Manual steering gearbox?

[Lance_S]

HA! There ya go, now you only have to pull 250 lbs out of the front, you can do that by removing oil cap. I did that conversion on mine and it's hella quick.

[Chad]

it would still function and not render the steering completely unusable, just a lot more play

 

 

The rest of us consider that a complete failure.

 

 

If you have to turn the wheel half way to either side to see the cars direction change, that is a failure, and I'd argue unsafe.

[ucw458]

 

Sap's weigh around 2400lbs. 500lbs lighter than an SQ.

 

-Robert

 

 

Most widebodies are 3000-3100lbs So that's 600-700 lbs heavier. Wikipedia claims challenger/sapporos are 2200-2800. I would think that's unloaded/loaded weight. So going by the 2200 lb rating an 87-89 widebody is about 900 lbs heavier.

[Chad]

so averaging things out a little, a StarQuest is about 36% heavier, and the wheels are about 30% wider (more so on SHP wheels), so the forces on the steering coupler are about 70% higher (+/-) when using a stock coupler with a manual box on a StarQuest chassis vs. that same copupler/box on a Sapporo.

 

That's a pretty big difference...

[zactek]

 

 

The rest of us consider that a complete failure.

 

 

If you have to turn the wheel half way to either side to see the cars direction change, that is a failure, and I'd argue unsafe.

 

Don't take my words out of context, I meant if it failed while driving, you wouldn't lose control. Of course you would have it fixed and not continue driving that way, duh

[zactek]

 

 

Most widebodies are 3000-3100lbs So that's 600-700 lbs heavier. Wikipedia claims challenger/sapporos are 2200-2800. I would think that's unloaded/loaded weight. So going by the 2200 lb rating an 87-89 widebody is about 900 lbs heavier.

 

No, sapporos came with different options and engines, including 1.6 and 2.6. It is those options and engines that dicatate the final weight. So, a fully optioned Sapporo/Challenger with a 2.6 and A/C and all the doodads would weigh around 2800Lbs. My 87 flatbody is stripped and I'd say weighs under that and when I do the manual conversion, even less,lol. What tires did the Sapporos use? 175?185? I have 205's on the front, so what is that, approximately an inch wider? Negligent in my opinion The Sapporos used that coupler on P/S and manual boxes BTW and they were never recalled, neither was there a TSB issued

 

Zack K.

[ucw458]

You do what you want to your car. You are obviously not looking for anyones advice because you aren't listening to what they say. The manual box is a downgrade. You will hate it. Don't say we didn't warn you.

[Chad]

Yah, this isn't about telling you waht to do with your cars, its sharing of info. It's not about saying it won't work, it about pointing out the cause and effect of such changes. I personaly own a 2500 pound manual steering quest, it sukcs in my opinion, but you might love it.

[Maxzillian]

so averaging things out a little, a StarQuest is about 36% heavier, and the wheels are about 30% wider (more so on SHP wheels), so the forces on the steering coupler are about 70% higher (+/-) when using a stock coupler with a manual box on a StarQuest chassis vs. that same copupler/box on a Sapporo.

 

That's a pretty big difference...

 

The math doesn't quite work that way, but it is reasonable to assume that the Starion coupler encounters more force... just not 70% more.

[Chad]

yah, that's why I said "about". It's heavier on the front wheels, and has a wider wheel to turn with that additional weight. Both take more force to overcome, and the force is additive or compound in some way, though not likely linear.

[Komeuppance]

 

 

Most widebodies are 3000-3100lbs So that's 600-700 lbs heavier. Wikipedia claims challenger/sapporos are 2200-2800. I would think that's unloaded/loaded weight. So going by the 2200 lb rating an 87-89 widebody is about 900 lbs heavier.

 

Ok.

 

The steering coupler was designed for a flatty, which makes more sense to compare.

 

-Robert

[ucw458]

Ok.

