I am really in need of some input on this one guys;

Here is the deal; My 68 just does not drive, track, or act right at all!

I have had the car for about two years now. When I got it home, it was in need of a front end rebuild. (two years ago, but less than 1000 miles)

I bought all new MOOG components to include upper and lower control arm bushings, upper and lower ball joints, new Idler arm, new steering arm, (which I noticed was bit longer than the one I took off; parts guy said it was no issue though?) Sway bar bushings, and the like. I also lowered the front end a touch by cutting the coil springs 1/2 turn with a die grinder.

The front rims are 14x7 Rally wheels with (for now, 205-75-14 Uniroyal tires) I plan to replace with BFG 235-60-14 later.

All items were assembled (just like I have always done before) and since then, it seemed to have too much play in the front end. I had it aligned at a shop. It seemed to track very poorly, and the front end would "Dive" into either a right or, left hand turn; so much so it was pretty un-nerving. I thought this was from too much play in the wheel (box)

I determined that the steering box had about 1 1/2 - 2" of play in it. So I replaced the steering box with a Rebuilt unit from "Red Head Steering Gears" out of Seattle. It is a quick ratio box. It responds immediately to all steering input now.

After I installed the box, I had it aligned again. when the tech came to give me the car back, he said that the front end was REALLY tight...... he was right, if you go into a turn, and let go of the wheel it will not return (almost like NO caster at all) furthermore, it still tracks horribly, (seems to get caught in EVERY little deviation in the road surface) and is so touchy now with that new box that the slightest movement of the wheel equates to like a 10-15 turn angle and off you go.....that gets hairy above 40-50 mph.

So here I am; basically all new front end parts, and it drives like crap. It is actually no fun at speed, and on heavy acceleration the front end gets light and really gets nuts.

So;

Suggestions;

1. Why so tight? (overly tight steering box, too tight on castle nuts?......)
2. Why no return? (poor caster settings? Too tight to return?..........)
3. Why so twitchy and OVER responsive? (combination of too long steering arm with fast ratio box? too narrow of tires on wide rims?)
4. Why so sketchy on heavy acceleration?

I would not assume that the addition of a quick ratio box should be so hugely pronounced; they came on a lot of cars..........????

I know none of you can give perfect answers since you can't see it, but suggestions may just be what I need to go "Oh Yea" that's it!

I really want to enjoy driving my car again....especially with the new motor in it!

My guess is the steering arm is over-steering the box and vrs.

Just found this old post: Maybe me?

What is "Bump Steer"

What happens if I use the longer (5.75" center of hole to center of
>stud) pitman arm to replace a current 5.25" one on a '69 Firebird?
>It seems they made different lengths for different ratio power steering
>boxes.

Erratic handling due to bump steer, BAD idea. Not as bad if you
changed the idler arm also. Why do you want to do this?
If you are looking to quicken your steering you may be able to use a
quicker box. There were several different ratios.

alright, so I have researched the "Bump Steer" and that really seems to fit my issue........on the road at speed I have to constantly adjust/input/ correct the wheel, On acceleration that would explain the erratic characteristics.......etc....tell me if Y'all agree.........

I just found my receipt for the parts and I was sold this: Pitman, PS , long, Moog# 6582 New production run, no grease fitting - Currently available at any auto parts store that sells Moog parts. I am pretty sure (positive) my old one was about 5.25" long....parts guys said it should not matter?

this you tube video looks like me on the highway

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=bump+steer&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=zamPSZrGDJnMsAPJ_OWSCQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

I seem to remember I did not have this issue prior to the new parts....

Seems like I need the shorted steering (pitman) arm back, and be sure that my idler arm is correct as well. (the one I was sold is a K6099, which shows correct for ALL 67-69) ??

More advice..........

if you used the stock alignment specs, that's probably your problem.
modern radial tires don't like the same alignment specs for the old bias ply tires these cars had when they were built.

My guess is alignment....
http://www.pozziracing.com/first_gen_suspension.htm#Alignment%20specs

Use the alignment specs on my web page.
Jack up the front wheels off the ground and turn the wheels left and right without engine running. Any binding?

