• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

Randall rack install...

  • Thread starter Thread starter dbfarr
  • Start date Start date Sep 30, 2005
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next
First Prev 3 of 5 Next Last
6

66Runt

Member
Jun 11, 2005
680
2
18
Jan 27, 2006
#41
  • Jan 27, 2006
  • #41
And Canada isn't the 51st State?

06cobra said:
Randall Racks is out of Canada
Click to expand...

But seriously, I guess what I should have said was North America (Not USA).
I'm all about spreading the wealth...on our continent.

Anyway, The rack install went well. Had to do a little tweeking to get the full turning radius possible. I'm within 1/8" of hitting the stops on both sides now. It is so smooth and tight. Doing a bunch of other work and was only able to do a couple of figure 8's out in front of the house.
Here is a thread with a couple of pictures of the brackets and a shot of the rack from the front.
http://www.mustangforums.com/m_962643/tm.htm

As a side note, Randy is looking to incorporate a Z-bar bracket into the drivers side mounting bracket. That would be really clean and strong. Much better than my "hack" job.

Scott
 

RGS0907

New Member
Aug 21, 2003
429
1
0
New Jersey
Feb 5, 2006
#42
  • Feb 5, 2006
  • #42
Turning Radius

66Runt said:
But seriously, I guess what I should have said was North America (Not USA).
I'm all about spreading the wealth...on our continent.

Anyway, The rack install went well. Had to do a little tweeking to get the full turning radius possible.
Scott
Click to expand...

I wish that I could drive a before & after. I am really curious how bad the turning radius issue is... Do you need to turn the wheel more to turn a corner?
 
6

66Runt

Member
Jun 11, 2005
680
2
18
Feb 5, 2006
#43
  • Feb 5, 2006
  • #43
Steering wheel turns less

Lock to lock is just under 3 turns. So you would actually turn the wheel less. This also makes the steering "quicker", hence MDjays post about being too quick for his liking.

After spending a bunch of time to tweek things, I'm within 1/8" of hitting the steering stops each way. Took some work to get it all balanced, but I haven't lost much at all that I could tell from what little I've driven it. I just pulled out the rear end for the 8.8 swap, so I won't be able to drive it for a while.
When I get it all done, I plan to test the turning radius. I'll post the results, and hopefully someone will post the stock numbers. I forgot to check before I tore down the car.
 

dbfarr

Member
Sep 17, 2005
191
0
17
Boise ID
Sep 18, 2006
#44
  • Sep 18, 2006
  • #44
One year later

Ok, so things got sticky during the original install. At the time this was our only car and taking pictures and writing were just options that got lost in the shuffle.

So here we are a year later, the rack has been used daily and is still functioning quite well. Nonetheless, as you can see from the photos, the oil pan needed to be dropped. So, some photos regarding how the system works over the long term seemed appropriate.

This is from the passenger side under the car. The inner tie rod boots didn't hold up so well, I am looking to replace them soon.



Here is the original passenger side view of the steering.

.

Here are the mounting points in comparison



Here are the driver side mounts. Note that if you hit a curb, you get to put a new inner tie rod on. Anyone who owns this rack and wants to let me know how they installed their inners would recieve my gratitude. I ended up at the machine shop, the guy used a lathe to align them. 66Runt, anyone??



And one thing I thought I'd mention, if you have welded your header ram extension, you get to cut it off...




So, I have to reinstall the rack soon, or after the new pan goes in. If you have specific requests for angles/information let me know and I'll do what I can.

 

Attachments

  • passunder.webp
    51.7 KB · Views: 195
  • passold.webp
    36.8 KB · Views: 183
  • passsidemount.webp
    43.2 KB · Views: 171
  • drivesidemount.webp
    35.4 KB · Views: 181
  • pain.webp
    28.9 KB · Views: 228

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
Sep 19, 2006
#45
  • Sep 19, 2006
  • #45
Pros:
Cost.
Ease of installation(?).

