STEERING COUPLER PROBLEM SOLVED!!

7173Mustangs.com

Help Support 7173Mustangs.com:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Paul113

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
38
Reaction score
20
Location
Virginia
My Car
1968 Fastback
1871 Mach 1 M code 4 speed
When I went to find a replacement steering coupler or "rag joint" for my 71 Mach 1 



I had no idea how difficult it would be. I read the forums and searched the supply houses. Here's what I found. The Scott Drake replacement was touted as the best replacement out there. 





I found it would NOT fit on the shaft of my SPA-T Saginaw box and the pins were too short. The Lares 201 fit nicely but the pins were both the same small size causing slop when connecting to the steering shaft.



The original has one small and one large fixed pin. Since the Lares 201 fit nicely and the only problem with it was the one pin I decided to modify it using a press and a small piece of galvanized pipe that had the OD of the original pin.



After some machining and pressing I now have a perfect replacement that fits great. 



I do not undertake these sort of modifications lightly, but am very confident in my results. Unless you are as well, I do not recommend taking this on. Steering is for too important.

 
One question: You bought parts that replace original parts and that should work together with other original parts. Then I read "SPA-T Saginaw box". I'm not familiar with the steering component (except for global functioning) but is that Saginaw box an original component?

 
One question: You bought parts that replace original parts and that should work together with other original parts. Then I read "SPA-T Saginaw box". I'm not familiar with the steering component (except for global functioning) but is that Saginaw box an original component?
Vinnie, Yes this is the original box on the car. I wanted to keep it as original as possible. That's why I chose to rebuild it.

 
Paul113, I too have just replaced my rag joint on my 71 with a rebuilt Saginaw 800 SPA-T and chose the Lares 201 because the Scott Drake one has pins way too short ??? How could they make that mistake! The Lares 201 was a good fit although needing a light tap to get it on the shaft. The pins are the right length. BUT, as I was under the understanding that the pin's purpose was more for safety rather than actual steering control, I did not think about the change you made. I will go take another look at that and if it actually does make a difference, I'll do as you did. Thinking about it, as the rag joint softens up with use, it may flex and need that extra thickness on that pin.

 As for the Lares 201, why did they not make it as the original, or is it that on other applications, the steering shaft connector has equal size slots and they are making it a "one-size-fits-all" deal? 

As for the Saginaw SPA-T, that was the original steering box on the 71 with variable ratio.

Thanks for your great input.

Geoff.

 
You are correct, Geoff, the pins are a fail-safe design so if the flexible disk fails the driver will still have steering, although very sloppy. That is the only time the pins should come into contact with the flange.

I believe the only reason for the different size pins is for indexing so the steering wheel doesn't wind up turned 180° and be upside down when the installation is complete.

I, too, like Paul's solution, and because the pin should never be actually used, and if it is for a short time, the relatively soft galvanized pipe sleeve should never be a concern. Even though not necessary I would probably do it, too.

 
I wonder how many Scott Drake steering couplers have been tossed in the trash. That is where mine ended up, maybe I should actually try to contact them to inform them of the defect in their repop part.

Looks like a pretty good fix. Was there enough slop for the larger than stock small pin to have some wiggle room on the end of the steering shaft?

 
I wonder how many Scott Drake steering couplers have been tossed in the trash.  That is where mine ended up, maybe I should actually try to contact them to inform them of the defect in their repop part.

Looks like a pretty good fix.  Was there enough slop for the larger than stock small pin to have some wiggle room on the end of the steering shaft?
Parts of my scott drake ended up in the trash. I ended up using parts from the scott drake the lars and my original. I used the coupler and small pin from the Lars, the rubber from the scott drake unit and the large pin from my original to make one good one out of three. If there was one positive on the SD was that the rubber seemed much more robust.

 
I wonder how many Scott Drake steering couplers have been tossed in the trash.  That is where mine ended up, maybe I should actually try to contact them to inform them of the defect in their repop part.