If the idler arm was put on and tightened to the subframe before the center link was attached, it could be binding. Loosen the idler at the frame and let it self-align to the center link. You changed the steering box and idler, so the both have to be at the same angle to the center link.

If the lower A arm to frame bolts were tightened without the car on it's wheels, there can be binding in the bushings and it can hold the car up and cause some weird handling.

The anti-roll bar end links should not be over tightened if they are poly, the arm ends should be close to level, - perhaps a bit high on a lowered car. It can cause a wobbily feeling at freeway speeds. I doubt bumpsteer is doing anything when going straight ahead, it's a cornering issue, or when hitting the brakes super hard. I have seen sway bar end links that were WAY too short, like half of what they should be.

Self return of the power steering does not happen very well or not at all on the fast ratio boxes. If you align the car with max caster, it will help, but it will not be like the old box.
David

Be sure the idler arm and Pitman arm are of the same length as this will correctly turn the wheels in a corner.

If one arm is shorter, the wheel will take a different arc than designed and the tire will skid through the turn. Its called Ackerman steering.

After you do all the suggestions Dave suggests, you might add a couple 1/8 inch shims, can be gotten from local atuo store or alignment shop, and add two shims to the rear upper control arm bolt per side. This will change caster for the better and may help in straight line tracking. The most caster one can get from a stock set-up is 3°.

Yes, with a fast ratio box, return will be worse to non-existant.

I had a '68 w/bias tires and just completed an alignment by, at the time, Sears. I took it onto the highway and placed the front left wheel on the middle of the lane. Car followed the peak including going around curves - a good alignment done and expected results.

Jack up the front wheels off the ground and turn the wheels left and right without engine running. Any binding? appears to be free, but tight with power steering not "on"........should I try it with the pitman arm off to check all the other joints?

If the idler arm was put on and tightened to the subframe before the center link was attached, it could be binding. Loosen the idler at the frame and let it self-align to the center link. You changed the steering box and idler, so the both have to be at the same angle to the center link. So maybe loosen those bolts, work the steering back and forth a couple times, then re tighten?

If the lower A arm to frame bolts were tightened without the car on it's wheels, there can be binding in the bushings and it can hold the car up and cause some weird handling.
I will back off the nuts a bit there; seems to me I made them fairly tight.

Be sure the idler arm and Pitman arm are of the same length as this will correctly turn the wheels in a corner. How do I go about measuring those items? Pitman arm is center of hole to center of hole right?

As far as the Pitman arm goes however; would it be wise to go back to the shorter am like I originally took off? I had noticed that was shorter, I did not, however notice if the new idler arm was different.

I have not had this issue with my last Camaro; I must have goofed something up.......

What should I do if my alignment shop gets weird about using non stock specs for the front end? you know about the whole "I'm too affraid to do it because you could sue me" thing..........

I really appreciate the help you guys, also, where do I get the template for the Guldstrand mod? Do I simply call them? and is it highly reccommended to do? May I ask more about that issue?

Thanks a lot!!!!!!!

Don

Don i think you narrowed the problem down.

1- Change the arm back to stock.

2- Steering box is probably OK.

3- Alignment shop probably doesn't go with the stock specs ( just a reference point) they work with what you have and get it as close as possible for good drive ability.

4- make some phone calls to verify that the pitman arm will actually cause these types of problems.

Good luck and hope some more great info chimes in.
Skip

Measure both arms from approximate center-to-center for length.
Shops will use the machine specs, to them its just another vehicle.

One suggestion might help is to get a four-wheel alignment as this type references the front end geometry from the location of the rear axle. Theorywise, the rear axle centerline and front axle centerline are parallel to infinity. This takes into consideration if one side wheelbase is shorter than the other side and gives/fudges the specs to give the tech to adjust the geometry to coincide with the non-parallel axles.

A regular front end alignment aligns the front wheels with the centerline of the car frame/body regardless of where the rear axle is at.