 

The steering coupler was designed for a flatty, which makes more sense to compare.

 

-Robert

 

 

That's a good point. They did go from the challenger to the 83 flatty which is lighter than a widebody. I was making the widebody comparison because 86-89 widebodies are heavier and more common. I would wager the majority of SQ owners have a widebody.

[zactek]

You do what you want to your car. You are obviously not looking for anyones advice because you aren't listening to what they say. The manual box is a downgrade. You will hate it. Don't say we didn't warn you.

 

I never asked for anyone's advice in the first place if you look at any of my posts, I started the thread asking about where to get a manual box and it got blown out to 3 pages. I was aware of everything everyone already said years ago,lol. IF you're right and I hate it it's on me, at least I experimented with a different coupler, and a possible good mod. Nothing is final, and I can always go back to P/S, I have 2 boxes

 

Zack K.

[zactek]

Yah, this isn't about telling you waht to do with your cars, its sharing of info. It's not about saying it won't work, it about pointing out the cause and effect of such changes. I personaly own a 2500 pound manual steering quest, it sukcs in my opinion, but you might love it.

 

Yes, and there was a great sharing in this thread so far, there's just too many urban legends and misinformation about the manual swap and not enough real info, maybe this will help somebody. The swap may not be for all, but in my case, it might be just right

 

Hey Chad, since you hate your manual steering so much, wanna give me your manual box and I'll send you my P/S box?

 

Zack K.

[Chad]

not for sale, and I don't even know where/what it came from. I didn't build the car, US Team MItsubishi did, so I'm not taking parts off of it

[Lance_S]

Zactek,

 

I have been looking into rack and pinion, some of the guys have done the 240sx swap, way better getting rid of all that old linkage. I am thinking of going rack and pinion myself. I am wondering if there is a good manual rack that would work with our application. I am also thinking about the S2000 because it's electric, there are others out there. Either way, I am wondering if electric power steering in a rack would be the best option. Still get the quality and accuracy of the rack, get rid of tons of joints that go bad, reduce weight and still have great steering. Not trying to talk you out of the manual swap, actually, I would like to hear your feedback after all of this. Just wondering myself about electric rack and pinion.

 

Lance

[Lance_S]

not for sale, and I don't even know where/what it came from. I didn't build the car, US Team MItsubishi did, so I'm not taking parts off of it

 

 

Chad,

 

Sounds like a cool car. Don't want to hijack the thread. Would you start one with some pics? Curious of the history.

[Chad]

http://www.davewolin.com/gallery.htm, its the 87/88 IMSA international sedan starion, car number 91. I bought it from him 11 years ago. It currently sits in storage awaiting some restoration.

[jahjah]

http://www.davewolin.com/gallery.htm, its the 87/88 IMSA international sedan starion, car number 91. I bought it from him 11 years ago. It currently sits in storage awaiting some restoration.

 

wow, i knew i had seen a picture of ronals on a race setup starion but couldnt even remember where. Cool.

[zactek]

Zactek,

 

I have been looking into rack and pinion, some of the guys have done the 240sx swap, way better getting rid of all that old linkage. I am thinking of going rack and pinion myself. I am wondering if there is a good manual rack that would work with our application. I am also thinking about the S2000 because it's electric, there are others out there. Either way, I am wondering if electric power steering in a rack would be the best option. Still get the quality and accuracy of the rack, get rid of tons of joints that go bad, reduce weight and still have great steering. Not trying to talk you out of the manual swap, actually, I would like to hear your feedback after all of this. Just wondering myself about electric rack and pinion.

 

Lance

 

I know there are better ways to do what I'm doing.but my issue is time. I can't have the car off the road more than 2 days, it's my DD.

It would take a lot more than 2 days to do R&D, fabricate and install anything else other than what I'm doing.

I'm waiting to get the box so I can measure the difference in length of the different boxes so I can extend/weld the coupler and finish it. After the coupler is done, it's just bolting it all together, I already have new tie rods, ball joints and steering arm on the pass. side.

