When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I've been searching to find good 1st hand experience/comparison between the two, but it's almost non-existent. There was an old thread (with the same title as this one) from 2014 where I did find one individual who had used both, but overall it seems whatever people use, they like.
On the surface, a R&P setup seems like a better system but is it really (in the case of the C3)? In researching, some people mentioned reduced turning radius from some R&P setups but their statements seemed more like "I heard that..." rather than "I have a R&P setup and experienced" so I'm always skeptical of "a friend of a friend of a friend told me that he read on the internet....".
Everyone who has the Borgeson says it's a quality piece and is an excellent performer on the track, but they also mention having issues with header clearance. That's a big concern for me as I want to swap my SB for a BB in the near future.
Everyone who has the Borgeson says it's a quality piece and is an excellent performer on the track, but they also mention having issues with header clearance. That's a big concern for me as I want to swap my SB for a BB in the near future.
There are several threads on the site regarding Borgeson and headers (mostly small blocks) but there are guys who are successfully running Borgeson with headers on big blocks. You might have to do quite a bit of searching to find those threads and the posts about big blocks but they do exist.
Have you considered manual steering? My 80 has an an SBC, side pipe headers, a @GTR1999 rebuilt steering box, and plenty of clearance.
I won't disparage R&P (though I will point out that three U-joints in the steering path is more than I have in two cars), but I will add a shameless plug for Borgeson steering, if you have the room. It transformed my 79.
I've had a Borgeson on my car for years and it's been great. Header clearance has been a non issue on my big block. It was actually a little better than the stock box and I was able to remove a dimple in the #3 tube I had to add on the 2-1/8" Hooker headers. I have McJack's shorty headers on it now feeding the turbos and they clear fine also.
I used the stock pump they provided and I've actually been amazed it's lasted as long as it has because I routinely spin it to 7500-8000 RPM. No leaks at all after all this time.
I've been searching to find good 1st hand experience/comparison between the two, but it's almost non-existent. There was an old thread (with the same title as this one) from 2014 where I did find one individual who had used both, but overall it seems whatever people use, they like.
On the surface, a R&P setup seems like a better system but is it really (in the case of the C3)? In researching, some people mentioned reduced turning radius from some R&P setups but their statements seemed more like "I heard that..." rather than "I have a R&P setup and experienced" so I'm always skeptical of "a friend of a friend of a friend told me that he read on the internet....".
Everyone who has the Borgeson says it's a quality piece and is an excellent performer on the track, but they also mention having issues with header clearance. That's a big concern for me as I want to swap my SB for a BB in the near future.
Either Borgeson / R&P do have issues and it depends on what issues you are willing to deal with. For me the shortening of the steering column to fit a borgenson box is why I didn't go that route. Also bigger in size so driver side header may required replacement / adjustments. I always looked for a option that allows me to return the car to factory parts if I choose too. I went with a flamming river rack setup which didn't require any modifications to the car.
Now this doesn't mean there weren't issues.
biggest issues with fitting a R&P is getting the turn signal returns to work as factory. The reason for this is because the steering column is indexed and the steering joints are also indexed which doesn't align with the R&P Center position.
So you can have 1 of 2 problems. Turn Signals won't return properly if you maximize turning radius, or reduced turning radius.
I choose with turn signals won't return properly. Below is an example of joints you need use to connect the steering column to the R&P. Usually 2 are required and they are both keyed to a position. They are d-type inserts . When the R&P is centered this sets where the keys are located with the joints installed which doesn't match the position of the steering column key center position. Now if you are willing to install the lock nut into the steering column splines making a new keyed position this will work and solve both problems. But I what to return the car back to factory if possible,
So the reason most complain about reduced turning radius is because they don't center the rack to maximize turning radius, the center the wheel to get the turn signals working correctly which means the rack isn't centered.
My 78 factory setup allowed for 2.75 turns from center to lock. The Flaming river when centered is almost 2.5 turns to lock.
Also most rack setups aren't mounted centered in the steering system due to the location of the column connection and frame locations. Flaming River rack is off centered to the driver side making the passenger side tie rod sleeve further
away from the tie rod. Which means a different tie rod or a longer sleeve. I found a longer tie rod which worked properly.
Other issues that may occur is getting the steering joints not to bind due to shaft angles This may take time.
