Ok , Ive got the pot replaced with a coupler. As soon as I can, I'm going to remove the coupler and the connecting shafts. Then, I'm going to check where the setscrews tighten into the recesses in the shafts. If there is the kind of movement you are suggesting, I should see witness marks where the setscrew is moving up and down the shaft. Also I'll check the bearing for damage or excessive wear,. If I find evidence of that , I'm removing the works and doing the mods shown by 72bluNblu.

Great comments and suggestions guys!


dscn5084-jpg.1715082601
 
Sliding into curbs during winter weather.
Being driven to woods parties by high-schoolers.
Untold amounts of dirt road/washboard gravel driving.
Smacking into parking barriers.
Hitting speed bumps too fast.
"Wendy, I can fly!"

These are all things these cars endured when they were someone's primary driver, and the steering coupler shows some wear (slop) by the time we get 'em, often with a rolled odometer. Rebuild it, and it feels as solid as a U-joint. Subject a U-joint to that same treatment, and I'd bet it would rickety junk by 30K miles. Great in a tube chassis, not ideal for a unibody.

But most of us don't treat these cars like that anymore, so it's less of an issue. @72bluNblu definitely has a very well-considered U-joint based solution, though.
 
Did 2 ujoint conversions and one new style bearing I and my dad will never use the stock sloppy junk again and header clearance is so much better.
 
72bluNblu, I really like the bearing upgrade. My tube has an I.D. of 57 ish mm, '67 A-body, auto on the column shift. I wonder if they make a 57 mm O.D. version...I already ordered the replacement plastic one with the bearing insert, but I'll look for one like yours.
 
Looks like you're lucky, they don't appear to make a 1" I.D. with 2 1/4" (57mm) O.D. insert bearing.
 
Ah, I checked the plastic housing for the worn out unit. The O.D. is 57mm, but there are ribs and an inner ring that hold the crappy bearings they use. BUT, if you cut out the ribs and inner ring, the I.D. is 52mm! So, basically I can use the old plastic housing to make an exact shim for the ER 16 bearing - way better than the crappy replacement units.

BTW, I did find on 123Bearing.com they make sealed ball bearings with 1" I.D. and 2.25" O.D., and one has a external groove for a snap ring (to flange the bearing) but the bearing is $80 and doesn't lock down onto the shaft like the ER 16.
 
Ah, I checked the plastic housing for the worn out unit. The O.D. is 57mm, but there are ribs and an inner ring that hold the crappy bearings they use. BUT, if you cut out the ribs and inner ring, the I.D. is 52mm! So, basically I can use the old plastic housing to make an exact shim for the ER 16 bearing - way better than the crappy replacement units.

BTW, I did find on 123Bearing.com they make sealed ball bearings with 1" I.D. and 2.25" O.D., and one has a external groove for a snap ring (to flange the bearing) but the bearing is $80 and doesn't lock down onto the shaft like the ER 16.

Nice! A simple shim or insert is really all that's needed. Yeah the whole point of the ER16 bearing is that it doesn't cost $80! But as per usual Ma Mopar had plenty of one year only deals, and she had a lot of them for '67.
 
-
Back
Top