Looks like a pretty good fix.  Was there enough slop for the larger than stock small pin to have some wiggle room on the end of the steering shaft?
Parts of my scott drake ended up in the trash. I ended up using parts from the scott drake the lars and my original. I used the coupler and small pin from the Lars, the rubber from the scott drake unit and the large pin from my original to make one good one out of three. If there was one positive on the SD was that the rubber seemed much more robust.
I was going to do the same, but after removing the original large pin it was too short because the lares base plate was actually thicker than the original. BTW good luck trying to get in touch with anyone at Scott Drake. They're customer service is nonexistent.

 
Paul113, I too have just replaced my rag joint on my 71 with a rebuilt Saginaw 800 SPA-T and chose the Lares 201 because the Scott Drake one has pins way too short ??? How could they make that mistake! The Lares 201 was a good fit although needing a light tap to get it on the shaft. The pins are the right length. BUT, as I was under the understanding that the pin's purpose was more for safety rather than actual steering control, I did not think about the change you made. I will go take another look at that and if it actually does make a difference, I'll do as you did. Thinking about it, as the rag joint softens up with use, it may flex and need that extra thickness on that pin.

 As for the Lares 201, why did they not make it as the original, or is it that on other applications, the steering shaft connector has equal size slots and they are making it a "one-size-fits-all" deal? 

As for the Saginaw SPA-T, that was the original steering box on the 71 with variable ratio.

Thanks for your great input.

Geoff.
Thanks for the input Geoff!

 
I wonder how many Scott Drake steering couplers have been tossed in the trash.  That is where mine ended up, maybe I should actually try to contact them to inform them of the defect in their repop part.

Looks like a pretty good fix.  Was there enough slop for the larger than stock small pin to have some wiggle room on the end of the steering shaft?
Count me in the trow away group...

 
This topic comes up quite often. The rag joint is at pretty much all parts houses at least here they are. They are a Dorman service part and they even work with tilt column which I have 3 of and use them for rebuilds. You do have to use your old forged pieces but get new bolts for assembly and studs. They are usually found hanging on the Help rack with the window cranks and such.

Pic is of a 73 tilt column out of my vert. with one installed.

I understand that the coupler is different from manual steer to power but the rag joint is same for both.





pictures hosting site

 
Paul113, I too have just replaced my rag joint on my 71 with a rebuilt Saginaw 800 SPA-T and chose the Lares 201 because the Scott Drake one has pins way too short ??? How could they make that mistake! The Lares 201 was a good fit although needing a light tap to get it on the shaft. The pins are the right length. BUT, as I was under the understanding that the pin's purpose was more for safety rather than actual steering control, I did not think about the change you made. I will go take another look at that and if it actually does make a difference, I'll do as you did. Thinking about it, as the rag joint softens up with use, it may flex and need that extra thickness on that pin.

 As for the Lares 201, why did they not make it as the original, or is it that on other applications, the steering shaft connector has equal size slots and they are making it a "one-size-fits-all" deal? 

As for the Saginaw SPA-T, that was the original steering box on the 71 with variable ratio.

Thanks for your great input.

Geoff.
Thanks for the input Geoff!
 Glad it was helpful. I do like your fix, but as Don has confirmed, it's a safety related part, so I'm not in a rush to pull the box off again. If in future, I do need to pull the box, I'll add the tube as described. For now, it's an even shorter summer due to a crappy spring, so I'll just drive it baby!!

Geoff.

 
You are correct, Geoff, the pins are a fail-safe design so if the flexible disk fails the driver will still have steering, although very sloppy. That is the only time the pins should come into contact with the flange.

I believe the only reason for the different size pins is for indexing so the steering wheel doesn't wind up turned 180° and be upside down when the installation is complete.

I, too, like Paul's solution, and because the pin should never be actually used, and if it is for a short time, the relatively soft galvanized pipe sleeve should never be a concern. Even though not necessary I would probably do it, too.
 Thanks for confirming the pin's purpose Don. As I just replied to Paul, I'm not in a rush to make that change now, but perhaps later if I take the box off again.

Geoff.

 
so . . . what would it take to convert the steering system to use a U joint as opposed to a coupler?
 Doable I would think, but the end of the shaft would need to be reworked to cut off the plate and then maybe turn the shaft diameter to suit and put a flat on it. The entire column might need to be disassembled to do that, so maybe too much work to justify it. That's just speculation on my part. Interesting thought though.

 
Back
Top