Evaluate this steering setup proposal

[hotrodneb]

'68 firebird, LS1--I plan on driving it a BUNCH, like 40-50,000 miles a year. Going for highway comfort but I like to feel know where I am on the road. I like cars that are built for the highway but staisfy gearheads like me, So far have 1.5" Hotchkis lowering leafs on the back and OK with the height, so for the front I am thinking----

Stock subframe, stock UCA and LCA
Stock rubber bushings on control arms
Stock height ball joints
Stock drum spindle with LS1 disc conversion
Gulstrand mod done the hard way
Hotchkis 2" lowering springs
Ride Tec Tru-turn (no spindle)
Quick ratio box...might even pop for a Lee

I need ot comfortable, reliable, repairable and need it to do what it's suppoed to do..when it needs to

What you all think???

[GeoffP]

I think RideTech posted on their TruTurn thread that the TruTurn with a stock spindle makes bump steer even worse than stock - not sure on this but thought I read it somewhere.

My car is pretty much setup like you describe exc I have Wilwood 12.19 brakes. It drives and handles pretty well even though I'm about to tear it all apart to do a total RideTech suspension setup this winter. My car also has the Bilstein shocks and with the Nitto NT-05's on the rear it rides a little rough on an average bumpy road. I'd guess yours will ride better than mine if you use some shocks that are either not as firm or something adjustable. Definitely stay away from NT-05's if you're looking for good ride quality. The sidewall is so stiff you can just about run them without air if that tells you anything.

I hope this helps!

[bret]

Absolutely do not run the Tru Turn system with the stock spindle, even with the Gulstrand mod. The only reason we even sell the Tru Turn without a spindle is to accommodate the customers who have already purchased the RideTech spindle previously.

Your best combination is the complete Tru Turn system. This will optimize the suspension and steering geometry AND allow up to a 10" wide wheel and a 275mm front tire.

After that, the Gulstrand mod works well to help the suspension geometry, but the wheel/tire fitment and steering geometry issues will still exist.

IF you are driving that many highway miles...AND you don't do that many track events...AND you are happy with a 245mm wide tire...stick with the oem control arms, the Gulstrand mods, and no Tru Turn steering system. I would personally recommend a 14:1 steering box versus the 12.7:1 if you are doing that many hiway miles.

The only other thing I would add would be a set of the new RideTech RQ series smoothbody shocks. [and you thought I could resist shameless self promotion altogether :)] I have felt the difference these shocks make on an otherwise stock suspension, and it is dramatic. Best $500 you'll ever spend. Save the money on the Tru Turn and spend it on the shocks. [then upgrade to the Tru Turn next year :)]

[brownz]

Bret.

I also have a close set up if you dont mind giving some insight. This is on a 72 Nova

Stock upper and lower control arms ( will be doing uppers down the road )
Hotchkis 2'' lowering springs
Tru Turn with spindles
big front sway bar. Not a muscle bar will it work?
C5 zo6 front brakes

Would think work for me to get a 9.5 wheel up front with a 275? I want to order wheels once. I will be using a 255 tire until I can get 275's

Sorry not trying to hack your thread just think our set-ups are close and maybe we both can get some good info.

[hotrodneb]

WOW....that's pretty cool......Someone I was going to spend $600+ with basically tells me the right way to do it....and that I really dont HAVE to spend the grand. Ride Tech...this is ONE good company.

Tires---Got a set of 18" X 8.5 wheels......was only planning on something in the 215-225 range.,......I want a nice common cheap easy to replace tire.

Frankly now 'ya got me wondering, same as above but a Steeroids rack, stock arms, and some Ride Tech spindles would be better. The rack works with the LS1 pump, I get the ratio, and I can always go backwards.

[Rod]

'68 firebird, LS1--I plan on driving it a BUNCH, like 40-50,000 miles a year. Going for highway comfort but I like to feel know where I am on the road. I like cars that are built for the highway but staisfy gearheads like me, So far have 1.5" Hotchkis lowering leafs on the back and OK with the height, so for the front I am thinking----

Stock subframe, stock UCA and LCA
Stock rubber bushings on control arms
Stock height ball joints
Stock drum spindle with LS1 disc conversion
Gulstrand mod done the hard way
Hotchkis 2" lowering springs
Ride Tec Tru-turn (no spindle)
Quick ratio box...might even pop for a Lee

I need ot comfortable, reliable, repairable and need it to do what it's suppoed to do..when it needs to

