Steering: quick steering arms

[swvalcon]

For those of you that have added the quick steering arms on the gt hawks. Was the cost and labor worth the effert? Did it improve the drivablity of the car enough to do it?

[63 R2 Hawk]

I installed them on my '63 Hawk. IIRC, the cost was about $100USD for the arms. They are pretty easy to install, but I would recommend a GOOD air hammer with a round tapered chisel point. It took me about 1 hour to do mine. Needless to say, you will have to have the front end realigned when you are done but it should be close enough to be able to drive it a few miles to an alignment shop. They are not recommended for non-power steering cars. My steering is a little "stiff" when the car is stopped at idle though. I like them, car handles much better on the highway and steering feels tighter.

[PackardV8]

Yes, they're worth the effert ;>)

Just be aware the quick arms will also amplify any deficiencies in the rest of the suspension. If it wanders, it will wander quicker. If there are loose tie rod ends, you'll feel them more. Same with king pins, alignment, tires, wheel bearings, steering box.

jack vines

[swvalcon]

I'am going completely thought the front when I do the restoration on it this winter and just wondering if it was worth the investment of the new arms. Plan to go later model steel wheels and radial tires in place of the bias plys that are on it now. It came with factory power steering. Drives ok now but you can tell it needs work as it does wander a little at times. May just be the tires as they are real old.

[PackardV8]

Your Hawk should have the later kingpins, so when you have the front suspension aligned, have them crank in all the positive caster they can get.

jack vines

[Mike Van Veghten]

Hey Jack -

Would I need power steering too...?

Been thinking of this swap for a while, just too many other things going on. Now with this new 54 wagon to take the place of my 59 Lark, (which is one handed, no power steering)....I'd thought of putting these "bent" arms in.

Thanks

Mike

[PackardV8]

Hi, Mike,

As they say, "Your results may vary." You're a big strong guy, so PS wouldn't be required for normal driving. But then, I drove my '55 E12 for thirty years without PS. Once another guy tried to drive it and wore himself out trying to get it out of the parking lot. I had learned to always have a bit of forward or rearward momentum to "assist" before turning the steering wheel. Even on a stock pickup, with radial tires, it was really, really hard to turn the steering wheel at rest.

So yes, for wimmin and wimps, with the quick steering arms and modern wider radials, parallel parking, slow speed maneuvering on hot asphalt, PS is pretty much a necessity.

jack vines

[plwindish]

I was wondering about the quick steering arms for my 76 Avanti as I've been getting the suspension rebuilt. My mechanic advised against it as the steering moves are amplified making it more"twitchy". I decided wait and see how everything being rebuilt feels going the road. I did have some play from the steering box needing adjustment, so hopefully, everything will feel a lot tighter.

[63 R2 Hawk]

I am very satisfied with the steering improvement with the shorter arms, it has made the steering much more predictable/stable and eliminated most of the "wandering". Yes, I have new kingpins, bearings, tie rods etc. The steering is nowhere near "twitchy", at least not on my '63 Hawk. I wouldn't mind if the steering were just a little quicker but that would no doubt put even more strain on the ps components. BTW, I have 16"X8" wheels with 245-60-16 tires so there is more rubber meeting the road.

[Stude Ranch]

I have the quick stering on a 63 hawk. Heavy duty Camero shocks. All new bushings in suspension. New bearing in belcrank. tight tie rod ends. And yet when going over a bug "whoop dee do" at speed it seems to bump steer. In other words in order to keep going straight when the suspension is compressed, it requires a steering input, or it moves to one side and then back, if you don't. I don't kinow if this is due to the ancient stude geometry, or the quick steering arms. To me, an ametour, it seems to me that with the bellcrank in the center, that if the geometry were to change, it would change the same on both sides, and just change the toe in, and not steer on its own. I don't know how suspension compression affects camber, and if that could cause the bump steer? I know-- no answers here, just more questions. David

[Alan]

It toes in on compression and braking and toes out on acceleration and wheel droop. I measured almost a quarter of an inch in 8" of wheel travel.

[PackardV8]

As Alan says, over 8" of travel, the toe changes 1/4" and that's what causes the bump steer. Actually, that's much less variation than many other suspensions and the full 8" of travel is seldom to never experienced when leaning on it hard.

FWIW, a heavy duty front anti-roll bar, the kind which mounts to the frame, minimizes the bump steer effect. However, it will increase understeer, which then means a rear bar is needed to get back to good.

jack vines

[leyrret]

Not on forum much of late but can't recall a lot of complains about bump steer. Never experienced it with my Hawk. Incorrect toe setting and as Jack said, anything that would give you more than normal suspension travel Perhaps soft inner bushings. Alignment settings unequal causing one side to reaction more than the other. Maybe a combination of factors.
As a rule a heavy roll bar increases understeer but you need to consider suspension design and it's effect on camber gain. Being as we a talking Studebaker which by design tends to give a positive camber gain on compression it may actually help somewhat with understeer especially with negative caster. Anything which lessens the compression of suspension on a turn with the design would help.

[kirkdob]

I know the question regarded later model hawks, but on my 57 they sucked! With Coker radials, ford rims and a tight front end the freeway wander was horrible. They came off immediately.