Team Camaro Tech banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

Little bit of confusion with 1967 Camaro steering upgrade

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
N

Nick_R_23

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Like many of you I'm looking to upgrade the manual steering in my 1967 Camaro to power steering, as well as gain a quicker ratio and some better road feel at the same time. I think eventually I'd like to end up with a nice, new 600 series box, but junkyard shopping is in my budget for now. I've spent a few days reading and researching about this as much as I could, but I still have a few questions about what I need. The biggest confusion seems to come with the fact that I have a 1967, and from what I've been able to find, the 1967 Camaro steering boxes had a different sweep angle than the 1968's and 1969s. According to a chart I found, the 67 Camaro had 87* of travel, while the 68-81 Camaros only had 67*. Thus, the IROC steering box swap would be a closer match to the 68+ cars, but not to my 67. I think what I need is the Jeep Grand Cherokee box, as those (along with my 68 Chevelle I'm about to do this swap on as well) also use 87* boxes.

Does this sound correct? I'd appreciate any help from 67 owners who have been through this!
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#3 ·
Probably worth spending some time on David's site.

Pozziracing.com

Don
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #5 ·
Rls8836 said:
What year Jeep Grand Cherokee do you use?
Click to expand...
For the Chevelles, it's 93-98 Grand Cherokee. I'm hoping I can use one for my Camaro, too.

dhutton said:
Probably worth spending some time on David's site.

Pozziracing.com

Don
Click to expand...
I've been on there, but left with more questions than answers. The pitman/idler/steering arm lengths understandably get confusing. I think what I took from that, is that 67 uses different lengths vs 68/69, which results in the different steering box sweep.

68basecoupe said:
My friend just did the jeep box on his 70 Chevelle, said it is day and night between it and the original power steering
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm after. I have stock manual steering on both cars, but my 68 Chevelle is mostly original everything, so if I do convert that one, I want it to look stock, which the Jeep box would do perfectly. The Camaro is the hotrod, and while one day I'll save enough pennies to go with the 600 box, if I can do the same cheap-jeep box on the Camaro for now too, I'd like to do that.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#6 ·
I have a 67. I did the swap with the IROC box. 2 1/4 turn lock to lock. (actually, it was a 92 Z-28 with the F82(?) package, but the same box, nonetheless) It works just fine. If there is anything different about the 67 from the 68, I can't answer but the steering box provides more than enough travel for me. I have no problem making a 90 degree turn from the driveway to the garage. I don't know if this allays any fears that you may have about the swap.

Regarding the pitman arm length, I used Moog part # K6582 which is the long one. This is the one that, IIRC, David Pozzi states should be used.
 
#7 ·
Nick....I also have a 67 Camaro. Like you my research showed the 67 needed a larger steering angle than 68/69 models. Seems odd to me but that is what I found. Your numbers sound about right for the arc.

I used a 96-98 grand Cherokee box in my 67 and it gave wheel turning angle as stock. The difference is night and day better! You will need a different rag joint as the input shaft is a different size. Also you need adaptors that press into the high and low pressure side of the box then you can use regular 67 camaro ps lines. The adaptors and tool I used were from Lee manaufacturing...very easy to install.

Coincidentally I installed the same grand Cherokee steering box in our 1970 442 as with your chevelle it has the correct arc. Again works great although not as much improvement as the camaro since the 442 has optional quick steering box already.

Seems the 68/69 guys can run the IROC box.

Check out posts from Jim Shea ....he is a Saginaw steering retired engineer and absolute expect in my opinion. He wrote a technical paper on Saginaw boxes...think it's on the Chevelle forum.

Hope it helps you!
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #8 ·
I had a nice long reply written up but it got erased! Gah, let's try this again...

James, that's exactly what I was looking for! I find the difference in numbers odd as well, but with as much as I can find, it appears to be correct, at least on paper. I've been on Jim Shea's site and pulled numbers from the papers he's posted, and it seems to back up what I'm looking at.

I found an article that Hot Rod published about different steering boxes and also included a nice little chart with all the specs listed. I didn't see where it said that they obtained that information from, so I'm not sure about it's accuracy, but again, it seems to be correct. They list a 1967 Camaro as having 87 Degrees of total travel, while 1968 and 1969 use only 67 degrees total. You can find the chart here about 1/4 down the page: Steering Box Upgrade - Hot Rod Network

I've found plenty of specs from Jim's site, and I'm assuming that they are measured from center of steering rather than total travel as in the Hot Rod chart.