Cons:
It looks heavy.
Also appears to have poor ground clearance.
What's the deal with the bent outers?
 
B

bnickel

Founding Member
Aug 21, 2002
5,640
3
77
lubbock, texas
Sep 19, 2006
#46
  • Sep 19, 2006
  • #46
Edbert said:
Pros:
Cost.
Ease of installation(?).

Cons:
It looks heavy.
Also appears to have poor ground clearance.
What's the deal with the bent outers?
Click to expand...

edbert, the bent adjusting sleeves are supposed to help with bumpsteer i believe. they may work well but i'm with you i don't exactly like that method however, he offers more than one centerlink option and you can actually use a modified stock centerlink. not sure how heavy the randalls kit but i can tell you that a tcp power rack is no lightweight, i have one sitting in my garage that i got an unbelieveable deal on on ebay and it's pretty damn heavy actually. i think i'd still rather use the randall's rack kit.
 
6

66Runt

Member
Jun 11, 2005
680
2
18
Sep 19, 2006
#47
  • Sep 19, 2006
  • #47
My kit is a little different

in regards to the tie rod sleeves mine are straight. This did necessitate beveling the trailing edge of the cross brace starting about 3.5" in from the end on each side. Otherwise the tie rods would have hit at full lock with the suspension fully extended. Like coming out of a tight corner hard on the gas (think auto-x). Not cutting back the cross brace would have limited the turning radius in this condition.

As to replacing the inner tie rod, I'm not sure what your question is. I tapped the inner tie rod mounting nut to accept an allen set screw. For me to replace the inner tie rod end, all I'd need to do is remove the set screw. Unscrew the inner tie rod mount nut, then screw the tie rod out of the sleeve. The sleeve remains lock nutted to the outer tie rod.

Whose brand are your tie rods? Mine are Moog and the rubber is still in really nice shape. Then again, I've only had about 6 months and 1,500 sunny dry miles to abuse the car

For Edbert, The cross brace sits above the height of a road race pan, and as it sits between the front wheels is not an issue over bumps driveways, etc. As to weight. Not sure how it compares to the TCP, but it does replace the stock cross member. All up I'd guess it's somewhere between even money and 5 lbs heavier as compared to stock.
The only *real* advantage I can see for TCP is the steering is not as quick. According to Psydwaze there is slightly more than 3 turns lock to lock. Randall's Rack is about 45 degrees short of 3 turns. Makes a very quick steering car.

HTH,
 

dbfarr

Member
Sep 17, 2005
191
0
17
Boise ID
Sep 19, 2006
#48
  • Sep 19, 2006
  • #48
My experiences

By the way, my application is a 68 cougar.


Pros:
Cost.
Ease of installation(?).

Cons:
It looks heavy.
Also appears to have poor ground clearance.
What's the deal with the bent outers?

Pros:

It is cheaper,...

In my experience, the rack is much easier to install as compared to the original system; especially with headers. Installing the old steering gear is not much fun with headers, twisting the gear around and about while trying to get it past the headers is dificult. The Randall's rack bolts in at six places, two at the crossmember mounts, two at the idler arm mounts, and two at the steering gear mounts. It is adjustable if your frame, read: mine, is a little tweaked.

The feel of the steering is excellent, I would recomend going with Randy's pump or using a gm pump and finding/fabricating mounts as the stock pump makes the steering way too easy. The rack travels smoothly and presents no bump steer by itself.

Cons:

I think the ship wieght of the entire system was 55 pounds. Seems about the same as the old system. The rack itself is not heavy, it is the steel crossmember/mounting that seems to create wieght.

My old crossmember had a number of hits on it from ground collisions. The rack has no scratches from ground collisions whatsoever, it appears that it clears better.