Other issues with both systems is twitchy steering wheel feel (too light) this is due to the factory PS Pumps PSI Rating and flow rate. Factory C3 pump I believe is 900-1000 PSI and most R&P / borgenson like about 850psi max
Now the PSI value isn't the biggest issue isn't the flow rate from the pump. They are too high for these units.
The big plus the Flaming River gave me is the very heavy mounting bracket for the R&P, really provide great support to stiffen the front end frame. I use my car for track days so the stiffer frame support is a big plus.
Have you considered manual steering? My 80 has an an SBC, side pipe headers, a @GTR1999 rebuilt steering box, and plenty of clearance.
I won't disparage R&P (though I will point out that three U-joints in the steering path is more than I have in two cars), but I will add a shameless plug for Borgeson steering, if you have the room. It transformed my 79.
Here's my 80.
I've had manual steering on smaller, lighter cars, but I'm definitely not going to try running manual steering on my 79.
I plan to bump the caster up to 6-7 degrees using an offset upper arm shaft and will be running 255+ wide tires on either 17 or 18 rims. Add to that fact that I'm a small guy (only 5'5" and 130 lbs) and I'd never be able to turn it.
Originally Posted by cagotzmann
Either Borgeson / R&P do have issues and it depends on what issues you are willing to deal with. For me the shortening of the steering column to fit a borgenson box is why I didn't go that route. Also bigger in size so driver side header may required replacement / adjustments. I always looked for a option that allows me to return the car to factory parts if I choose too. I went with a flamming river rack setup which didn't require any modifications to the car.
Now this doesn't mean there weren't issues.
biggest issues with fitting a R&P is getting the turn signal returns to work as factory. The reason for this is because the steering column is indexed and the steering joints are also indexed which doesn't align with the R&P Center position.
So you can have 1 of 2 problems. Turn Signals won't return properly if you maximize turning radius, or reduced turning radius.
I choose with turn signals won't return properly. Below is an example of joints you need use to connect the steering column to the R&P. Usually 2 are required and they are both keyed to a position. They are d-type inserts . When the R&P is centered this sets where the keys are located with the joints installed which doesn't match the position of the steering column key center position. Now if you are willing to install the lock nut into the steering column splines making a new keyed position this will work and solve both problems. But I what to return the car back to factory if possible,
So the reason most complain about reduced turning radius is because they don't center the rack to maximize turning radius, the center the wheel to get the turn signals working correctly which means the rack isn't centered.
My 78 factory setup allowed for 2.75 turns from center to lock. The Flaming river when centered is almost 2.5 turns to lock.
Also most rack setups aren't mounted centered in the steering system due to the location of the column connection and frame locations. Flaming River rack is off centered to the driver side making the passenger side tie rod sleeve further
away from the tie rod. Which means a different tie rod or a longer sleeve. I found a longer tie rod which worked properly.
Other issues that may occur is getting the steering joints not to bind due to shaft angles This may take time.
Other issues with both systems is twitchy steering wheel feel (too light) this is due to the factory PS Pumps PSI Rating and flow rate. Factory C3 pump I believe is 900-1000 PSI and most R&P / borgenson like about 850psi max
Now the PSI value isn't the biggest issue isn't the flow rate from the pump. They are too high for these units.
The big plus the Flaming River gave me is the very heavy mounting bracket for the R&P, really provide great support to stiffen the front end frame. I use my car for track days so the stiffer frame support is a big plus.
Very helpful, thanks! I don't mind modding mine permanently and am even considering how I can shorten the steering column to get better u-joint angles. The concern I had was the "reduced turning radius" issue but finding out that it's just how people set up there R&P removes that concern.
I have the Steeroids on my 69 Big Block. No clearance issues with the Headman Headers.
I was and still am using 255 tires in front and they made contact with the frame rail. I don't really feel I lost turning radius.
I drive a big truck with a radius issue.
About 25 years ago, I got a C4 serp drive, a/c comp, p/s pump, large alt. etc, also converted to L98 injection.....
Moved to Florida in '97.......and so winter 01-02 I decided to mess with rack steering....tried some junkyard racks, and found the only one to work well was center take off...'89 F body?? anyway it's the one Steeroids uses.....but MY install is far superior to theirs.....better rack mounting, only two universal joints into the rack, and the cross support if on the upper control arms near the front A arm joints......of course Dual Spal fans.....so it went from 3.7 turns lock to lock, down to 2.7 turns and handles WELL, and I have a late shark column/wheel too.....and '89 wheels with 275/50 in rear and 255/50 in back.....taking an inch off the sidewalls height......