For what its worth I went through similar problems, I started with man box ( changed to fast ratio) The pit arm was changed to a P.S Long one, I still had the long outer steering knukle. It drove as you discribed. I only made one change to fix it (well two with aglin.) I got a standard ratio box. And put the aglin to 0 camber high end of the caster stock spec. 1/16th toe. its great now. Fast ratio box has to have the perfect combo to act right. I couldnt get it.

Is your new steering box "firm feel" or just fast ratio ? Fast ratio only boxes are twitchy. (Respond too fast and easily.) You want "firm feel". Do the IROC third gen. swap or go with an AGR box. With 14" wheels you have too much Tire sidewall and your car "sways" on the sidewalls. Drive a 4X4 with 15" wheels 35" mudder tires with few sidewall plies, and you will know exactly what I mean. Switch to 15" or 16" wheels with at least 4 ply sidewalls. IMHO that should really change your handling.

I believe I have the standard fast ratio box. Here is what has changed since I got the car:

Standard ratio PS box = Now: Quick ratio box
Old Pitman arm short = New Pitman arm longer
Idler arm unknown??? = new one Unknown........

Two alignments........

One aggravated guy. :yes:

When the car is sitting in place after driving, should the wheels actually be tilted out on the top? It looks like mine are tilted a bit; they certainly don't look vertical....

I will try to post picture.....

Would that not tend to make the front end unstable? and dive into turns like a go cart?

Don, you sure are in good hands. I just hate it when I read opening posts and get beaten to my answer by the experts. (It's a old Hotrod Magazine "Pit stop" game I still play)
Anyway, a couple things. First, if your alignment shop won't work with you, find a new shop. Second, if your wheels are tilted out at the top, find a new shop.

Alright guys here is an UPDATE!!!

I just measured my Pitman & Idler arms;

The one off of the steering box is basically 5 3/4" long from hole to hole, and the Idler arm is basically just a shade over 5 1/4 - 5 3/8 long hole to hole.

Would that not make a difference? Seems to me I had read somewhere they have to be the same length????

It seems to me that you're using the long pitman arm when you should be using the short one!....I believe the idler arm is correct though!

Unfortunately, our older specs had the tires with the top out to account for the crown in the road. You can use a 24 inch level and place it on the tire ahead of the bulge from the weight for a quick reference. Digital level will show the amount. Trig will determine the degree(s) out - you know the length of two sides of the triangle.

For better cornering, yes, you would want the tire tilted in towards the car. As I stated earlier, after I had the alignment done, the outer edge was wearing. I placed two 1/8 inch shims per side , one each per bolt, to pull the top in and wear corrected itself.

It seems to me that you're using the long pitman arm when you should be using the short one!....I believe the idler arm is correct though!

I also have this feeling that if the two arms are a different length, would that not potentially create a binding situation?

I also have this feeling that if the two arms are a different length, would that not potentially create a binding situation?Yes it would. As look from the bottom, the centerlink and the imaginery side opposite (from the idler zerk fitting to the shaft center from the box), should be of the same length and the Pitman arm and idler arm should be of the same length, makes a rectangle.

Then the two parallelograms created by the arms and spindle arms with the lower ball joint to stationary pivot points.

All part of Ackermann Steering geometry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry

So is it safe to assume that may be some or a portion of my issue here?

Well,,,, yeah. No one here would run missmatched stuff.

replacement idler arms are an in-between length, and won't exactly match up with either the long or short pitman arms. I doubt this is your problem.

Please post some photos of your steering arms attached to the spindle. We have seen brake swaps that used Chevelle or Monte Carlo discs and they used steering arms from the donor cars which were front steer type. Front steer arms on a rear steer second gen will cause some big control issues due to severe bump steer.

David

Old left, new right
http://www.pozziracing.com/Media/69_and_moog_rep_idlers_sm.jpg

steering arm shape
http://www.pozziracing.com/Media/1st_gen_spindle.jpg

Please post some photos of your steering arms attached to the spindle. We have seen brake swaps that used Chevelle or Monte Carlo discs and they used steering arms from the donor cars which were front steer type. Front steer arms on a rear steer second gen will cause some big control issues due to severe bump steer.

