Jump to content

32 Nash 1063 convertible sedan


F&J
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Spinneyhill said:

Here is the parts book picture. This type was used for 1934-36. 1306-9 are rollers; 16 in the earlier ones, 13 later

So my 1932 peg was likely ball bearings instead of roller bearings?  That would make me think that the 1959-60 part I ordered will not be the same, nor fit.

 

I might remove the brazing sooner than I thought, just to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The models with A in their name just have 1306-1B listed as "shaft". There is no reference to the pin so I suppose it was integral. LHC and RHC were called up using different numbers.

 

Suggest you post on the Studebaker forum (and any others that had Ross steering) for info and parts. The post and cam length might help too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, F&J said:

So my 1932 peg was likely ball bearings instead of roller bearings?  That would make me think that the 1959-60 part I ordered will not be the same, nor fit.

 

I might remove the brazing sooner than I thought, just to know.

This makes more sense that it was very small ball bearings, because the brazed part seems too narrow to have room for double roller bearings.

 

and, small balls would likely fail in time, and that could be why my worm looks like it was hit by parts coming loose.

Edited by F&J (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have checked my mailbox earlier, instead of 9 pm....the 59-60 Studebaker sector arrived and also some brass bushings I bought to make new sector shaft bushes.

 

As I figured, the peg is smaller diameter.  Too small for the groove width in my worm gear.  It was worth the try, as I know what the insides look like.

 

The repro Duesenberg peg I showed from ebay, is not adjustable, no threads, and those two tapered races are way too far apart for the Nash or the Stude sector.  The way the Stude works, is the roller bearings are short stubby ones that are tapered.  The outer races are machined into the sector.  The inner races are like that Duesy part, they are machined into the peg body.

 

To adjust the bearings, there is a precision hardened/machine-ground washer that pushes in on just the butt end of one set of rollers.  Then a bend/tang locking/washer to keep the nut at proper bearing preload.

 

No idea how I can make that peg work.  I suppose I will melt the brass from the Nash peg to see if there is any hope in saving the sector.  I am not considering a different type of steering box swap.  It took about 8 years to find a cylinder head for the original Nash engine....but I'm not sure I can wait 8 more :)

 

Trying to copy Spinneyhill's pic, as my Stude sector I bought,  has this same bearing setup on the peg:  There are no cages on the rollers, if the drawing is not clear enough. See how close the two sets of rollers are?  That is why the Duesy repro won't work (as well as no adjustment)

RossRollerPeg.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a shop manual from my Dad's repair shop in the 50's.  Unfortunately it only goes back to 1935.   It shows 4 types of Ross boxes from 35-49.

 

The only one with bearing mount peg, is "Type 4" and it had a list of cars with these:

 

-Auburn 35-36 Eight Cyl

-Graham 1935 models 72 and 73

-Pierce 1935-1938

-Reo 1935-1936

-Stude 1935-1936 Commander and President

 

But that does not mean the worm gear is the same, nor the length of the sector shaft.  The main housings must be all different mounting. The 1935 illustration matches the one I just posted above.  That worm is wrong spacing on the spirals tips (too wide) and the sector looks different with a pronounced raised boss at the peg bearing area. (that lack of raised boss on my 32, might be due to it likely having small ball bearings, instead of rollers?

 

So, I'm assuming the older 1932 style used a different group of internal parts.

 

If I could find a book back to 1932, maybe that would help.

 

.

Edited by F&J (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a lot more research on ross boxes.  One Jeep aftermarket company makes a special spring loaded replacement for the external free-play adjusting screw.  It automatically keeps pressure on the peg into the worm.  The site has a great deal of info on the drawbacks of Ross peg steering.  One thing confirmed why my Nash had a very poor turning radius.  The peg swings in an arc across the worm, so as it gets further away from center, the peg tries to "leave" the worm groove.  So my opinion on why there is only 4 turns lock-to-lock makes better sense now.  They sacrificed the turning radius, so that the peg would not swing out of the worm, if the worm was longer and had more turns (more that 4 total spirals on the groove for the peg). 