For example, Jim lists the 1967 Camaro V8 as having 43 Deg, 30 Min of travel. One oddity is that it shows that RS cars got a DIFFERENT box with only 35 Deg of travel! This is the only instance I've found where it specs out multiple ranges of travel in 1967, but I could see it happening as it seems like there were also multiple length steering arms, pitman arms, and idler arms in that year. This same list also shows that 1968 and 1969 are both different with 31 Deg, and 32 Deg, 15 Min respectively. Negligible differences between the two, but certainly different from the 1967 specs. http://jimshea.corvettefaq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1967-93CamaroStrgGearsRev02JA2013.pdf

Jim also lists the specs for the A-body Chevelles, with 1965 through 1970 being the same at 43 Deg, 30 Min. As you can see, this is the same spec as the 1967 Camaro. http://jimshea.corvettefaq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1967-93CamaroStrgGearsRev02JA2013.pdf

Additionally, Jim has provided specs on the 1993-1998 Grand Cherokee steering box, which provides us with 43 Deg, 45 Min of travel. This is basically identical to the A-Body Chevelle as everybody already knows, but seemingly the same as the 1967 Camaros, also! http://jimshea.corvettefaq.com/wp-c...wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1992-98GrandCherokeeFastRatioStrgGearRev01JA2013.pdf

Is there anyone here that can verify otherwise?
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #9 ·
So I just walked out to the garage and checked on my 1967 Camaro. My current original manual steering box does appear to have approximately 90* of total travel, which matches the above numbers. However, I noticed that it seems to hit the steering stops on the control arms before the box runs out of swing. I can't say for sure how far the box would go in total, but there is some travel left after the spindles contact the stops, as the steering wheel will still try to turn. I wonder if this is partially the reason for the smaller sweep of the 68 and newer boxes?
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#10 ·
GM set up the steering linkage to hit the stops at the spindles before the box hit it's internal stops. They probably matched the box to hit internally close to the same time but allow some room for toe adjustment and bushing sag, etc.
I don't totally believe the 67 data, it was the first year of production and a lot of things changed that probably didn't get recorded accurately. The RS option had no influence on steering as far as any data I have.

Take a look at your outer steering arms and see if they are the long versions. Camaro steering With a manual steering system, they probably are, and it's likely you have the short pitman arm.

There have been a few reports here of the IROC boxes not giving enough travel. They were in cars using the long outer steering arms and short pitman arm & IROC box.
I recommend using a long PS pitman arm if you have the long outer steering arms. The Jeep Grand Cherokee box has a tiny bit more travel. They are fast ratio and firm feel but probably one step softer like a Z/28 instead of an IROC.

The internal stops can be changed, the front one is easy, it's the end plug thickness. The rear spacer requires the piston to be removed. I haven't done one so I can't tell you how hard it would be. The end plug is pretty easy to remove.
 
Discussion starter · #11 ·
Thanks for chiming in David. That does make sense about the steering stops. I do agree that the RS part is strange and I'm not sure I believe that myself seeing as I've never heard it anywhere else.

I will take a look at and also try to post up pictures of my steering arms as well as my pitman and idler arms. It's been a while since I've even touched this car, so I can't remember what it has under there.

The limited travel with the IROC boxes is what I'm trying to avoid. I like the JGC box because of the low cost and availability, I can live with the slightly smaller T-bar over the IROCs, no matter what it will be a huge improvement over the stock manual box. Having full travel steering and the faster ratio is what I'm really after. Having the stops slightly larger won't bother me either, I know when it hits the spindle stops and don't need to be wrenching the wheel any more.

To be honest, eventually I'm just going to end up with a full Ridetech kit, including their 4 link, tubular control arms, coilovers, spindles, and Tru-Turn steering. I'd like to go with a 600 series box as well, but that brings up another question. The 600 boxes I've seen are listed to fit 1967-1992 F-Body, 1968-1974 X-Body, 1964-1977 A-Body, and 1978-1988 G-Body all under one part number with the 12.7:1 ratio. Obviously these cars all have different steering angles, so do these boxes just come somewhat universal at full sweep and you just use the spindle stops to limit travel, or how does this work?
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#13 ·
You will need a different rag joint as the input shaft is a different size. ------>can anyone point me to link part number or link to purchase?


Also you need adaptors that press into the high and low pressure side of the box then you can use regular 67 camaro ps lines. The adaptors and tool I used were from Lee manaufacturing------I tried the screw in adapters from CPP. I suppose these turn the grand cherokee high and low pressure geer box metric holes into SAE. I installed stock pwr steering hoses. THe problem I have is the hoses/flared fittig wont screw down all the way into the CPP adapters at the geerbox side. There is play in the line and allows fluid to leak everywhere. Has anybody else experienced this?
 