What you all think???

revised list

Stock subframe, stock UCA and LCA
Stock rubber bushings on control arms
TALL Upper ball joint
Stock drum spindle with LS1 disc conversion
Gulstrand mod done the hard way
Hotchkis 2" lowering springs
Ridetech shocks single adjust
Quick ratio box

the 4 key factors here are the Guldstrand, Tall Upper ball joint, Hotchkis spring, and the Ridetech adjustable shock.... shoud turn great that way...after that you can add tube arms later and its as good as it gets with-out going coil over(and thats just track/race adjustablity)

[exwestracer]

WOW....that's pretty cool......Someone I was going to spend $600+ with basically tells me the right way to do it....and that I really dont HAVE to spend the grand. Ride Tech...this is ONE good company.

Tires---Got a set of 18" X 8.5 wheels......was only planning on something in the 215-225 range.,......I want a nice common cheap easy to replace tire.

Frankly now 'ya got me wondering, same as above but a Steeroids rack, stock arms, and some Ride Tech spindles would be better. The rack works with the LS1 pump, I get the ratio, and I can always go backwards.

Yup, Bret is the real deal...

[hotrodneb]

Rod---Thought it was Guld or tall joint.....but it needs both on a lowered spring car?

Also....Guldstrand the hard way----I read somewhere about moving the tower inward a small amount to reduce required shimming, Darned if I can find that anywhere now that I am ready to start cutting. Anyone got some help on that?

[hotrodneb]

Rod---Thought it was Guld or tall joint.....but it needs both on a lowered spring car?

Also....Guldstrand the hard way----I read somewhere about moving the tower inward a small amount to reduce required shimming, Darned if I can find that anywhere now that I am ready to start cutting. Anyone got some help on that?

[bret]

On the subject of rack and pinion steering for musclecars...

I am not a fan, and here is why.

The biggest problem is not neccessarily in the components, but in the placement of them. The precise location of the rack is absolutely critical to acheive the intended improvements in steering geometry and feel. If you move the rack even 1/4" from the proper location, all those good intentions go out the window. The problem is that if the vehicle was originally designed with a steering box [as all musclecars were] the main crossmember of the frame [or subframe] sits just where the rack needs to be. So the choice is to either cut out the main crossmember [more fabrication than most want to do] or move the rack.

I have not tried to install every rack system that exists, but the ones I have tried to install are badly compromised in the following areas:

* steering geometry - bumpsteer...as much as 2" throughout the suspension travel [yes 2", not a typo]
* mounting bracket flex - amazing deficiencies in this area :(
* steering radius compromised - rack travel is too short, or steering arms have been shortened to speed up ratio
* internal rack flex - rack is just not strong enough to steer these heavy cars
* steering column connection - several ujoints or column modification needed in most cases

I do not make these comments lightly. I would normally just have no comment on a design or component I felt was less than ideal. In this case I think some of these systems can be dangerously bad. I would not want to meet one of these cars on the highway with my family along. I hope that someone can/will design a rack system that actually works so I am proven wrong. If a rack conversion manufacturer can adequetely address the problems listed above, they certainly deserve a closer look.

Having said all that...there is nothing inherently wrong with a good steering box. Rack and pinion steering has come into popularity because it is lighter, less expensive to produce, and [if starting with a clean sheet chassis design] easier to adapt into a variety of chassis. Thats it. No magic...just another way of steeering the wheels.

In English...if you have a car that was originally designed for a steering box, upgrade to a better steering box. There are many to choose from...AGR, Lee, Borgenson, DSE, Remy. You and your wallet will smile.

At least in my opinion.

[hotrodneb]

I am NOT smart enough to design these componants, I am fully capable of installing them well

I AM smart enough to listen to those wiser than me.

Current list--
Stock everything except....
Gulstrand mod the hard way...still need to know about moving the towers inward
Tall upper ball joint...looks lkike the Proforged from Summit on this
Lee steering box.....14:1 sounds fun......will talk to Lee about ratio and my LS1 pump
Hotchkis 2" lowering springs
and maybe the Ride Tech smoothies

[Rod]

Rod---Thought it was Guld or tall joint.....but it needs both on a lowered spring car?