 

Then I searched more and ended up on AACA Resto forum of Dean H. and his 29 Hupp.  Geez... He went through the same problems that I have with his earlier fixed-peg Ross box....same researching on donor brands of cars, etc.  He ended up buying a 8 Cyl Hupp Ross box, thinking that the guts should fit his housing.  He found out they won't, and I am positive from his pics of the 8cyl housing, that it had the ball bearing peg which needs more room.

 

He went through some intensive machine work, parts swapping for the special splined pitman arm needed (got one from a late model Cadillac), then had to remachine a taper seat ball end to add to the Cad arm.  Then make a new box mounting adapter, etc.  I wish Dean was still here as I'd like to know if the 8 cyl Ross box was worth the effort.

 

Pics below of Dean's parts.  One pic shows the rusted worm and worn fixed peg on his original box.  Then the pic of the two different Ross housings; his original on the right.

steer.jpg

steering.jpg

steerin1.jpg

Ok, I eat crow.... I am sending my box out....to China... on the next scrap run.  LOL   I WILL be swapping, or trying my best, to swap in what I believe is a 34 Buick box.  So far, at least the Nash pitman arm does fit with the correct splines and taper.  The box mount is going to be really tough, as the Buick bolts deeply to the inside of an open channel frame.  And the Buick frame rail angles different than the Nash.  My Nash box bolts to the back side of a boxed frame rail.  I refuse to cut the inner boxing off to mount the Buick.  I will try to cut off the Buick mounting ears, then make a flat steel 3 bolt triangle flange to weld to the Buick box, but very close to the box body, so I can bolt it to the inner boxing.

 

the Buick box steers so nicely, even if I hold a load on the pitman...and.. I can "return" the steering by moving the pitman arm, meaning the car will come back out of a turn by itself.  The Nash had to be manually steered back from a turn, and if the front wheels are jacked up, I could not steer the front wheels by holding the tire and pulling as hard as I could.

 

The Buick is exactly 5 turns, so I will do some "measuring the total throw" tests with both boxes with the same pitman arm, to see if the Buick will make the Nash turn tighter.  I think it will.  There is no free play wear in the centered position, but I do see a tiny bit of play in the outer sector bushing, and I just bought the new brass bushings which are the same as the Buick needs. It should steer fantastic if I can make it fit; it feels extremely "modern". :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spinneyhill said:

You might find the turning circle is limited by the size of the wheels under the 'guards and pegs on the ends of the axle that engage bits on the hub.

I get what you mean.  I have not checked the stops yet, but as I recall when I had the drag link off, I thought the wheels turned very much more.

 

I did just compare both boxes, and had to reassemble the Nash box.  Amazing....the Nash worm, if you follow the groove while counting, it was 4 turns to the dead ends of the groove.  I just checked the assembled box twice and it is 3-7/8 turns to both locks.

 

After reading that Jeep site about the issues with Ross design, I know what they did, and how they compensated for that short worm.: Normally a box with lesser turns is a fast ratio box, for lighter cars or sport cars.  In this case, If Nash/Ross designers used it as a fast ratio, it would steer like a truck with flat tires because the front is really heavy.  What they did do, is changed the ratio at the length of the peg arm, versus length of the pitman arm.  This made the car steer easier, but they had to compromise on less turning radius.  I am 99% sure on this.  That 1959 Studebaker Lark arm has a different measure from peg center to sector shaft center, so they were changing ratios that way.

 

Ok, back to turn testing both boxes, and both boxes having the Nash pitman arm installed.  The Nash moved the center of the drag link ball, exactly 8-3/8 inches.  I made a clamp on wire pointer to point to the center of the ball, then run the arm all the way opposite.  That gives the exact movement of the drag link when installed.  The Buick is exactly 10 inches, which is a big difference. and again, that is with the Nash arm for an honest measure of change.

 

I was really very happy to see that, but I kind of knew it would be more, as the Buick is not a Ross box.

 

Here are pics showing the two boxes.  You can see how wrong the Buick bolting flange is.  The angle of the mounting flange is also wrong, so there is no sense of trying to save that flange.  One fortunate thing is that the sector is long enough for the Nash chassis.