Well although I can only be about 99% sure, the steering arms on my Camaro pretty much have to be the ones the general put on originally. I have (for now) 4 wheel drum breaks, and the car has been in the family since new. I am the second owner; my Aunt was the first. I have scoured the reciepts in the past and have found brake work done but nothing that imdicates even going near the steering arm.

I do however have some news to post;

Today I went back to my alignment guy (or at least the place that did it) and he took it for a spin also. He agreed that it felt very twitchy and unstable at speed.

He put it back on his alignment rack (but did not change anything) and discovered that the rear most hole in the lower control arm on the drivers side could be manipulated to move. I was SHOCKEd because the bushings are only 2 years old, with prolly less that 1000 miles on them.

It looked like the insides of the bushing had been reamed out or something.

So, being the true gear head that I am, I took it apart.......

Well the bushing seems fine, although maybe a little sloppy as far as the hole for the bolt is concerned. I did also notice the rear most hole in the subframe where the rear bolt exits and accepts the nut, is a but oblonged.

It is not nearly as bad as the post from Johnnys 67 if you remember that one.

How tight really should the clearances be there? Needless to say they supplied the the point tip bolts for a reason....so fair to say we are not looking at "Strataverius" tollerances here?

I'm pretty frustrated; I mean it's just a front end rebuild; not even my first one....but I am getting stymied here....:confused::confused::confused:

Other than being worn out when I got it, the front end tracked straight and did not scare me in turns or at speed.

The only changes have been made (from what I had) are the quick ratio box and the longer Piman arm. (and obviously the new ball joints and such; but no variance there huh?)

I mean I can't believe it is just the steering box that is the culprit....Did they not put a lot of them in other cars?

Or like you say (David Pozzi) the length of the Pitman's should not be that critical..............

argh.

I am tempted to either trade in the fast ration box or sell it, and get another short PS Pitman arm and see what happens........

As far as the very mild slop in the whole for the bolt, I can weld that up lickety split...........

You ever get that feeling like you just are not getting "IT" .....Even when those around you are hollering the answer? I feel pretty lame about now.

Maybe it will be better if I put the gear drive back in. (badbird:))

This one is getting long, even tho some good advise has come out...

A fast ratio "pinky steer box" can be very twitchy. The 60's style overboost just doesn't work well. Chevy juggled the exact steering ratio with different length pitman, idler, and steering arms (at the wheel).
Today, there is only one power steering pitman arm you can buy, and only one idler arm. These are the parts you have, and they are not to blame.

Steering faster than 2 1/2 turns lock to lock is almost impossible to tame. You need medium or long steering arms to get that. If your steering is down around 2 turns, you either need a standard ratio box or a set of medium or long steering arms.

Look into a more modern, high effort steering box. There is a ton here on a "thirdgen box" upgrade, including a very long sticky post in this forum.

Alignment specs... where did they set your f ront end?
You want 3 or more degrees of caster, and 1/4 to 1/2 degree of camber.
Less caster will give the effects you describe, including the lack or return.

This one is getting long, even tho some good advise has come out...

A fast ratio "pinky steer box" can be very twitchy. The 60's style overboost just doesn't work well. Chevy juggled the exact steering ratio with different length pitman, idler, and steering arms (at the wheel).
Today, there is only one power steering pitman arm you can buy, and only one idler arm. These are the parts you have, and they are not to blame.

Steering faster than 2 1/2 turns lock to lock is almost impossible to tame. You need medium or long steering arms to get that. If your steering is down around 2 turns, you either need a standard ratio box or a set of medium or long steering arms.

Look into a more modern, high effort steering box. There is a ton here on a "thirdgen box" upgrade, including a very long sticky post in this forum.

Alignment specs... where did they set your f ront end?
You want 3 or more degrees of caster, and 1/4 to 1/2 degree of camber.
Less caster will give the effects you describe, including the lack or return.

Sorry bout the length I guess............???? :(

As far as the settings they went with to be honest I do not know....My bad I guess......