Also....Guldstrand the hard way----I read somewhere about moving the tower inward a small amount to reduce required shimming, Darned if I can find that anywhere now that I am ready to start cutting. Anyone got some help on that?

yes I would use the Guldstrand with the 0.50 (1/2 inch taller) ball joints from proforged. The small 1/2 rise they have isn't enough to fully help the camber issues, but combined with the guldstrand its really, really close and a side benefit is that doing both will reduce bump steer, if you haven't done the guldstrand yet, don't do it the hard way, I have seen alot of hard-ways done wrong just use the gulstrand template and re-drill the arm mounts and I would strongly suggest getting the adjustable shocks(at least a single adjust)

[Proforged]

yes I would use the Guldstrand with the 0.50 (1/2 inch taller) ball joints from proforged. The small 1/2 rise they have isn't enough to fully help the camber issues, but combined with the guldstrand its really, really close and a side benefit is that doing both will reduce bump steer, if you haven't done the guldstrand yet, don't do it the hard way, I have seen alot of hard-ways done wrong just use the gulstrand template and re-drill the arm mounts and I would strongly suggest getting the adjustable shocks(at least a single adjust)

I wanted to jump in to respond to the tall ball joint / G-mod question here - hope I'm not stepping on Ridetech's toes. I would recommend using our new 0.90" taller ball joints instead of running a +0.50" ball joint with the G-mod. We just released them, so most people are not yet aware we have them.

http://www.summitracing.com/search?keyword=101-10017&dds=1

That being said, the Tru-Turn setup with the Ridetech spindles is a killer kit and I highly recommend it.

[MrQuick]

With the advent and innovation of varying ball joint sizes I see the G mod becoming on out dated modification.

I sent you a PM zack.

[hotrodneb]

OK---That's interesting.....+.9" on the joint, and NO G-mod. An extrs $6 or so per joint and no time spent modifying the frame. I am running 17" wheels so that shouldnt be an issue. Seems to simple to be true for all I want the car to do.

I want to drive down the interstate for hours on end....like 4-9 hour trips at 80mph until I run out of gas. This is going to be my work car.

[Rod]

I wanted to jump in to respond to the tall ball joint / G-mod question here - hope I'm not stepping on Ridetech's toes. I would recommend using our new 0.90" taller ball joints instead of running a +0.50" ball joint with the G-mod. We just released them, so most people are not yet aware we have them.

http://www.summitracing.com/search?keyword=101-10017&dds=1

That being said, the Tru-Turn setup with the Ridetech spindles is a killer kit and I highly recommend it.

a .9 tall upper ball joint, wont add caster, also wont rotate the spindle rearward to decrease bump steer, on stock arms,,,, I could see using the .9 tall upper ball joint with someones caster correcting tube arms then it makes sense
if youre using the stock arms use the G-mod, 4 simple holes make the car 100% better

[Bryce]

I am NOT smart enough to design these componants, I am fully capable of installing them well

I AM smart enough to listen to those wiser than me.

Current list--
Stock everything except....
Gulstrand mod the hard way...still need to know about moving the towers inward
Tall upper ball joint...looks lkike the Proforged from Summit on this
Lee steering box.....14:1 sounds fun......will talk to Lee about ratio and my LS1 pump
Hotchkis 2" lowering springs
and maybe the Ride Tech smoothies

Hotchkis also has some shocks like the ridetech ones. Both made by fox or inconjunction with (I do not know). I also do not know if there is any valving differences.

[David Pozzi]

I don't think you can run the .9" upper ball joints without a tubular upper arm with less angle to it. You will likely experience binding with the .9" & stock arms.
The true-Turn is going to be the best driving. The best lower buck option for stable highway driving is the .5" tall tie rod ends to reduce bump steer & tubular upper A arms to increase caster with stock ball joints. The Guldstrand mod, or taller ball joints will help camber gain but increase bump steer back to near-stock levels even with tall tie rod ends. You could go with the .5" tall ball joints to improve cornering a little more & the bump steer would not be excessive, but higher than with stock ball joints. The higher positive caster you can achieve with tubular uppers will improve cornering & straight line freeway tracking plus further reduce bump steer.

I would do tubular upper A arms, .5" outer tall tie rod ends, .5" tall upper ball joints, & a high effort steering box. If your outer steering arms are long, I'd get the 12.7 ratio. If they are short & you have the long pitman, 14:1 is better on the highway, especially if you have a smaller than stock steering wheel.

[bret]

After rereading my post about rack and pinion steering, I probably need to clarify even further.

