Power steering

[arcturus]

Don't. I have the Vauxhall system on my 144 and regretted it ever since.Switching it off doesn't give back the road feel.

[Burdekin]

If it means using the car and not using it then it’s a no brainer.

Only professional ones I’ve seen installed are the EZ. There was a guy who’s business was to fit them and he would come to you and do it. Back in the early days they were said to be the Corsa C PAS. No idea if that is true.

A system with good speed / resistance would be the ideal. You use to be able to buy a wee control system from eBay which controlled the resistance with a knob, turn it up to park and down for the motorway etc. Not sure if you can buy a speed controller these days so it does it all automatically for you.

There might also be power steering boxes out there that could be adapted, never see anyone do it though. Also never seen anyone properly fit rack and pinion to a RHD car either. Electric PAS is probably the easiest route for you.

The system you referenced looks good from a glance, have you spoken to them? Can you try it out and see what it is like. You may need to upgrade your alternator and battery as well so check that with them. https://www.dcemotorsport.com/Home/EPAS

[sleek lemur]

142, great education on caster etc! That explains a lot.

EZ system assistance is speed sensitive. I have no issues with steering feel either.

[Burdekin]

Originally Posted by sleek lemur

142, great education on caster etc! That explains a lot.

EZ system assistance is speed sensitive. I have no issues with steering feel either.

How much is it for the kit and for installation if you don’t mind sharing? Have you got yours on a P1800? The Mrs enjoys driving the cars but two things she would like is retractable belts and power steering.

[sleek lemur]

£1,785 inc Vat. Which is definitely at the top end of what is available, but it comes with clear instructions and seems high quality. Mine is on an 1800E.

[Derek UK]

A good explanation from 142. With the 240, the lower outer front suspension joints are different for PAS and non PAS. This makes the caster different as mentioned. Any car that was not originally fitted with PAS might have it optimised for that. "Our" cars which have models with and without PAS may also have different joints. There aren't many of these and maybe Volvo didn't address this until the 240. Exploring the parts books might find something. It could be that different lower A arms could use the same ball joints to do the same thing but different ball joints would be simpler and cheaper.

[Burdekin]

Originally Posted by Derek UK

A good explanation from 142. With the 240, the lower outer front suspension joints are different for PAS and non PAS. This makes the caster different as mentioned. Any car that was not originally fitted with PAS might have it optimised for that. "Our" cars which have models with and without PAS may also have different joints. There aren't many of these and maybe Volvo didn't address this until the 240. Exploring the parts books might find something. It could be that different lower A arms could use the same ball joints to do the same thing but different ball joints would be simpler and cheaper.

The 164 had power steering Derek but don’t know much about it personally. Think folk have retrofitted it to the 140 but not heard anyone do it to the Amazons.

[142 Guy]

Originally Posted by Derek UK

A good explanation from 142. With the 240, the lower outer front suspension joints are different for PAS and non PAS. This makes the caster different as mentioned. Any car that was not originally fitted with PAS might have it optimised for that. "Our" cars which have models with and without PAS may also have different joints. There aren't many of these and maybe Volvo didn't address this until the 240. Exploring the parts books might find something. It could be that different lower A arms could use the same ball joints to do the same thing but different ball joints would be simpler and cheaper.

The 240 is a slightly different kettle of fish with the Strut front suspension. Caster is technically not adjustable so perhaps Volvo had alternate lower control arms with less 'designed in' caster to reduce steering effort. I have never driven a 240 without power steering and wasn't aware that they were produced.

The 140 parts book does list different lower A arms; but, they are associated with bias ply or radial ply tire fitment. 648765 / 648766 are for bias ply and 648767 / 648768 are for radial fitment. The only reference (non Volvo) that I have found indicates that the bias ply versions were fitted up to 1969; but, the parts manual does not indicate a change by chassis number so who knows? The references that I can find indicate that the recommended alignment settings did not change during the production run (at least up to 1972) so I don't know what the change in A arm for bias versus radial was to accomplish. The steering knuckle did change twice during the production run; but, these were all early changes before the production numbers got past 5 digits.

The parts manual does include the power steering option for the 140; however, as far as I could determine there were no suspension component changes associated with power steering.