 

Zack K.

[Tim_C.]

 

I never asked for anyone's advice in the first place if you look at any of my posts, I started the thread asking about where to get a manual box and it got blown out to 3 pages. I was aware of everything everyone already said years ago,lol. IF you're right and I hate it it's on me, at least I experimented with a different coupler, and a possible good mod. Nothing is final, and I can always go back to P/S, I have 2 boxes

 

Zack K.

The reason you weren't asking for advice is the same reason you got it. The only misinformation on this thread is from you, and lots of it. You said what I posted about the coupler disentegrating with manual steering was "completely false". I was ready to let that go because it is obvious to everyone that you don't know what you are talking about. Read the posts that followed your statement to know what I said is true, and how you are wrong about it.

No, you obviously weren't aware of it because your information was wrong.

I hate to tell you, but your life is not a rehearsal, so yes, it can easily be final if steering goes bad and no, you may not get a second chance to 'go back to PS'.

PQ even offered the full swap for you, but you won't even take that. That was the answer that you were looking for in the first place, but you turned it down and seem to crave the attention you are getting from pushing for something different, and not necessarily better. Do it yourself in 2 days or less, and come up with an upgrade to offer the community in the same amounnt of time. Or take advice from people who are genuinely trying to help you in the way you really need it. Whether you like it or not, does not outweigh the value of your life so please understand at least that, and that people are trying to help you realize when you are in over your head.

Do the 3M fix. That might hold your manual box, but just because it will withstand accidents doesn't mean that is very safe either. It just means it will hold up the same as a welded one would, albeit a lot better to drive with less vibration.

[Tim_C.]

I would just post the link and will, but this has a better impact as to the seriousness of this issue:

 

NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 805 705 January 1981

An Evaluation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Passenger Car Steering Assemblies

 

Standard 203 - Impact Protection for the Driver

 

Standard 204 - Rearward Column Displacement

 

Charles J. Kahane, Ph.D.

 

Abstract

Energy absorbing steering columns were installed in passenger cars in response to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 203. The columns are designed to compress at a controlled rate, cushioning the impact of the driver's chest in frontal crashes. Standard 204 specifies requirements limiting the rearward displacement of the steering wheel toward the driver. The objectives of this Agency evaluation are to determine how many driver fatalities and injuries are prevented by Standards 203 and 204, to measure the actual cost of the standards, to assess cost effectiveness and to describe the actual crash performance of equipment installed in response to the standards. The evaluation is based on statistical analyses of Fatal Accident Reporting System and National Crash Severity Study data, cost analyses of actual steering assemblies and a review of laboratory and crash tests and multidisciplinary accident investigations. It was found that

• Standards 203 and 204 are cost-effective and have significantly reduced driver fatalities and injuries in frontal crashes. They will annually prevent 1300 fatalities and 23,000 nonfatal injuries requiring hospitalization when all cars comply.
  
• Standards 203 and 204 have added $10 to the lifetime cost of owning and operating a car.
  
• Energy absorbing steering assemblies have been partially successful in cushioning the driver, but their performance is degraded under nonaxial loads.
  
• Standard 204 has substantially reduced rearward displacement of the steering column in crashes.
  

 

 

Executive Summary

The steering assembly is the most common source of serious injury for drivers involved in frontal crashes. In passenger cars built before the 1967 model year, the steering column was a rigid pole ending in a narrow hub. In frontal crashes, the driver would hit the rigid column, his load concentrated on the narrow hub. Even worse, in some crashes the steering column was propelled rearwards, toward the driver, at a high rate of speed. Steering wheels and spokes were weak and brittle and contained hazardous metal attachments.