DSCN0627.JPG

DSCN0626.JPG

dscn0625.jpg

Edited by F&J (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go, on the road to victory....LOL

 

I cut the flange away with a 4.5 angle grinder cut off wheel, then ground the casting webs to fit through the hole in the Nash frame rail backside, which is 2-7/8".  Now I need to make a 3/8" thick steel plate with triangle 3 bolt shape, that will fit the stock Nash bolt holes.  The Nash has threaded holes in that boxed frame, that is why I need to use these original locations.

 

One other thing that measures the same on both boxes, is the center line of the sector to the center of the worm.  They are exact.  that means the column will be at the exact same angle when using the Nash column support on the dashboard. 

 

The box steers so slick and easy by just holding the slippery taper where the steering wheel fits !   I am very, very confident that this car will be a real treat to drive with excellent steering.  I am glad I decided to scrap the original Ross design.  Note the second pic has the old markings from a junkyard, saying, I think, 1934? Buick.  That's all I know about it.

 

Before anyone thinks this modifying is "unacceptable", please explain why it is fine and dandy to have a large percentage of A-C-D cars sporting brand new open car bodies, on cars that had beautiful closed bodies when new.  :) 

 

I'm pretty excited that this car will stop nice, steer fantastic, and run at 58 MPH without screaming the engine,  I really think it will be a sweet car on the state secondary roads and back roads.

DSCN0628.JPG

DSCN0629.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it. I'm really enjoying this thread... I'm more of a brass car person and this is exactly the sort of problem I'm familiar with. How about removing piece of the box you cut the flange off, putting it on a mandrel, and turning the body round — then you could bore a perfectly round hole in the triangular flange and hopefully the machined surfaces would keep it perpendicular to the body when welding and it would have a "finished" appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, alsancle said:

I'm totally cool with what you are doing.  That car would have sat for another 50 years if you didn't rescue it.

I'm really liking this car more, as things are working better.  A very long time since I had a prewar on the road, and I want this one to do what the other ones could not do. 

10 minutes ago, JV Puleo said:

I like it. I'm really enjoying this thread... I'm more of a brass car person and this is exactly the sort of problem I'm familiar with. How about removing piece of the box you cut the flange off, putting it on a mandrel, and turning the body round — then you could bore a perfectly round hole in the triangular flange and hopefully the machined surfaces would keep it perpendicular to the body when welding and it would have a "finished" appearance.

If I understand correctly, this would be only if I wanted the new flange 90 degrees to the chassis rail?  The flange needs to be at an angle...

 

I will make the new flange, then bore the center hole with a hole saw if I have that size...then bolt it into the frame.   Then I will slide the trimmed box snout through that hole.  At that point, the box will be moving around, so I need to get the original steering column dash bracket back on.  That will keep that upper end correct.

 

Then I need to move the box in or out in that hole to center the entire column.  Then I must block the box up to have the sector shaft level to the floor.  Triple check, then sneak in there with the Mig welder to tack the new flange to the box in 3 spots.  Now pull the box back out for finish welding.

 

When you weld around a box snout, the weld bead going around the snout, will always shrink the snout in that location.  Because the flange will be welded in about the midpoint of the sector shaft's length, there wont be any brass bushing in the middle where the shrink will happen.  There is a wide bushing out at the end, and should be a much narrower one next to the worm.  That should save me from having to hone the bore out, which is needed if a bushing was right there.

 

I'm getting stoked about test driving it, so I went back in the shop tonight and cut off the Buick outer column tube, the diameter is way too big to fit the Nash dashboard bracket.  Then I slid the smaller diameter Nash tube inside the stub of the Buick column tube.  Then I made a temporary upper column rubber bushing that keeps the center shaft straight, or actually, it keeps the outer column tube centered to the inner shaft.

 

I was hoping to test drive Tuesday late.  No way, I will be test driving tomorrow!  Unless I don't wake up, or I run out of welding gas...LOL  I won't spend time to shorten the Buick inner shaft.  I know it is a few inches too long, but I'm dying to test drive :)   I will be shocked if it is not steering perfect.  But, I will post what happens, either way.