Unlike the 240, the 140 with upper and lower wishbones and the shim adjustments on the upper wishbones is adjustable for both caster and camber. The service manual does not specify limits on the adjustability; but, I have seen pictures and read first hand reports of some pretty extreme stacks of shims, mostly in aid of increased negative camber. I went back and looked at my notes from my wheel alignment that I did on the car. Unfortunately, as much as I can decipher from my chicken scratches, I do not have a record of total shim thickness. I just recorded the initial camber and caster and the change in shim thickness required to get the results I wanted.

From my final scratches it appears that I ended up with a camber of approximately - 0.5 deg and casters of 1.6 deg (L) and 1.8 deg (R) with a final toe in of what looks like 2 mm. My stack of shims is modest compared to what I have seen which probably reflects my rather modest -0.5 deg of camber. At the end, I know I was fiddling with 1/32" shims to get the alignment values in the correct range.

[142 Guy]

Originally Posted by Burdekin

A system with good speed / resistance would be the ideal. You use to be able to buy a wee control system from eBay which controlled the resistance with a knob, turn it up to park and down for the motorway etc. Not sure if you can buy a speed controller these days so it does it all automatically for you.
[/url]

When I was initially exploring the EPS option, I did see the eBay 'controllers' that you are probably referencing. From my recollection, these controllers were essential a 555 integrated circuit timer configured as an adjustable astable multivibrator. If they are no longer available the parts to fabricate one would cost about $5 depending on how fancy you wanted it to look. This system worked with early EPS contollers which operated on pulse based speed signals typically associated with early electronic speedometers. I think the Corsa and GM / Saturn column EPS systems used those types of speed signals as did the rack integrated EPS systems used on Honda products (and probably others).

The 2008 Versa column EPS I am using and I expect the Toyota Prius and most recent EPS units have dropped the pulse speed signal and use a speed signal provided over the vehicle CAN network. Electronic hardware costs being what they are these days, you could probably purchase a GPS receiver and one board controller such as a Teensy for around $60 and program it to upload vehicle speed over the CAN to the EPS unit for variable assist. If you were inclined, you could shape the speed signal dumped on to the CAN to taper off assist if you wanted. If you were so inclined for $10 you could add an LCD display for a GPS speed signal if you don't trust your speedometer.

The biggest impediment to me doing this is that Nissan and their suppliers don't make things like their CAN protocol and the memory location for the speed variable freely available. If you had a working car, a logic analyser and some spare time you could probe the CAN bus to figure this out. Aside from my lack of an analyser the Versa that the EPS unit came out of was decidedly non operational.

[Burdekin]

Originally Posted by 142 Guy

The 240 is a slightly different kettle of fish with the Strut front suspension. Caster is technically not adjustable so perhaps Volvo had alternate lower control arms with less 'designed in' caster to reduce steering effort. I have never driven a 240 without power steering and wasn't aware that they were produced.

The 140 parts book does list different lower A arms; but, they are associated with bias ply or radial ply tire fitment. 648765 / 648766 are for bias ply and 648767 / 648768 are for radial fitment. The only reference (non Volvo) that I have found indicates that the bias ply versions were fitted up to 1969; but, the parts manual does not indicate a change by chassis number so who knows? The references that I can find indicate that the recommended alignment settings did not change during the production run (at least up to 1972) so I don't know what the change in A arm for bias versus radial was to accomplish. The steering knuckle did change twice during the production run; but, these were all early changes before the production numbers got past 5 digits.

The parts manual does include the power steering option for the 140; however, as far as I could determine there were no suspension component changes associated with power steering.

Unlike the 240, the 140 with upper and lower wishbones and the shim adjustments on the upper wishbones is adjustable for both caster and camber. The service manual does not specify limits on the adjustability; but, I have seen pictures and read first hand reports of some pretty extreme stacks of shims, mostly in aid of increased negative camber. I went back and looked at my notes from my wheel alignment that I did on the car. Unfortunately, as much as I can decipher from my chicken scratches, I do not have a record of total shim thickness. I just recorded the initial camber and caster and the change in shim thickness required to get the results I wanted.

From my final scratches it appears that I ended up with a camber of approximately - 0.5 deg and casters of 1.6 deg (L) and 1.8 deg (R) with a final toe in of what looks like 2 mm. My stack of shims is modest compared to what I have seen which probably reflects my rather modest -0.5 deg of camber. At the end, I know I was fiddling with 1/32" shims to get the alignment values in the correct range.

My 142 has the latter model top wishbone, I think the difference is the size of the ball joint but there might be other differences but I’m not sure. The difference in the lower I think was the type of bushes used, but again not sure as just a newbie to the 140s.