During the 1960's, the motor vehicle manufacturers, in cooperation with the. safety research community, developed energy absorbing columns that collapsed at a controlled rate when the driver hit them. Methods were discovered to prevent the rearward displacement of the column in crashes and safer steering wheels were designed. The General Services Administration established criteria for testing the performance of the improved steering assemblies under controlled conditions. These performance criteria became Standard 515/4a for Government vehicles. In 1967, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration extended the requirements to all passenger cars sold in the United States, effective January 1, 1968. The requirements were promulgated as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 203 and 204. All passenger cars since model year 1968, as well as many 1967 models, appear to have met the Standards. In addition, the manufacturers have voluntarily made some improvements in the steering wheels that were not strictly required for compliance with the Standards.

Executive Order 12044 (March 1978) and Department of Transportation Order 2100.5 (May 1980) called for a review and evaluation of existing major regulations. This study is an evaluation of the vehicle modifications made in response to Standards 203 and 204, based on the actual operating experience of passenger cars. The evaluation objectives are

(1) Calculating the overall benefits of the vehicle modifications - life savings and injury severity reduction - treating Standard 203, Standard 204.and the voluntary steering wheel improvements as a single unit.

(2) Measuring the actual cost of the modifications.

(3) Assessing cost-effectiveness.

(4) Comparing the compliance test requirements to the performance of post-Standard vehicles in highway accidents.

(5) Explaining why the Standards have been effective; assessing the benefit for each specific vehicle modification and the mechanism whereby it produces benefits.

(6) Identifying the principal shortcomings of the current Standards vehicle improvements whose benefits did not meet expectations.

(7) Identifying areas in which Standards 203 and 204 could potentially be improved.

The fatality reduction due to Standards 203 and 204 was estimated by analyzing 5 years of Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data. Statistical analyses of National Crash Severity Study (NCSS) data - 11,840 accident cases were on file as of November 1979 - were performed to determine the number of serious injuries prevented. The Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation (MDAI) file provided information on steering column compression. The cost of Standards 203 and 204 was calculated by analyzing the individual components of a representative sample of steering assemblies.

The results from the FARS, NCSS and MDAI analyses were compared to previously published statistical studies of Standards 203 and 204. Laboratory and crash test results were reviewed, as were clinical analyses of selected accident cases. The research, rulemaking and enforcement activities related to the two Standards were discussed with Agency engineers. The conclusions of this evaluation are based on all of the information sources - statistical, clinical and engineering.

The most important and definitive conclusions of this evaluation are that Standards 203 and 204 have reduced the number of driver fatalities and serious injuries in frontal crashes. Standard 204 has decreased rearward displacement of the steering column. These conclusions are based on statistically significant and consistent findings from a wide variety of data files. The statistical findings, moreover, were uniformly consistent with engineering intuition and clinical analyses.

The findings on some of the detailed analyses, such as the effectiveness of specific types of energy-absorbing devices, were not statistically significant because they involved splitting the data into subsamples. Conclusions based on those findings are less than definitive.

The conclusions on why the Standards have been effective, how much each hardware improvement has contributed to benefits and what could be done to enhance effectiveness must be considered speculative. These conclusions are intuitive judgments based on a thorough review of engineering analyses, selected accident cases, test results and statistical tabulations.

The evaluation suffers from the inherent shortcoming of a "before-after" design. The pre-Standard cars - model year 1967 and earlier - are quite a few years older than the post-Standard cars on the accident data files. A major portion of the analysis was devoted to identifying and removing the resulting biases. Several independent tests which were performed an the data files appear to suggest that the age biases and other confounding factors may have been successfully removed.

The missing data rate on injury-causing contact points was high (30 percent) in the National Crash Severity Study and it varied from one team to another. It was necessary to devise analytic techniques for removing the consequent biases. The NCSS file did not contain information on steering column compression, thereby precluding a rigorous statistical comparison of injury severity and column compression.