 

Here is the Buick steering wheel that came with that box years ago.  The black rubber was all cracked and peeling away from the big center hub.  I heated it (back then), with propane, folding and squeezing the rubber back in shape, then bonded it with something...I forget what...but all these years later, it still has not cracked.  This wheel has a long extended hub, so it sat too high on the Nash column.  Also, the Nash had a mid-1920s 4 spoke wooden wheel and they made it fit by using that homemade taper bushing that is next to the wheel.  I won't need that poorly fitting adapter now.

DSCN0616.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize it was mounted at an angle. I can see where this is one of those jobs that takes ten times as long to set up as it actually does to assemble the parts (something I'm familiar with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, F&J said:

Before anyone thinks this modifying is "unacceptable", please explain why it is fine and dandy to have a large percentage of A-C-D cars sporting brand new open car bodies, on cars that had beautiful closed bodies when new.  :) 

 

I'm pretty excited that this car will stop nice, steer fantastic, and run at 58 MPH without screaming the engine,  I really think it will be a sweet car on the state secondary roads and back roads.

 

F&J, in my humble opinion what you are doing is just great. You are using available parts and good thought process to get a old car running, driving, and out in the public. Steering and stopping are critical for a car that will be driven, and you are making sure the Nash is safe to use.  Using a like-era steering box in a well-though-out manner is just good sense when the original parts are unobtainable or financially unreasonable. Keep 'em driving!

 

Besides, except for the fact that you have told all of us what you are doing, 99% of the people who look at your car won't well versed enough on Nash authenticity to know the difference.

 

My hat's off to you........I love this thread, following your progress and your innovation. This is what the old car hobby is all about, at least for me.........others' opinions may differ. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, r1lark said:

Besides, except for the fact that you have told all of us what you are doing, 99% of the people who look at your car won't well versed enough on Nash authenticity to know the difference.

I don't want to hide what I am trying to accomplish, because there are countless prewars of this era that never get driven, never drive to shows where WE can see them....and if they knew maybe some mods could give them a car that they WANT to drive.............:)

 

Mid-day break...  I got lucky and found a big piece of 3/8" plate here.  First made a thin paper pattern by pressing it against the holes in the frame.  Soil on fingers is a plus, as you just rub until you feel the holes and the dirt makes the holes show up nice.  Lol

 

There were two obstacles in there.  One is a small bell crank right next to this for the ride-control, and left extra room there on the pattern.  Then there are two small rivets, that hold the "nut plate" on the inside of the boxed frame.  I suppose I could grind the heads down, but I prefer to transfer those marks from paper to the back of the new plate and counter bore for them,

 

The Nash box is shown here, and the two white marks are where the rivets are.  The box was made with steps at each hole to clear those rivets.  I can't do that with washers, as the front bolt was really probably a stud, as the last person used a bolt, and the body of the box was so close that the shorty bolt would barely get in there.   The Buick body is fatter and will be even closer....so that's why steps or washers behind the plate won't work.  I will make a stud for that one tight spot and hope I can sneak a nut in there.  Some starters are just like that space issue.

 

I started to cut out the big hole in the paper but stopped.  That hole is too big for what I need to weld on the box snout.  It worked good having a flap of paper to lift, to see how it all lines up on making marks on the steel.  Got lucky again with a new 2-3/8" hole saw in my stuff.  Then cut the triangle out on the band saw, drill 1/2" holes and test fits nice.

 

I peaked the top of the new plate, so there can be room for a full circumference weld to the snout.

 

Check out that drag link adjuster nut...I never saw one that did not use a long cotter pin through the slot.  This one has a spring steel U thing, that you get one end in, then slide it to center to get the other end in...then the half circle snaps into the hole around the (missing) grease fitting.

DSCN0631.JPG

DSCN0630.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, F&J said:

I'm dying to test drive :)   I will be shocked if it is not steering perfect.  But, I will post what happens, either way.

 

ummm, ....I wish I was a politician....then I could have my team come up with a way to put some "spin", when there is stupidity caught in the act....and then the spin makes it sound OK  ...   :)

 

Here is how the box fits.  I had 10 seconds of terror when I thought the box snout could not get through the hole in the frame without pulling the engine out!  Then I kept changing my angle of attack, and it went right in perfectly. I did switch the front bolt hole to a stud, and like I expected, there would be no way to get a bolt in there,  Great planning with the stud that works..right?