.tried some junkyard racks, and found the only one to work well was center take off...'89 F body?? anyway it's the one Steeroids uses.....
I don't see how it could have been off of an '89 F-body because 3rd gen F-bodies (82-92) used a steering box. Are you sure it didn't come off of a Grand Am? Everything I've read says that Steeriods (and the DIYers) use a 90s Grand Am rack.
Any pictures of your setup? I've been researching it heavily because if I go R&P, I'll be doing it myself. The steeroids brackets are flimsy and I can build the setup myself for a heck of a lot cheaper.
I don't see how it could have been off of an '89 F-body because 3rd gen F-bodies (82-92) used a steering box. Are you sure it didn't come off of a Grand Am? Everything I've read says that Steeriods (and the DIYers) use a 90s Grand Am rack.
Any pictures of your setup? I've been researching it heavily because if I go R&P, I'll be doing it myself. The steeroids brackets are flimsy and I can build the setup myself for a heck of a lot cheaper.
Over the years, I dunno if I have any pix or not left of my install, age 76 here and just had back surgery so really d'awnna get under there yet....sorry, I will check the drives and see about antique pix though..... and YES it's Grand Am rack....so mutch for my mammory.......
Over the years, I dunno if I have any pix or not left of my install, age 76 here and just had back surgery so really d'awnna get under there yet....sorry, I will check the drives and see about antique pix though..... and YES it's Grand Am rack....so mutch for my mammory.......
If you have them, that would be wonderful. If not, no worries. Did you do anything to shorten up your steering column and improve the u-joint angles?
If you have them, that would be wonderful. If not, no worries. Did you do anything to shorten up your steering column and improve the u-joint angles?
From up north yet, that late shark column was bought for only 25 bux or so....but don't fergit it was 1/4 century ago.....and so when mounting it, I made a wood spacer to keep the column to the rear off the firewall.....that and column collapse made the angles much superior....could the install been possible without the later column/collapse/install.....I have no clue.....
Just about every sports car built for the last 20 years has R&P steering now I wouldn't think that the Borgenson is a good upgrade from the stock box but I don't see it being to the level of a well setup R&P.
I agree that the aftermarket set ups need work to get them to work like an OEM setup.
I have to say that I have not driven a car with the Borgenson box and have only driven my car with a DIY R&P set up built by me and it is a huge improvement over the stock setup.
I have been very pleased with the Borgeson PS box. I coupled this with the Ridetech Strong Arm tie rod system and stiffener. I have a tall deck BBC (632) with 2 3/8” primary tube headers. Tight - but fits well. Car drives fantastic, has been just short of 200 mph in the mile events.
Which ever system you choose, you will likely be happy with it as long as it meets your objectives. Which is the best system is really personal choice. I went with a Steeriods set up and I'm glade I did. The system has exceeded my expectations, but read all the positive reports on the Borgeson power box set up. Very few people are likely to say I put in the XXX system and was unhappy, and even if they do say they are unhappy, then they would have their own reasons for their dislike of the system. On top of that, many of the users of the XXX system would dispute the negative comment saying they didn't have the problem.
So, my recommendations is decide what aspect of your steering you want to change, what about the system is truly important for you in changing the system, and what your budget is to spend on the up grade. That should answer the best system for you.
In choosing the Steeriods system, I wanted first to improve the low speed steering effort (parking lot), a modern system with the best steering response and a fairly simple installation. I believe a rack and pinion fit the bill for my preferences. I was least concerned for cost so while the cost for the system was high it has met my objectives. Just to be clear, a rack and pinion does eliminate the center / drag link and idler arm. So for me, I feel the reduction in steering components helps to improve the overall steering system responsiveness. Yes a rack can wear, I'd assume the same for a Borgeson steering box.
One final note, I fully rebuilt the front suspension prior to the rack install. New control arm bushings (rubber), new ball joints all around, new springs and shocks. This coupled with the Steeriods make my 73 feel like I'm driving a modern car. Good luck, Russ.
Last edited by rberman999; 08-22-2020 at 02:23 PM.
08-14-2020, 07:51 PM
Borgeson VS Steeroids/R&P setup