In general, though, the findings and conclusions of this evaluation may be viewed with confidence because of the harmony between the statistical results, in-depth findings and engineering intuition. Earlier studies of Standards 203 and 204 were largely consistent with the NCSS, FARS, and MDAI analyses performed for this evaluation. Many of the principal findings were supported by two or more independent analysis procedures or data sources.

The principal findings and conclusions of the study are the following:

 

Principal Findings

The problem

• In 1978, when nearly 90 percent of the passenger car fleet complied with Standards 203 and 204, 41,400 drivers of passenger cars were killed or hospitalized as a result of contact with the steering assembly during a crash. This number would have increased to 63,000 if the steering assembly improvements required by Standards 203 and 204 had not been made.
  

 

Effectiveness and benefits of Standards 203 and 204 - fatalities

• The equipment installed in response to Standards 203 and 204 (including voluntary steering assembly improvements not strictly required for compliance) reduced the overall risk of driver fatality in a frontal crash by 12 percent (confidence bounds: 8.5 to 15.5 percent).
  
• If all passenger cars had complied with Standards 203 and 204 in 1978, there would have been 1300 fewer driver fatalities than if none of the be cars had complied (confidence bounds: 900 to 1800).
  

 

Effectiveness and benefits of Standards 203 and 204 - serious injuries

• The equipment installed in response to Standards 203 and 204 reduced the risk of serious injury due to steering assembly contact by 38 percent (confidence bounds: 28 to 48 percent). An injury is defined to be "serious" it it causes the driver's death or at least overnight hospitalization.
  
• Since 46 percent of the driver fatalities and hospitalizations in frontal crashes were principally due to the steering assembly (i.e., no serious injuries from any other contact source), Standards 203 and 204 reduced the overall risk of serious driver injury in a frontal crash by 17.5 percent (i.e., 46% of 38%).
  
• If all passenger cars had complied with Standards 203 and 204 in 1978, 24,200 fewer drivers would have sustained serious injury caused by contacting the steering assembly than if none of the cars had complied (confidence bounds: 14,900 to 33,500).
  

 

Cost of Standards 203 and 204

• The average lifetime consumer cost per car, for cars built during 1968-78, was:
  Modifications needed for meeting the Standards

  $ 8.87

  Voluntary steering wheel improvements

  .33

  Fuel consumption due to 1.11 pound weight increase

  1.26

  TOTAL

  $10.46

  (in 1978 dollars)
  

• There were no substantial differences among the principal designs of energy absorbing steering systems in regard to their cost and weight.
  

 

Cost-effectiveness

• An "Equivalent Fatality Unit" corresponds to 1 fatality or 20 injuries requiring overnight hospitalization. Standards 203 and 204 eliminate 23.8 Equivalent Fatality Units per million dollars of cost (confidence bounds: 18.2 to 29.4).
  

 

Displacement of the steering column into the passenger compartment

• The steering column was displaced rearwards in 18 percent of the pre-Standard cars in which the driver was seriously injured by the steering assembly.
  
• Standard 204 reduced rearward column displacement by a statistically significant 81 percent.
  
• The steering column was displaced upwards or sideways in 3 percent of the pre-Standard cars in which the driver was seriously injured by the steering assembly.
  
• The incidence of gross upward or sideways column displacement in crashes is too low to allow a statistically significant comparison between pre- and post-Standard cars even though the incidence was observed to be 68 percent higher in the post-Standard cars.
  

 

 

Conclusions

The Problem

• Standards 203 and 204 addressed themselves to specific, quantifiable motor vehicle safety problems of major importance.
  

 

Overall effectiveness

• The equipment installed or modified in response to Standards 203 and 204 has reduced driver fatalities in frontal crashes.
  
• It has reduced serious nonfatal injuries to drivers in frontal crashes.
  
• Standards 203 and 204 are cost-effective.
  

 

Why have Standards 203 and 204 been effective?