 

Then I went under the front to see if the car uses adjustable steering stops that Spinneyhill asked about.  Yes it does, so I removed them to see just how tight it can now steer.

 

Then I drop it off the jack, all the weight back on the somewhat soft tires.  Next, as I previously said the outer sector bushing had a slight amount of slop that I will fix later, but I wanted to see if the wheel felt like it had a lot of slop... sat in the seat and no, I can't even feel any play.  Now the test to see how much better it should steer...it steers better than I hoped for, it is perfect, and almost feels like the engine is out of the car...it's beyond "very smooth".

 

But I made the dumbest error, and I have been trying to think if I ever did something this bad ever...and this one tops them all.

 

However there are two things I have heard of that will fix it:  One is something I have never tried, and never read up on how it's done.  The other requires a special part, and I have  not even bothered to web search it yet...as my brain needs a rest. LOL

 

What did I miscalculate?  I know you will know at some point.  And some may have a solution, to save this perfect steering car.  I know there are clever people here, and some do modify things themselves..

 

 

DSCN0635.JPG

DSCN0633.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, r1lark said:

Oh oh.........did the pitman arm on the Buick point up instead of down? So now, when you turn the wheel to the left, the car steers to the right?

Where do I send you prize for the winning answer ?  Lol

 

Man, I wonder what my face looked like when looked at the front wheel... I can't believe I did not check if it was a clockwise or counter clockwise box.... I always do when I find an unknown box at a swap, etc.  Everyone I know, also checks that first.  I also can't believe I did not spot it yesterday, when I was counting the turns and measuring how far the pitman arm moved.   I just can't explain it.

 

However, I have matured through the years; I did not cuss or throw wrenches... instead I stood there trying to find a solution to be able to use this box.  Honestly, this box amazes me on how it changed this cars feel.  (and it fits so d--- nice :)

 

Solutions?  Some boxes in the hot rod world, for decades, have been "reversed" like the Corvair box and a few others.  No idea on how it's done.  The other solution I know of is a "steering reverser", I think I have read of those on maybe race cars or somewhere,  Just a tiny two gear compact box, with an input and output shafts.  I think 1920s Chevy 490 used that for a box.  not sure.

 

There is not quite enough room to run the pitman upside down, and besides, that throws the drag link angle off a lot which causes "bump steer".  I never had the Buick pitman arm, so I have no clue how the steering was on those; but in hindsight, it must have been independent front suspension, not a conventional beam axle like I "assumed":

 

I have some old manuals to maybe see how the Buick linkage was, but it won't help this.  there may be more solutions that I don't know about..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally, 'reversing' a Corvair or similar box involves making the steering shaft come out of the opposite end. This can be done with the recirculating ball steering boxes, but not sure how it would be done with a peg-type steering box.

 

I have seen the steering reverser boxes you are referencing. They basically have two gears, and usually 1:1 ratio, so the rotation of the output is opposite of the input. But I did remember seeing a comment on the HAMB that these boxes interfere with the 'self-centering' effect of a steering system. Don't know if that is true or not, but might need some investigation if you decide to make one of these. Not sure if they are commercially available or not; I did a google search and didn't come up with anything.

 

EDIT: here is the link to the thread on the HAMB I was referencing. Also, the second page shows one of the 'reversing boxes' that we are thinking of:  http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/need-to-reverse-the-direction-of-my-steering-colum-rotation-looking-for-small-gear.685931/

Edited by r1lark (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, r1lark said:

EDIT: here is the link to the thread on the HAMB I was referencing.

Thanks, I must be over the hill because I do not recall reading that thread, but I commented on it to Rich Fox by just pullin' his leg;  If you read between the lines, 3 people admitted making a reverser, and I'd stake my life on anything Rich Fox built.

 

However, as usual, that OP who asked, got all the armchair experts who said just swap to a correct steering, not knowing that in some few cases, a person does NOT want to swap....like me, just yet.

 

Rich does not like corresponding by email or web.....if I get stuck, I could ask him for his phone number.

 

and did you notice post 29 and 30 from Rich and Bruce (both highly respected), and they don't believe there will be "return limiting drag"?

 

Yes, I have been searching too.  There sure are a lot of people asking for this product.