Fords are a bit easier to find room for proper rack placement than the GM stuff is. Fords also have a poorer oem steering box so it makes a rack conversion more feasible than the GM. The GM boxes seems to be great pieces...good longevity and good feel.
I've has a TCP power rack on my 69 Mustang for quite some time and like it very well. It has some "compromises"...the servo is VERY sensitive and somewhat tedious to adjust, the steering column must be modified, The installation procedure must be followed in order and to the letter, and it's expensive. BUT...the steering radius is not compromised, the bumpsteer is very good [and is tuneable], the components are robust, and the durability has been great. If you are going to keep your shock towers [which also has a lot of merit in my opinion] the TCP rack might be a good investment.

Again...there may be more good ones out there...I've just not had experience with them yet.

On the tall balljoints...

These have merit as well...IF...IF...IF you take some time and run the suspension through its travel to check for suspension bind AND make sure the camber curve and bumpsteer geometry actually end up where you want them. In reality, you need to do this anytime you modify your suspension.

[Proforged]

On the tall balljoints...

These have merit as well...IF...IF...IF you take some time and run the suspension through its travel to check for suspension bind AND make sure the camber curve and bumpsteer geometry actually end up where you want them. In reality, you need to do this anytime you modify your suspension.

Couldn't agree more.

[hotrodneb]

hmmmmm...ok I guess this steering thing is a little complicated, and there seems no stopping place either. Just another thing to like. If I am understansing here correctly below are the options.....Maybe this could also help someone else. Are these my options? I am looking to put together a plan, like woodworking it is better to measure twice and cut once.

Original list.............................................. ........"Rod"............Ride Tech.......Proforged..........Pozzi

Stock subframe, stock UCA and LCA......................ok.................ok.... ..........ok............Tube upper
Stock rubber bushings on control arms...................ok................ok....... .......ok.....................ok
Stock height ball joints.....................................5 tall..............n/a..............9 tall...................5 tall
Stock drum spindle with LS1 disc conversion...........ok...............no.......... .....ok...................Tru-Tn
Gulstrand mod done the hard way.........................ok...............ok... ...........no........................n/a
Hotchkis 2" lowering springs.................................ok........ ......ok................ok.......................o k
Ride Tec Tru-turn (no spindle).............................nope........W hole sys.......---..............Sys/tall tie rod
Quick ratio box...might even pop for a Lee..............ok..............14:1...........---......................---

[Rod]

hmmmmm...ok I guess this steering thing is a little complicated, and there seems no stopping place either. Just another thing to like. If I am understansing here correctly below are the options.....Maybe this could also help someone else. Are these my options? I am looking to put together a plan, like woodworking it is better to measure twice and cut once.

Original list.............................................. ........"Rod"............Ride Tech.......Proforged..........Pozzi

Stock subframe, stock UCA and LCA......................ok.................ok.... ..........ok............Tube upper
Stock rubber bushings on control arms...................ok................ok....... .......ok.....................ok
Stock height ball joints.....................................5 tall..............n/a..............9 tall...................5 tall
Stock drum spindle with LS1 disc conversion...........ok...............no.......... .....ok...................Tru-Tn
Gulstrand mod done the hard way.........................ok...............ok... ...........no........................n/a
Hotchkis 2" lowering springs.................................ok........ ......ok................ok.......................o k
Ride Tec Tru-turn (no spindle).............................nope........W hole sys.......---..............Sys/tall tie rod
Quick ratio box...might even pop for a Lee..............ok..............14:1...........---......................---

I was just helping with what you have, if you want what i recommend

Ridetech Tru-turn with there front arms and the coil-over conversion triple adjust

great set up tried and true

heres what I ran this year- car is under rebuild now after novembers Del Mar, to go after the full chassis cars

Global west uppers arms(adds 6 degree caster-rearward)
DSE lower arms(adds 1.0 degree more caster-forward)
Hotchkis springs, Hotchkis sway bar(parallel to ground with short end links)
Guldstrand(changes roll center and adds caster+reduce bump steer)
single adjust shock, tall upper ball joint
z-28 steering arms, 1/2 inch spring spacers
Hotchkis tie-rod sleeves
Howe low friction lower ball joint
AGR quick ratio 12.1 box
0 Toe in/out, 1 degree camber

[David Pozzi]

I added a little more to my earlier post. This is for a driver, not a corner carver.
https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?94762-Evaluate-this-steering-setup-proposal&p=954018#post954018

[hotrodneb]

Thank you Dave......looks to be about the same money too +/-

No need to reply unless I'm wrong......looks like no G-mod either?....Or is that a standard first step?