• Standard 204 has been highly effective in reducing rearward steering column displacement. This factor accounts for about 1/3 to 1/2 of the total injury reduction and an even higher fraction of the total fatality reduction for Standards 203 and 204, combined.
  
• The energy absorbing devices installed in response to Standard 203 are successfully compressed (3 inches or more) in about half the crashes in which they are heavily impacted by the driver. This factor accounts for about 1/4 to 1/3 of the total injury reduction and an even larger fraction of the total fatality reduction for Standards 203 and 204 combined.
  
• The improvements to steering wheels that manufacturers voluntarily made at about the time that Standards 203 and 204 took effect - hub padding, removal of horn rings, stronger rims and spokes have substantially reduced arm and head injuries. They have also contributed to the effective operation of the energy absorbing devices. They account for about 1/3 of the overall injury reduction (but a much smaller fraction of the fatality reduction) for Standards 203 and 204, combined.
  
• The significant steering assembly contact injury reduction due to Standards 203 and 204 and the successful or partially successful and performance as intended, in crashes, by each of the major equipment modifications is proof that the compliance test conditions are relevant to some aspect of actual highway performance.
  

 

Shortcomings of Standards 203 and 204

• The principal shortcoming of Standards 203 and 204 has been the failure of the energy absorbing devices to compress in about half the crashes in which they are heavily impacted by drivers.
  
• Energy absorbing devices and other steering assembly components tend to bind rather than compress when they are exposed to nonaxial loads.
  
• Nonaxial loads may be a consequence of initial vehicle damage, unfavorable driver kinematics, upward steering column displacement, for unfavorable steering wheel spoke alignment or oblique frontal crash forces.
  
• Standard 204 has not reduced the incidence of steering column displacement in a primarily upwards or sideways direction.
  
• The improvements to the spokes, rim and face of steering wheels were largely voluntary. Since they are not required for compliance, they have not been uniformly applied to the vehicle fleet.
  

 

Side effects of Standards 203 and 204

• The Standards do not appear to have had negative side effects: there was no increase in serious injury from contact points other than the steering assembly.
  

 

Comparison of alternative energy absorbing devices

• The six major designs of energy absorbing devices are about equally effective in reducing serious injuries.
  
• The various devices did not differ substantially in their tendency to bind under driver load.
  
• They all cost approximately the same.
  
• A British study concluded that the steering wheel canister is more effective and more easily compressible than the energy absorbing columns. This evaluation does not support their conclusion.
  

 

Potential for improving Standards 203 and 204

• There may be potential benefits in extending the Standard 203 requirements, which currently simulate energy absorbing device performance only under nearly axial column load, to include tests that simulate nonaxial loading situations.
  
• For substantially increased benefits, it may be necessary to realistically simulate many of the conditions that lead to nonaxial loading, such as initial vehicle damage, unfavorable driver kinematics, upward steering column displacement, unfavorable steering wheel spoke alignment and oblique frontal crash forces.
  
• Upward column displacement, even in small amounts, can aggravate column binding. In larger amounts, it can magnify head injury risk. There may be potential benefits in modifying the requirements of Standards 203 and 204 to reduce both types of hazard associated with upward column displacement.
  
• The voluntary steering wheel improvements have not been uniformly implemented. There may be potential benefits in adding performance requirements to Standard 203 that would result in the use of crashworthy steering wheels in the entire vehicle fleet.
  

Return to Regulatory Evaluation Page

 

And the link of course:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/805705.html

[UlrichWolf]

I'd just like to say......

 

If you take the time to source the parts, and properly rebuild your OEM linkage, and properly bleed and adjust the factory box...as long as you have a good coupler, you will be SHOCKED at how well it steers.

 

My car steers perfectly. As a former driveability technician, I like to think that my definition of "perfectly" means something. If it doesn't to you, that's dandy too.

 

Tim

[89PalermoSHP]

Lighten up guys, he probably doesnt plan on crashing his car.

[Chad]

no one ever does....