The bent outers sleeves are included for 67/68 kits in order for the tie rod assembly to clear the rack's crossmember. This is a point I've had some trouble with. Alignment tech's seem to fail to understand that the sleeve needs to be level and pointed towards the rear of the car. Also, the fact that the inner tie rods have to be adjusted instead of the sleeves seems to freak these guys out a little. Unfortunately, shop labor goes for much higher rates out here, so alignments can either get costly or be a pain to get them done right. Finally, if you hit a curb, one of your inners will bend. Period. It doesn't matter which brand, Moog, autozone cheapie, whatever, you bought. I bent a Moog, and then a cheapie, all the same. Of course, it's not to say that the Moogs don't last longer or hold up better, just that they bend just as easily.

My problem is that the inner tie rod ends use a very fine thread. I can't seem to get them seated without stripping threads. I am not referring to the threads which attach to the sleeves, but those which attach to the centerlink.

The rubber boots came apart. Of course, I installed them differently than I was advised to... I pulled the entire inner portion over the innder sleeve of the inner tie rod instead of cinching them down with zip ties. Also, the passenger side got chewed up from the retaining bolt on the starter. I turned the bolt around and the problem was resolved.

Anybody want different angles for the pics? If so, which?
 
6

66Runt

Member
Jun 11, 2005
680
2
18
Sep 19, 2006
#49
  • Sep 19, 2006
  • #49
I'd much rather have the inner tie rod bend. It's cheap

Yeah, the threads are fine. I keep a real light touch, and make sure I get at least one full easy turn by hand. The other thing that can throw you off is not having the tie rod and nut in a straight line.
You hit the nail on the head for why the boots tore too. That was an easy fix.
I am going back and welding up the whole bracket assembly though. Once installed there's no need to have all the brackets bolt together anymore. I will also fill and chamfer the two mounting holes that use the stock chamfered bolts. At that point I will tie it to the LCA mounts. This will really strengthen the whole front frame structure, for very little additional weight. The whole thing will still bolt in, and be one solid structure. (IMO) this is a huge advantage over the TCP setup.
I didn't do that originally because I wasn't sure if my car was straight. Now that I've had a 4 wheel alignment check, I'm good to go.

Scott
 

67Thunder

New Member
Jun 19, 2005
101
0
0
Vancouver, Canada
Sep 19, 2006
#50
  • Sep 19, 2006
  • #50
You mentioned oil pan, did you have an oil pan clearance issues ( I have a 428 with the cobra Tee pan)
 

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
Sep 20, 2006
#51
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #51
Good to hear about the clearance, must have been an optical illusion on the photograph (which is why I said "appears to have"). Carry on guys, good work!
 
6

69merc

New Member
Oct 11, 2002
8
0
0
St. Louis
Sep 20, 2006
#52
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #52
Just thought I'd chime in. I installed Randalls Rack in my 69 Cougar (351W, hooker comp headers, Canton 9 quart road race pan) about a month ago. Install was super easy (no clearance issues even with the big pan). Car drives like a new car...finally. I am using Randalls pump and like the feel of the steering. I did loose 3 ft of turning radius like Randall informed me that I would (not a real big deal in my opinion). I've made a couple 100 mile road trips and some blasts down the quarter mile and I'm very happy. Next some autocossing! I'll gladly answer any questions or send some pics if needed.
 
B

bnickel

Founding Member
Aug 21, 2002
5,640
3
77
lubbock, texas
Sep 20, 2006
#53
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #53
pics would be awesome
 

dbfarr

Member
Sep 17, 2005
191
0
17
Boise ID
Sep 20, 2006
#54
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #54
Oil pan

67Thunder said:
You mentioned oil pan, did you have an oil pan clearance issues ( I have a 428 with the cobra Tee pan)
Click to expand...

No, there are no clearance issues. However, I have a stock pan and a 302 block. Still, it seems that there are no problems with the windsors.

My original oil pan suffers from thread insert failure at the plug. Besides, I am in the middle of replacing the timing chain, and everthing else in front of it, so lowering the oil pan to ensure proper installation of the on piece oil pan gasket is not a bad idea; especially since the cover took the old one piece, an entire year old..., with it.
 