 

there may be more/other options...perhaps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, F&J said:

and did you notice post 29 and 30 from Rich and Bruce (both highly respected), and they don't believe there will be "return limiting drag"?

 

Yes, I saw that after I posted the edit with the link, and was getting ready to edit my post yet again. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, r1lark said:

 

Yes, I saw that after I posted the edit with the link, and was getting ready to edit my post yet again. :)

Glad you posted that link...

 

funny that the original poster had the b...s to say :

Quote
i need to reverse the directioin of my steering column rotation..in other words the steering system i have made turns the opposite direction..

.... and Pasadenahotrod posted:

Quote

Man, I hate to say this but this is funny as hell! It isn't the first time it has happened, believe me!

...and from John Evans who is an old time machinist whom also hates emails...I talked with him by phone, getting his help with my lathe...while his TEN dogs barking in the backround :)  Anyways I trust his thoughts, but there can be a way out of the backlash issue.  Bear with my post here..

Quote

And you WILL have slop/free play in the reverser box that can not be eliminated,not a good solution.

...and to sunbeam; he gave me a thought with this:

Quote

How about some lawn mower differential if you hold the carrier and turn one axle the other axle turns the other way.

Ok, I can't use lawnmower diff gears as they don't mesh precisely enough, they feel rough at each tooth to the next during rotation.  BUT, think about the idea of 4 bevel fine tooth precision gears.  The cross shaft for two of them is locked to the housing, but have an adjustable race on each of these two pinion gears....just like older steering boxes have shims to move the race preload.  Now you have one opposing bevel gear on the lower steering shaft, and one on the upper steering shaft.  That means the two shafts are in line, not offset.  The gearbox housing needs to be locked solid to the column, hidden under the dash.

 

The added shims at the races could compensate for any wear on the gears if they wore a bit.

 

why would this not work, and does not sound too hard to make with what I have for machine tools? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my memory serves me correctly, I think I read a thread on the prewar Buick section concerning a problem similar to your direction issue 5/7 years ago... A Buick steering box was disassembled for refurbishing and when reinstalled the steering was reversed. Something about the half nuts being installed backwards. 

 

Jim B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jim Bourque said:

If my memory serves me correctly, I think I read a thread on the prewar Buick section concerning a problem similar to your direction issue 5/7 years ago... A Buick steering box was disassembled for refurbishing and when reinstalled the steering was reversed. Something about the half nuts being installed backwards. 

 

Jim B

Thanks for the tip.  I will try to find a book that shows the inner parts to see if that is the same setup.  It would be awesome, if possible. 

 

I may take it apart if I can't find an illustration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jim Bourque said:

To find the thread go to Pre War Buick

search 

this forum

1926 steering half nuts

original post by Hidden Hunter

 

A couple references to the half nut installation reversing the steering

 

Good luck, hope this helps

Jim

 

Here is the link to the referenced post:  http://forums.aaca.org/topic/252924-1926-steering-half-nuts/#comment-1346272

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see what it says.   I looked in my old books and 1935 is as old as I can find.  It does not say what a 34 had, but 1935 was Saginaw number 4 I believe.  But that section says nothing about much at all.  I almost think the shape of my box means it is a worm and roller, and the roller sweeps across an arc, sort of like the ross peg does.

 

It's not looking too promising now that I had time to think clearly about mickey mousing it to turn opposite.

 

I looked at a F1 Ford box but the sector shaft looks too short.  My car seems to need a very long one

 

If I go too modern, then I can't have that hollow inner shaft to use the light switch at the bottom of column.

 

Well, I never cut even one piece of the Nash stuff, so I can put the junk one back in,... maybe a half hours work.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, r1lark said:

F&J, just brainstorming here.......could you fashion a short extension for the sector shaft on a F1 or F100 box? A short version of what they do for hot rods to install cowl steering?

I have never seen that extension for a box like that, but I will look into it.  I've seen some cowl steering using a very later Ford pickup that has a length that would be too long for mine, but those guys found a way to reverse the direction as they also turn the wrong way.

 

One thing that stands out on the Nash and that Buick box, they both use an unusually large diameter sector shaft of 1-1/8".  I'm just guessing, but maybe a longer sector needs to be stronger?  They remind me of a larger truck.  (maybe I should be looking for a side steer 3/4 ton box from the 40s/50s?)

