HJ Ute Power Steering Conversion

[axistr]

Short arms power steer, long arms manual.

[Valencia]

Short arms power steer, long arms manual.

Cheers Lenny

[maxsandman]

I have fitted power steering to many HQ - Zs without changing the arms, and really didn't have any problems. From memory a lot of HQs had short arms with manual steering. And as the models continued, more manual steering vehicles were fitted with the long arms. But that could have been mostly utes & tonners that had the short arms...(once again from long time fried memory!).

Also most of the vehicles I converted years ago were extremely lowered and accuracy wasn't a priority.

I would have a chat to a front end specialist & let them give a pro & con on the steering arms

cheers
Max

[wbute]

You need the short arms or the turning circle is enormous.

[Dr Terry]

All HQ & HJ Holdens, up to around Feb/March 1976 had the short arms, both manual & power steer.

From then onwards manual steer cars got the longer arms to reduce the steering effort, due to the increased standard fitment of radial tyres.

This remained the same until the end of WB.

So you only need to change to the shorter arms when doing a p/st conversion on those cars built after Feb/March 1976.

Always make sure your p/st HQ-WB has the short arms fitted, otherwise the turning circle & toe-out on turns alignment will be incorrect.

Dr Terry

[axistr]

The shorter steering arms really didn't change the toe out on turns, both had perthitic angles. The short and long arms both had approximatly .5 degree toe out at 20 degrees. The short arms were for a quicker turn in due to the slightly quicker overall ratio. Holden failed miserably with the steering geometry. RTS or not.

The only way to improve this angle is to have the tie rod end hole in the steering arms further apart/outboard of the lower ball joint. But the brake disc clearance is not large enough to allow this for any worth while change. If they made the cars rear steer (behind the ball joints) moving the hole centres in would have been easy and they could have got the perfect steering angles. The Torana's suffered badly for the same reason. Doing a full lock U-turn in any of these vehicles and you will experience major tyre scrub and tyre squeal. I'm not sure what the overall difference in the turning circle between the two are, may depend on the steering box lock to lock turns and travel. I didn't think these cars had stops on the steering arms.?

[wbute]

Can’t give you a measurement for the increase in turning circle, only seat of the pants estimate. My WB ute still has the long arms on it, I haven’t changed them to short, it’s hopeless in any tight area now. Car parks were not great. The old HX Ute I have with 202 and non power steers way better around the sheds here, but I have never taken it anywhere at speed.
Overall, the WB was better without the power steering. It might be heaps better with the short arms though. Not about to find out anytime soon though, it hasn’t been out of the shed in two years.

[Sandman-SA]

Does anyone have the lengths of the short and long arms as to see what i have already.

[maxsandman]

Very approximately, should be close enough to work it out:

Short arm: 220mm long (full length, measured horizontally through the 3 holes)
90mm from centre of front mounting hole to centre tie rod mounting hole

Long arm: 250mm long
120mm front mounting hole to tie rod hole

hope this helps

cheers
Max

[Dr Terry]

The shorter steering arms really didn't change the toe out on turns, both had perthitic angles. The short and long arms both had approximatly .5 degree toe out at 20 degrees. The short arms were for a quicker turn in due to the slightly quicker overall ratio. Holden failed miserably with the steering geometry. RTS or not.

The only way to improve this angle is to have the tie rod end hole in the steering arms further apart/outboard of the lower ball joint. But the brake disc clearance is not large enough to allow this for any worth while change. If they made the cars rear steer (behind the ball joints) moving the hole centres in would have been easy and they could have got the perfect steering angles. The Torana's suffered badly for the same reason. Doing a full lock U-turn in any of these vehicles and you will experience major tyre scrub and tyre squeal. I'm not sure what the overall difference in the turning circle between the two are, may depend on the steering box lock to lock turns and travel. I didn't think these cars had stops on the steering arms.?

Totally agree, but I've found this to be worse on the longer wheelbase cars.

For example the 4-cyl HB/LC/LJ/TA Toranas toe-out on turns is almost OK, but when GM-H extended the wheelbase for the 6-cyl LC-LJ they didn't allow for the Ackerman angle change, so they are so much worse.

HQ-WB same. The 111-inch wheelbase sedans & coupes aren't too bad, but the LWB cars, utes, p/vans etc. are far worse, because nothing was altered in the front end geometry to allow for the increase in wheelbase. The One-Tonners with their 120.6-inch wheelbase are terrible.

On my own One-Tonner I have bent the steering as far out as clearance will allow & it has helped.

BTW the official spec for turning circle is 12.1m for the SWB cars, 12.3m for the LWB & 12.8m for the One-Tonner, with no difference listed between p/st & non-p/st cars.

Dr Terry