#14 ·
opr8tions said:
You will need a different rag joint as the input shaft is a different size. ------>can anyone point me to link part number or link to purchase?


Also you need adaptors that press into the high and low pressure side of the box then you can use regular 67 camaro ps lines. The adaptors and tool I used were from Lee manaufacturing------I tried the screw in adapters from CPP. I suppose these turn the grand cherokee high and low pressure geer box metric holes into SAE. I installed stock pwr steering hoses. THe problem I have is the hoses/flared fittig wont screw down all the way into the CPP adapters at the geerbox side. There is play in the line and allows fluid to leak everywhere. Has anybody else experienced this?
Click to expand...

I second this. Got the inserts from the gentleman at Lee Manufacturing around 2001, he knew what I needed when I asked about them. Used a 1980 WS6 power unit, used the above mentioned inserts, factory pump and hoses. The power unit has the smaller size diameter flange for the rag joint attachment and I was sent in the direction of a 1977 GM rag joint if my memory is correct. 2 1/4 turns lock to lock and very firm and controlled steering.
 
#18 ·
opr8tions said:
have 67 camaro, with upgraded cpp front suspension and coil overs. Upgraded gear box to keep gran cherokee, bought correct rag joint as well. I think i need a different pitman arm for this set up, can anybody help me understand what pitman arm or anything else needed ?
Click to expand...
If you are converting from a manual box, then you need a power steer pitman, the power shaft is larger. There is a long 5.75" sometimes called 5.8", or a short 5.25" version. If you have the short outer steering arms 5.25" long from spindle center to tie rod hole (measured horizontally), then use the short pitman with a fast ratio box. If you have the long 5.75" outer steering arms, then use the long pitman arm.
Camaro steering


From my page, this is a few years old so there may be newer part numbers:
Pitman K6151 PS, short 5.25"
Pitman, PS K6154, 67-69 5.78" long (probably 5 3/4") 32 splines 1.1-1.18 diam. Not longer available from Moog.
Pitman, PS , long, Moog# 6582 New production run, no grease fitting - Currently available at any auto parts store that sells Moog parts.
Pitman, PS long, TRW # 18770 Same as above. Probably a Moog part in a TRW box.


This is the long pitman for PS: https://www.amazon.com/Moog-K6582-Pitman-Arm/dp/B000COTUMI
 
#19 ·
Hello,

Am about to upgrade my 67 from manual to power steering. Have been researching on this forum and think that I have most things figured out but have a couple of questions…

I am using a 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee steering box from a low mileage vehicle.

Questions are – do I remove a valve from the inside of the box inlet (or outlet?, can’t find the specific forum reference) prior to the install or do I leave it in… not clear from the forum. Also – should I use the small (Lee type) inserts to mate up the old style hoses or should I use the CPP 605SOL O-Ring Fitting adapters? Not sure which would be better…?

For the pump, I have a new Lares 2021. I checked the (old style) outlet fitting and the orifice as received was 9/64” (0.140625 in).
The pressure control valve has a gap under the nut with no washers. Should I go with these “as is” or make modifications? The orifice seems OK from David Pozzi’s web site but not sure if the pressure control valve is OK…?

Anyway, would appreciate any guidance before I dive in to this project… Thanks!

Tom
 
#20 ·
In regards to your first question, I am not sure what you mean. When I put in my IROC box, I didn't remove anything. In fact, I don't think there was anything to remove.



Regarding your second question: I suppose both will work effectively, but I used the Lee type inserts and have had absolutely no issues at all. I have no idea what the cost of the CPP adapters are but you can find the inserts for around 15 bucks shipped from Summit racing.

I can't answer your third question. It is my understanding that removing/adding washers affects the pump pressure and without knowing what feel you want or how your specific set up needs to be, it's impossible to give a generalized answer. All I can say is that I used an older pump with my IROC box (don't know the year but it is the canned ham style--I'd say mid 70s to early 80s) and made no modifications to it and it works fine. In fact, it may have a bit more pressure than necessary.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
About this Discussion
23 Replies
11 Participants
Last post:
TWB-DBB
Team Camaro Tech
posts
2.4M
members
90K
Since
1998
A forum community dedicated to 1st generation Chevy Camaros owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, restoration, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, reviews, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Bench Racing Engine Body Shop Performance Brakes, Suspension & Steering