 

I've decided I can't go back to looking for Ross donors, as they just do not steer far enough.  I noticed that when I first got the Nash and tried to get in the side door of my shop.  It just does not feel like a typical car/truck...it feels wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am back working on my ford car, I can't spend any more time with the Nash problem

 

The only donor box I saw so far that has a good reputation for low steering effort is 1937 Hudson, which is impossible to find.  It has what seems a long snout, a beefier sector shaft than a Ford car, but the splines are smaller than the Nash pitman arm.  The hot rodders on hamb use a Ford pitman arm that matches the hudson splines, so that might work if I ever found that box.

 

pics of the 37 Hudson boxes.  The rodders do cut the flange off like I did, and use a new flange

 

My dilemma on donors, is that I need a box that has the worm above the sector shaft, so that the column angle says correct.  Many boxes like the F1 have the opposite.  The F100 from 53-60 does have the worm above, but the sector is very short.

 

hudson1.jpg

hudson4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am working on my Ford ful time, but want to update on the Buick box.

 

A few days ago I figured out how the 34 Buick can have a side steer box, with pitman arm facing down, and turn the wrong way for most side mounted box steered cars.

 

The pitman does point down, but the drag link does not go to the left front spindle.  It goes diagonal very far up front, under the radiator area, to an L shaped arm.  The arm is pivoted in the crotch of the L.  The drag link hooks to the leg of the L that points to the left..  The other leg of the L points straight back and has twin holes for a split tie rod.  One going to each wheel.

 

I should take a pic of a 34 LaS chassis I have out back so you can see how GM did these, the Buick must be identical

 

Don't have time to really look at the Nash space linitations to see if that can work.  I think there is no room due to the leaf spring in the way.  But if it does have room, I would replace the right tie rod end with one that has a tapered stud, like it does now, but also has an adjacent tapered hole for a new "cross steer centerlink"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I snuck a half hour away from my Ford, to harvest some steering parts from the 34 LaS chassis.   When I took a quick glance at the system a few days ago, I assumed the center L shaped pivot arm mounting area, would be moulded into some complicated pressed steel front crossmember, and that the mounting could not be removed easily..

 

Very happy to see that the mounting for the large pivot pin and oversized brass bushings was only bolted into the cross member. 

 

Posted some pics for people to see the design progress of US car makers during the depression, when they had to make cars more desirable to sell, by building better systems, 

 

The solid front axle cars through the 20s were all called "side steer", with a steering box poking through the frame with horizontal sector shaft, and a pitman arn facing straight down with pitman arm swinging front to back.

 

By the late 30s, cars mostly used independent suspension, and the steering box was moved forward, and rotated 90 degrees to have the sector shaft pointing down,  Then the pitman arm swung from side to side to move the twin tie rods.

 

This 34 system is actually a half breed, or a step in evolution of steering design.  It still uses the side steer box location with pitman swinging front to back, but they added the L pivot bell crank to convert side steer to cross steer.  That's pretty darn interesting to me.

 

Ford Company designers were dictated by Henry's steadfast demands to keep the old straight axle for many years, along with the old transverse buggy springs. (henry died in 47 and the buggy sprung old I beam axle was last used in 48)   So in 1935, his engineers changed the side steer to cross steer, by rotating the box, and adding a second tie rod hole on the passenger spindle steering arm.  Then a tie rod from the pitman to the right spindle arm.  Cross steer was desirable as I really think it does away with the old death wobble while hitting certain bumps like railroad crossings with a worn front end.  (just a theory)

 

I have no idea if I can use these parts yet

DSCN0642.JPG

DSCN0641.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DavidAU said:

Borgeson sell a variety of side steer boxes which may be helpful  http://www.borgeson.com/xcart/home.php?cat=147

 

Another supplier is TrackMaster.com who make a side steer box (albeit a bit more expensive) that is available with custom made output shaft lengths.

http://trackmasterproducts.com/

I did see a Borgeson side steer based on a GM 525, but it was the wrong rotation, and a short sector, but I will look at the site, thanks.

