New steering box and rag Need help

[Stanglover]

Yup now I can see how that fast ratio box works.

Hang on!!

 

[tony-muscle]

Pulled the column shaft all the way out so I can grease up the shaft. I think I finally have this problem solved!

Awesome. We all are learning!

 

[rcadd1ct]

Yeah I know I did not think it came apart but since it did I cleaned it all up and greased it up. Slides smooth as butter now.

Yes that us the collapsing column part so the steering shaft doesn’t impale you like in 67 and earlier

 

[Hemikiller]

I don't mean to jump in on you'll conversation but I had a very similar issue on my 72 Mustang with Power Steering (Non Tilt Column). I ordered from NPD a replacement Rag Joint but it wouldn't fit as this one in the picture. I called NPD and was told that the 71-73 Mustang (Non Tilt and Tilt Columns) have a possible three different rag joints. I purchased the other two that I didn't have and was able to get the correct rag joint when I laid all three side by side and was able to match up the new correct rag joint and send the others that weren't correct back to NPD for a refund.

There were three rag joint types for the 71-73s - Power Steering, P/S w/tilt wheel and Manual steering. Ford didn't offer tilt wheel w/manual steering.

Saginaw P/S box - 13/16" spline - D4DZ-3A525-A - Lares 201 -

Ford manual box - 3/4" spline - D1ZZ-3A525-A - Lares 202

P/S w/ Tilt column - 13/16" spline at box, D-shape upper - D1ZZ-3A525-B - can be built from a factory rag joint (or a Lares 201) and a Lares 219 (67-70 Mustang/Cougar tilt wheel). @cwalker509 wrote up a tutorial on making the tilt wheel rag joint.

https://7173mustangs.com/threads/tilt-wheel-rag-joint-steering-coupler-rebuild.44901/#post-465094

Link to all three Lares rag joints: https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog...cid+v8,1132670,steering,steering+coupler,7418

 

[Stanglover]

Tilt column:
Having never had a tilt column in any of my 4 Mustangs, I'm mystified as to why Ford decided to use a different lower portion of the column where it connects to the coupler/PS box on a tilt as opposed to a non-tilt. After all, it is the top that tilts, not the bottom. Surely the bottom end could have remained the same design. It would have made it so much simpler and cheaper.
I suppose Ford had their reasons, but like many things Ford, it doesn't make sense to me. But then, what do I know about ducks having teeth!!

 

[Bill Perkins]

There were three rag joint types for the 71-73s - Power Steering, P/S w/tilt wheel and Manual steering. Ford didn't offer tilt wheel w/manual steering.

Saginaw P/S box - 13/16" spline - D4DZ-3A525-A - Lares 201 -

Ford manual box - 3/4" spline - D1ZZ-3A525-A - Lares 202

P/S w/ Tilt column - 13/16" spline at box, D-shape upper - D1ZZ-3A525-B - can be built from a factory rag joint (or a Lares 201) and a Lares 219 (67-70 Mustang/Cougar tilt wheel). @cwalker509 wrote up a tutorial on making the tilt wheel rag joint.

https://7173mustangs.com/threads/tilt-wheel-rag-joint-steering-coupler-rebuild.44901/#post-465094

Link to all three Lares rag joints: https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog...cid+v8,1132670,steering,steering+coupler,7418

Great Information

 

[awizner88]

I am in the middle of changing out my steering gear, and I was gonna replace the Rag coupler as well while I had it out. I got the steering gear out today (PITA with headers!) and the Rag joint looks to be in pretty good shape. I purchased the Lares 201 and from what @Hemikiller said above, it appears to be the wrong one. Here are some pics of the one I took off. I have no idea if it's stock or not, but do you guys think this would be ok to just reuse from what you see?

 

[Bentworker]

I am in the middle of changing out my steering gear, and I was gonna replace the Rag coupler as well while I had it out. I got the steering gear out today (PITA with headers!) and the Rag joint looks to be in pretty good shape. I purchased the Lares 201 and from what @Hemikiller said above, it appears to be the wrong one. Here are some pics of the one I took off. I have no idea if it's stock or not, but do you guys think this would be ok to just reuse from what you see?

Looks like you have a tilt column. That adds another dimension of oddity to your rag joint. I am not certain, but I think the only option is to rebuild what you have with a “HELP” brand kit, or making a hybrid out of your old one and the lares

 

[awizner88]

@Bentworker -- Yes, thank you for the info- Honestly though I was just going to replace it but once I got it off and cleaned it up, it looks like it's in really good condition--So I am just going to reinstall it on the new steering gear.

