Topic: Power Steering Hoses

[C5ZZ]

I may have a few original hoses here that I'll take
a look at to see how they are stamped.

[Pete Bush]

The MPC says that '66 hoses were 1/2" longer than '65 hoses on 6-cylinder cars. I believe that Ford was seeing failures and increased the length to reduce some of the stress. I have an idea why these hoses are different lengths for 1966 6-cylinders:

I found a reference that talked about the length of aftermarket hoses and the relationship of rubber to metal tubing. It seems that if the rubber portion is too short and it is forced into a helical steering movement it puts more stress on the rubber and crimp connection; possibly causing premature failure.

Here's my reasoning:
6-cylinder cars had a slightly smaller front wheel track than 8-cylinders, 55.4" to 56" respectively. Also when the inside wheel was turned to 20 degrees the outside wheel of a power steering 6-cylinder was at a sharper 20-1/8 degrees, while the 8-cylinder was at 18-3/4 degrees. I don't believe the turning radius of both models were the reported 38.90 feet. The 6-cylinder likely had a sharper turning radius given the above specifications, and Ford realized they had to lengthen the hose for the '66 model year to adjust for the stress being put on these hoses by the tighter turning radius.

Thoughts?

[C5ZZ]

Interesting information!

I'm sure of course you know that the power steering control valve,
centerlink etc is much different on a 6 cyl car compared to a V8 version
for 65/66 so since it's a different design might be hard to compare?

I have a couple of 6 cyl power steering linkage assy's that I'll look at
and check the hoses for the different lengths, didn't realize that
they are different.

[Pete Bush]

I'm sure of course you know that the power steering control valve,
centerlink etc is much different on a 6 cyl car compared to a V8 version
for 65/66 so since it's a different design might be hard to compare?

Yes, but I was comparing the '65 6-cylinders to the '66 6-cylinders. While the rest of the hardware seems to be the same, the hoses are longer. Just trying to account for the modification.

[C5ZZ]

I took a look at my 6 cyl power steering linkage assys and all
the fittings (crimp area) is about half as long as the ones you
have pictured. They were rusted that I wasn't able to find a
part number on them but I feel they are the originals.
Maybe the ones you have are a newer version than what
was used at the factory originally.

[Pete Bush]

I don't know if you're in a position to measure yours, but the crimp sleeve on my pair measure about 1-19/32". Maybe a different supplier?

[jwc66k]

I took a look at my 6 cyl power steering linkage assys and all the fittings (crimp area) is about half as long as the ones you have pictured.

One of the reasons I listed was "manufacturing procedures (read government mandated "improvements")" which in this case is the longer fillings on newer hose assemblies. The same "government mandate" applies to brake hoses.
Jim

[Pete Bush]

In my first post I mentioned that the Scott Drake repop's of these hoses had crimp fittings that were shorter, but otherwise had the same tooling. I haven't been able to decipher the additional 4 digits in the stamping to understand whether it represents a date code.

Jim, do you have a date when the "government mandated changes" were implemented?

What about the rubber hose itself? Is it ribbed or smooth?

[jwc66k]

- do you have a date when the "government mandated changes" were implemented?

All I remember is that the requirement was to double crimp the hose to the fitting. I don't know when it became manditory but I think in the late 60's or early 70's. If you use the search feature here and enter "rear brake hose" you will get hints about the crimping.
Jim

[C5ZZ]

I don't know if you're in a position to measure yours, but the crimp sleeve on my pair measure about 1-19/32". Maybe a different supplier?

The crimp sleeve on mine measures 29/32" with a single crimp that is 1/8" wide,
doesn't seem like much so I can sure see the reason for the change.

[Andrew@MagMustangs]

The Double Crimped Ends were instituted in 1970, IIRC

[Pete Bush]

I've been making some progress with my research that I though I would share:

Attached is a picture of an original 1966 Dearborn 6-cylinder power steering rack I purchased recently.

Second is a picture comparison of three power steering hoses. The hose on the left is the original C5DZ 3A717-A hose from the above rack. It's single crimped and the rubber is smooth except for three ribs that run its length. This hose appears to be the same as one pictured that Steve sent me.

The hose in the middle is a NOS C5DZ 3A717-A hose I bought yesterday. It is the same as the original hose, except the rubber is ribbed completely around its circumference. And along with the paper wrapper around its middle identifying the part number, the part number is also stamped in very small characters about 1/16" high on the bottom fitting.

The hose on the right is the C3DZ 3A717-A  I described earlier in this thread. I believe it to be a used NOS replacement. I'd like you to compare it to the Scott Drake replacements in the next picture. The fittings appear to be the same. And despite the size, the crimp is a single crimp.

The last picture is one of aftermarket hoses with double crimps.

[C5ZZ]

Pete,
Great information, looks like the NOS C5DZ hose is a close match,
I'll have to keep an eye out for some myself.

For those that will use them the newer style hoses with the longer
crimp area may have a problem fitting well since it's not flexible in
that area compared to the original.

[Pete Bush]

Steve,

There's a difference in the overall length of the hoses, too - with the C5DZ being longer than the C3DZ by about 1 inch. Really happy with the NOS find. I got a NOS pump to control valve pressure hose, too. And it looks exactly like the original.

Did you notice the paint markings on the center link?

[J_Speegle]

Did you notice the paint markings on the center link?

Might be wrecking yard marks  sometimes mistaken for factory