 

theTrackmaster sounds good with horn wire capability and it has the worm above like I need, but I could not use the H/L switch at bottom.  Honestly, out of my budget as well "for this moment", but I am very glad you posted that, just in case  :)   If the steering can't be solved in any other way...I refuse to let the car sit unused, so I would fund that one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I worked on my Ford for 3 months with not one day off, even though several days were just a hour or so.

 

It is finally on the road, with just a couple minor glitches.  My 6 months of use on the new fuel pump diaphragm material started leaking now that it is pumping faster on road tests.  It has had gas in it for 6 months with running in and out of shop.

 

I did already have a new high quality Napa Facet low pressure electric booster pump in the rear, to prime the carbs, so it took less than a half hour to make up some bypass fittings for the mechanical pump.  The car is perfect for the roads I want to drive; back roads and faster State roads.

 

 

BUT...I miss working on the Nash.  I really think I will have more enjoyment with that stock 6 cylinder flathead on these roads.  I thought of an idea to fix my donor steering box issue.  I am going to take the worm gear out and see if the local antique NOS parts place can find a match as far as diameter and length, but with a reverse worm groove.  I know he has some NOS and old Nors worms.  If not, I will see if Lares Corp can make one.

 

I watched some videos of Hershey and spotted one 32-33 Nash 8 sedan in the corral, and saw a bigger 8 coupe going onto the show field.

 

I always wished I would have found a bigger 32 Nash to drive, but I really think this little one should be nicer on the roads here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I am still working on a solution for my unrepairable Nash steering box which is a Ross box.

 

I "found" a 1933 Nash Big Six steering box, and was shocked that it is a different designed box.  1933 Nash Six cars look identical to my 1932 except the dash and gauges were restyled, and they went to steel artillery wheels.   The body/fenders/chassis look identical, same wheelbase, everything...

 

Can anybody help identify the maker of this 1933 box below?  It has 4 cover bolts instead of 5 like my Ross.  I am not sure if this 33 is a Ross or not?  I'd like to understand why Nash would have made a change like this?  That 1932 second series Ross box was first used on the 32 second series, not on the 32 first series.  So, why such a short run on the partial-year late 32?

 

Could it be that the Ross had defects? or could it be complaints on it not turning sharp enough?  That was noticeable to me when I tried to steer it onto sharp turn situations. It goes to full sweep on the box but it just has a huge turning radius.

 

I am thinking about buying the 1933 box which is on the west coast, as I just doubt I will find a late 32 box.  I don't even have a price on it, or shipping costs yet..

 

Should I go for it?  or does anyone know if this looks like a Saginaw?  I think those steer better, if it is.

 

 

33 nash parts 006.JPG

33 nash parts 007.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reposting a pic of my 32 box below.

 

I've been looking at steering boxes in old Motors manuals back to 1935.  The only brand of box that seems to use the square head locking bolt with jamb nut near the column end, are various different models of Ross .  That bolt locks the large nut on the top of box, at the column tube.

 

So, it looks like the 33 box cover is smaller?  I can't tell.  If it's smaller, it may be the cheaper Ross model that has a "fixed" peg riding in the worm.  The 32 with bigger cover, has a bearing mounted peg that needs more room, I imagine.

 

I was also thinking that for 33, Nash tried to cut costs to get the car prices down, as it was a bad time for USA sales.  So, now I wonder if it was just a cheaper box.....not a better box?  

 

 

 

dscn0619.jpg

Edited by F&J (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studebaker used Ross steering boxes. Might any of them be adapted? I suppose the important measurements are the length of the column, the length of the sector shaft to the chassis mounting and the measurements of the steering arm mounting shaft. You may be able to fit something to the chassis if you drill new holes and use an adapter plate? You may also have to get the steering = drop = Pitman arm that goes with the box to get it to mount to the spline?

 

I would imagine you can, if necessary, make an adapter to mount the steering wheel.

 

It seems to me that you have one objective: to find a steering box. Thus whether any brand is "better" than another is a moot point. Your turning circle may also be regulated by the limit stops on the axle-steering set-up rather than by the steering box and the length of the worm or whatever?

 

This all sounds very complicated! I hope you can find a simple, straight-forward way to get a steering box that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...