 

[Don C]

Tilt column:
Having never had a tilt column in any of my 4 Mustangs, I'm mystified as to why Ford decided to use a different lower portion of the column where it connects to the coupler/PS box on a tilt as opposed to a non-tilt. After all, it is the top that tilts, not the bottom. Surely the bottom end could have remained the same design. It would have made it so much simpler and cheaper.
I suppose Ford had their reasons, but like many things Ford, it doesn't make sense to me. But then, what do I know about ducks having teeth!!

This time I think that Ford had a logical reason, at least sort of.
Because the rag joint flange is welded to the end of the fixed steering shaft the fixed shaft has to be pulled out of the bottom of the tube.
Because the u-joint flange won't allow the tilt steering shaft to be pulled out of the bottom of the tube it has to be pulled out of the top.

The reason I said sort of is because it seems to me like it wouldn't have been that difficult to design the fixed shaft with a bolt-on flange on the fixed steering shaft instead of welding the flange on. However, the design of the fixed shaft flange and the way it interlocks with the rag joint flange does provide some redundancy in case the flex coupling falls apart.

The spline size and count difference on the steering box input shafts is also sort of logical. I believe the reason the input shaft on the power steering boxes has a larger diameter is due to the torsion bar. But, it seems like Ford could have designed the Ford manual box with the same size input shaft as the power boxes.

 

[Stanglover]

This time I think that Ford had a logical reason, at least sort of.
Because the rag joint flange is welded to the end of the fixed steering shaft the fixed shaft has to be pulled out of the bottom of the tube.
Because the u-joint flange won't allow the tilt steering shaft to be pulled out of the bottom of the tube it has to be pulled out of the top.

The reason I said sort of is because it seems to me like it wouldn't have been that difficult to design the fixed shaft with a bolt-on flange on the fixed steering shaft instead of welding the flange on. However, the design of the fixed shaft flange and the way it interlocks with the rag joint flange does provide some redundancy in case the flex coupling falls apart.

The spline size and count difference on the steering box input shafts is also sort of logical. I believe the reason the input shaft on the power steering boxes has a larger diameter is due to the torsion bar. But, it seems like Ford could have designed the Ford manual box with the same size input shaft as the power boxes.

Good points all Don.
I see what you are saying about the U-joint not being able to be pulled out of the bottom end and that makes sense. It also makes sense that on the fixed shaft, the flange does provide a safety aspect as well as quick assembly on the production line.
The spine diameter size between the PS box and the manual would as you say, be to accommodate the torsion bar inside on the PS box and I might think that the manual has only a 3/4" input shaft is so the two would get mixed up.
The bottom line is, both types of shafts could have been designed differently, but they weren't.

This reminds me of my own experiences working with engineers. Two different engineers working to solve the same problem, coming up with different solutions and both think their idea is better, only to be proved wrong after I built the prototypes. There's an old saying; "you can always tell an engineer, but you can't tell 'em much!"

 

[Bobby]

I am in the middle of changing out my steering gear, and I was gonna replace the Rag coupler as well while I had it out. I got the steering gear out today (PITA with headers!) and the Rag joint looks to be in pretty good shape. I purchased the Lares 201 and from what @Hemikiller said above, it appears to be the wrong one. Here are some pics of the one I took off. I have no idea if it's stock or not, but do you guys think this would be ok to just reuse from what you see?

That particular rag joint is for tilt as I recognize the half moon opening in the first pic. I mangage to get one from eBay to fit the end of the steering shaft . However, the other end of the rag joint did not match up to the power steering gearbox. The rivets had to be ground off and the correct gearbox end from another rag joint was then bolted on to the half moon half. I had me a frankenjoint but it worked! No issues since. I have another as a spare but its available if anyone needs it.

 

[Hemikiller]

The manual boxes are a Ford design and are 3/4", the Saginaw (GM design box) are 13/16", so you have two different suppliers. The Ford integral box used in the full size cars is 3/4". Interestingly, the 71-73 cars share the same bolt pattern as the full size Fords, and the Saginaw boxes were used on the 65-68 full sizes. I've seen a couple times where the integral Ford box has been fitted to a 71-73 Mustang, with ensuing confusion over power steering lines.

Having been on both sides of the engineering equation, it's equally frustrating no matter where you are. I work in sheetmetal, and had to teach an engineer with an injection molding background about what we could and could not produce. Sometimes it was easier for me to redesign the parts than explain it to him repeatedly.