Upgrade steering parts

[Dariusz Salomon]

Who drives 150+ miles an hour, into a rigid barrier, in a vehicle that has zero deliberate crumple-zone, while wearing 5- or 6-point seat belts?

A head-on collision between two normal passenger cars going 75+ mph (150+ mph closing speed) would put FAR less energy into the spine because there'd be enormously-more crumple area, and the ordinary seat belts wouldn't hold the body as rigidly.

As originally sold to the America Public, "Air Bags" were supposed to REPLACE seat belts. When they COULD NOT BE MADE TO WORK PROPERLY IN THE REAL WORLD, the Government took five steps back, punted, and pretended they were "supplemental" restraints. It's a political ******** move.

Even the folks who DO have the risk of hitting a reinforced concrete barrier at 150+ mph DON'T USE AIR BAGS FOR PROTECTION.

I'll say it again: Explosive devices in the passenger compartment are a bad idea.

I have to challenge the statement of "150 closing speed"-speeds on head on collisions don't add up-it's the same 75 mph collision for each car. How do I know that? Mythbusters. They were challenged on their statement(on speeds adding up) and tested it-and the damage was the same at 2 cars travelling at the same speed head on, as on one,which hit the stationary object/block with the same speed.

 

[MIHELA]

All of this safety discussion is funny considering the crash performance of our trucks. Here's one I saw at the junkyard last weekend. The whole body and frame was pushed inward about a foot. The trans crossmember was veed in the middle.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Supercharged111]

All of this safety discussion is funny considering the crash performance of our trucks. Here's one I saw at the junkyard last weekend. The whole body and frame was pushed inward about a foot. The trans crossmember was veed in the middle.

You must be registered for see images attach

Did you grab those seats?

 

[MIHELA]

The seats are BENT. Are they at all desirable? I bet you'd have a hell of a time even getting them unbolted at all.

 

[norton]

nobody used C3500 GM 26015779 steering shaft for 96+ models? ... for what i can see it has a GM coupling for steering box (safe and strong), U-joint then goes to an 1"DD shaft and a 3/4"DD insert for upper part...

i wouldn't use the intere part, used the lower with u-joint and put the 3/4"DD old upper steering, as Cunningham or Borgeson made for their universal steering for 95+ models

ask this because i don't like, and therefore i don't want to use, the poor one bolt fix to the groove Cunningham or Borgeson used for U-joint coupling to steering gear box.

I find it really absurd to use these strong parts
when you don't use an equally secure and strong connection

Someone that own the steering shaft GM 26015779 can give me some measure of the lower part from U-joint till the insert of 3/4"DD shaft of the upper part?

my doubt is that 26015779 lower steering shaft is too short, to be able to use it to insert the old 3/4" DD upper part

 

[Orpedcrow]

nobody used C3500 GM 26015779 steering shaft for 96+ models? ... for what i can see it has a GM coupling for steering box (safe and strong), U-joint then goes to an 1"DD shaft and a 3/4"DD insert for upper part...

i wouldn't use the intere part, used the lower with u-joint and put the 3/4"DD old upper steering, as Cunningham or Borgeson made for their universal steering for 95+ models

ask this because i don't like, and therefore i don't want to use, the poor one bolt fix to the groove Cunningham or Borgeson used for U-joint coupling to steering gear box.

I find it really absurd to use these strong parts
when you don't use an equally secure and strong connection

Someone that own the steering shaft GM 26015779 can give me some measure of the lower part from U-joint till the insert of 3/4"DD shaft of the upper part?

my doubt is that 26015779 lower steering shaft is too short, to be able to use it to insert the old 3/4" DD upper part

I still think the issue is having 3 u joints on the shaft NOT that it won’t fit. Universal joints DONT rotate at a constant velocity, they kind of pulse. With a constant input speed, the output side of the joint speeds up and slows down during its revolutions. 2 joints at the same angle and timed correctly cancels that variation in speed. The 3rd joint would put the assembly back out of time leading to binding and erratic steering. That’s not safe. The rag joint is in place of a 3rd u joint to make up the slight variations of angle you get because the body flexes on the frame.

 

[Orpedcrow]

I grabbed a universal rag joint kit from the parts store, ground and drilled out the rivets in my worn shaft then installed the new one with bolts and lock nuts. That was 7 years and about 60k miles ago, my truck doesn’t wallow around.

 

[norton]

for now installed a Lares 205 coupling rag joint replacement, not bad at all, but the rubber disk can be pinched/compressed much when install at Lares torque value of 11 lbs/ft, so pay attention when you torque the 2 bolts on RAG joint. a little compression on the rubber disk is needed but not much.

on 95+ models there are not alot degrees difference from lower and behind the firewall u-joint, but there is not a solid bearing tubing to the firewall and it can move some degrees when you turn wheel steering
...thanks, i didn't pay attention of this movement ...
think a short u-joint is better to use for this application, a vibration u-joint as Borgeson use on his 000301 part, is too long and give more off degrees movement of tubing to the firewall, also the GM 26015779 steering shaft u-joint is long, a short u-joint will be better, more closed to an original rag joint movement....

if in the future i will have to change the rag joint again i think to give a chance to a 30$ u-joint from ebay not bolted, but welded on 1"DD shaft tubing, with 2 bolts on steering gear box coupling, first bolted to the flat spot to eliminate the small play between the two spline couplings, and the other bolted to the groove to safe fix u-joint coupling in place

 

[xXxPARAGONxXx]

for now installed a Lares 205 coupling rag joint replacement, not bad at all, but the rubber disk can be pinched/compressed much when install at Lares torque value of 11 lbs/ft, so pay attention when you torque the 2 bolts on RAG joint. a little compression on the rubber disk is needed but not much.

I noticed the same so I backed the nuts off a bit as they were starting to pinch/compress the coupler too much.

 

[Orpedcrow]

I noticed the same so I backed the nuts off a bit as they were starting to pinch/compress the coupler too much.

Nah, 1/4 turn before it breaks…