6

69merc

New Member
Oct 11, 2002
8
0
0
St. Louis
Sep 21, 2006
#55
  • Sep 21, 2006
  • #55
Here are some pics of my install.
 

Attachments

  • rack-oilpan-post.gif
    74.7 KB · Views: 296
  • steering-column-post.gif
    59.9 KB · Views: 300
6

66Runt

Member
Jun 11, 2005
680
2
18
Sep 22, 2006
#56
  • Sep 22, 2006
  • #56
Finally added a page on the web site to cover the rack install

and all the mods to the front suspension.
It's Page 6 of the web site in my signature. I might try and take a couple more shots, as I've got the car up on ramps and stands in the rear, so you can see the relationships at ride height.

69Merc, Looks sweet with that Canton oil pan.
 

dbfarr

Member
Sep 17, 2005
191
0
17
Boise ID
Sep 22, 2006
#57
  • Sep 22, 2006
  • #57
nice page

Very nice install Scott. I'm impressed!

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2400202/6
 
6

69merc

New Member
Oct 11, 2002
8
0
0
St. Louis
Sep 22, 2006
#58
  • Sep 22, 2006
  • #58
66Runt, nice website and car! I need to update mine with new engine and randalls rack install.
Yeah, I was concerned about clearance issues with the Canton pan (drain plug in back even!), but Randall was very cool in helping me measure dimensions before even buying the rack. And if it didnt fit he would gladly take it back and refund me. More than happy with the rack and the customer service.

jim

www.geocities.com/mercury_coug_69
 
6

66Runt

Member
Jun 11, 2005
680
2
18
Sep 22, 2006
#59
  • Sep 22, 2006
  • #59
there are great people in Mustangs

Thanks for the compliments. Guys like Randy, and John (AKA Opentracker) and Jay from Mustang depot have been really helpful. And there is a wealth of knowledgable folks and info on this forum. This is probably the funest build I've done. All the rest were way too formal and almost snobish, where the emphasis was on form. Seems like classic Mustang folk are much more relaxed, willing to share and just out to have fun.
Ronstang is (going?) to be working on a rack that he is pretty sure will not degrade turning radius. I think that would be really great. If I ever get the engine and roll bar in, I'll probably revisit this rack. I really like the cradle on this kit. Welded up with attachments to the LCA points and you'd have one seriously solid structure. I think it would be an excellent base to mount any rack.
From working with Randy, I think he'd be open to looking at alternatives for future upgrades as well. When I sent him pictures of the install with the clutch linkage, he figured out a better way and is looking to incorporate that into the bracket for folks buying his rack in the future.
I thought that was pretty smart on his part.
 
T

truck90278

New Member
Jun 4, 2006
382
1
0
Redondo Beach, CA
Sep 24, 2006
#60
  • Sep 24, 2006
  • #60
66Runt said:
and all the mods to the front suspension.
It's Page 6 of the web site in my signature. I might try and take a couple more shots, as I've got the car up on ramps and stands in the rear, so you can see the relationships at ride height.

69Merc, Looks sweet with that Canton oil pan.
Click to expand...

Good pics at the website. Have you been happy with the operation of the Classic Auto Air system as far as gotting cold etc.?
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next
First Prev 3 of 5 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
SN95 Another Coyote swap list
  • catkiller
  • May 10, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
84
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 10, 2026
catkiller
C
E
Finished my Fox Hydroboost Install - Tips
  • Engineer Duane
  • Apr 9, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 5, 2025
Engineer Duane
E
S
what would you do? sell the project and buy completed or finish project?
  • STANG32
  • Feb 8, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
577
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 16, 2025
rusty428cj
For Sale 3-owner 1987 Mustang GT, $18K obro, Lancaster CA
  • Bill Cool
  • Oct 6, 2024
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
4
Views
2K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Oct 13, 2024
nickyb
Progress Thread H/C Swap Problems/Ideas
  • sav22rem22
  • Mar 31, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
10
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Sep 10, 2024
AeroCoupe
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?