The parts like the Pitman and the like are apparently not the issue I see, so it comes down to settings????? and lose this box huh? the box is basically 2-2 1/2 turns lock to lock. Hard to tell cause its apart right now....

So have I basically wasted my money on this steering box??......I hope not ....got it done here, GREAt people super friendly and easy to work with

http://www.redheadsteeringgears.com/

I guess since this is going long I will stop posting as much and just figure it out......thanks for the help guys.

If you dealt with them directly, you might call them and see if they will revalve it for you?
I'm sure they will, and they might do it for free.
You'll be very happy with the results, our old camaros can "feel" just like a modern car with the right parts.

The alignment specs are really the biggie tho. Most likely they punched the model and year into the computer on the alignment machine and aligned to factory specs. get the printout, and get em to change it.

Alright guys, I think I am about to be done kicking this horse!! :thumbsup:

I do have some final items I would like to clear up though;

I have done some experimentation with Everett's suggestion with the two additional 1/8" shims in the upper rear bolts on the control arm; This made the car FAR better than before. (thank you Everett)

I have been doing a lot of looking on Davids' site too; seems like the whole Pitman length thing is a long tricky subject with what is offered and the like in the aftermarket. End question there: Do we really think that running the long type pitman like I have (5 2/4-7/8") with the 6099 idler makes a big difference? Or should I get the 5.25 like I had on the car originally so they are a closer match? also which of these arms (mine or the K6151) would give me the MOST lock to lock turns? I am about 2.5 now.

I am simply trying to not have to spend any more than I need too....I'm not cheap, it is just tight right now and I need to make "Smart" purchases now that the wife has the purse strings (that's a whole 'nother topic, don't tease me now please....;))

Also I have been told by some of the local alignment shops that the difference in my tire sizes has a HUGE part in this (255/60/15 rear on 7" rally's and 205/75/14s on the front on 7" rally's .....) My plan is to have 235/60/14's on the front...... was told the offset was an issue too making the car want to wander in most every rut like pizza cutters!

I really appreciate all the help, advice and assistance I have received from all of you, with a special thanks to David Pozzi, Everett, and JimM......lot's of "extra" info.

I hope to kill this topic soon......:boring:

I really appreciate all the help, advice and assistance I have received from all of you, with a special thanks to David Pozzi, Everett, and JimM.


What about me man!.....I suggested to use the short pitman arm, which will solve your problem!:yes::thumbsup:

Yes BIRD!!!!

You are right, and I also have to thank you for the hip advice on gear drives!!!!

LOL

Sorry man, you are right; Kudos to you............

I always leave some poor soul out........My bad!

Also I have been told by some of the local alignment shops that the difference in my tire sizes has a HUGE part in this (255/60/15 rear on 7" rally's and 205/75/14s on the front on 7" rally's .....) My plan is to have 235/60/14's on the front...... was told the offset was an issue too making the car want to wander in most every rut like pizza cutters!:boring:Of course, you've changed the leverage of the front axle. Alignment man is correct.

By design, if you set in front of the front tire, draw imaginary lines through the tire center and through the ball joints. The intersection of these two lines should be in the middle of the tire tread/width on the contact patch.

Now, lengthen/shorten the wheel backspacing and the leverage has changed placing more load on the steering components. You can't move a heavy rock with a 3 foot stick, you get a 10 foot stick - same principle applies here. Now the intersection of the two lines drawn is below the ground surface and the tire slides - wonders about the road surface.

The Pitman arm and idler arm should be of the same length - your tires will like you when you make them turn, otherwise, they will squeal at you.

You're welcome,

......................You guys are really cool........

Such a wealth of knowledge.

It is pretty neat; folks come here with varying levels of knowledge, and are able to better their knowledge thus being more self sufficient.

I really like that. Nothing (relating to cars) beats being able to do everything on your car, and then some Joe asks where did you get that done? and you say, I did it.

Feels great!

Isn't this the idea of the forum?

Another tip: Fettuccini alfredo is the adult way of asking for macaroni & cheese. just so you don't get any stares from the other customers at tha fancy Italian restaurant......