2nd gen camaro upgrades

[jamesinark]

Anyone here know of any kits or packages for upgrading a 1971 camaro too a rack and pinion steering system.Also if not something already on the market then any ideas what kind of racks might be adaptable to my frame.The main consideration as far as it fitting is the side to side measurement at the joint where the tie rod is attached to the rack.I know it sounds like a lot of trouble to replace the factory setup,but the feedback from the surface of the road and the overall feel makes it worth it.I also am trying to lose weight where possible ,because full tube chassis use up a lot my weight allowance.I'm already using a LS1 (highly modified)with a T56 manual trans and a three link rear suspension with as many lightweight components as possible,so as you can see weight everywhere is an issue.I say keep weight as low as possible when handling is the issue.Any info would be greatly appreciated.Thanks for your time.

[Olav]

http://www.flamingriver.com/index.cf...372/prd372.htm



Olav

[cdoggy81]

www.trzmotorsports.com
$650!!!

http://www.trzmotorsports.com/images/318/318-3.jpg

[Lowend]

There are a couple of kits out there...
The rack has to be REALLY narrow to work on a 2nd gen and most people will tell you that it's not worth the cost for the conversion

[David Pozzi]

I wouldn't do it. I'd get a good aftermarket steering box with fast ratio and stiff valving.
The flaming river kit appears to tie both ends of the rack together with a bracket, then the tie rod ends attach to the bracket. Road shocks will want to twist the bracket, which will rotate the shaft in the rack. I don't think a rack was designed to take these loads.

The TRZ motorsports kit cuts up the subframe and it looks like it would make a torsionally weak subframe even weaker.
David

[70camaro406]

I'd listen to David...he's a wise one.

[cdoggy81]

"most people will tell you that it's not worth the cost for the conversion"
True!
I personally had the box sent to Lee Valley to be redone @ 12:1. You can also go the the scrap yard & get a WS6/IROC gearbox too.

[79T/Aman]

you would be miles ahead by upgrading to a modern steering box, we have a new performance GM 600 box that will save you weight, have the 12.7: fast ratio and rack and pinion servo, no fabrication and it can handle the loads from the scrub radius that these cars have that a rack is not made to handle

[cdoggy81]

What does a new performance GM 600 box run?
If it is a good price I will order SF connectors & a front end rebuild kit from you this week as well

[79T/Aman]

new 600 box kit is $579.00

[jamesinark]

That is exactly what I figured most of you would say.I personally think that any reduction in unsprung weight would be a plus.And you think that the OLD style steering links and all the extra mass of the center link along with the extra slack that accumulates as a result of each and every separate link contributing to the overall unresponsiveness is a good thing?I mean I already went with a LS6 w/T56 manual trans ,a 2002 Camaro SS instrument pod along with adapting the dash,completely fabbing up a tube frame chassis along C5 or C6 brakes adapted to my rearend and front spindles,so I should just go the easy way and use an outdated and less than astounding performing steering set-up.I thought this place had some real potential for original ideas.I just can't settle for what would work thirty years ago.I mean , do the top handling super cars to day use junk yard parts for top shelf performance?I can't simply settle for the easiest way to do things.Does everyone else?I think not.

[70camaro406]

You asked and you got honest responses from people that have tried it all. Sometimes, the older designs just work better. Are you also complaining that your LS6 still has pushrods? I didn't think so. Almost everyone here suggested a NEW box, and next would be to have a used one re-done at a performance ratio (cdoggy would know--he's got THREE 2nd gen cars). Don't listen to us and go figure out on your own...I guess some people need to learn the hard way.

[79T/Aman]

well I'm not not one to sugar coat things, so you ask a question, you get honest answers and you turn around and bash those that ry to help you avoid making a mistake, and I'll go as far as saying this tube chassis car does not exist!, pics? if so who's chassis? it seems as though if you have a custome tube chassis a rack would have been spect out for it with proper geometry with low scrub radius and minimal bump steer!
FYI a new GM 600 box is not a 30 year old junk yard part.
Another FYI, 90% of the steering components are NOT unsprung wheight only 1/2 the tie rod assemblies are unsprung.
So what I think is that you are building a paper tiger and came on here to be told what you wanted to hear but you ended up getting schooled

[HWYSTR]

Heh-heh! A little harsh there aren't we!?!

[Norm Peterson]

. . . I personally think that any reduction in unsprung weight would be a plus.And you think that the OLD style steering links and all the extra mass of the center link along with the extra slack that accumulates as a result of each and every separate link contributing to the overall unresponsiveness is a good thing?
<snip>
so I should just go the easy way and use an outdated and less than astounding performing steering set-up.I thought this place had some real potential for original ideas.I just can't settle for what would work thirty years ago.I mean , do the top handling super cars to day use junk yard parts for top shelf performance?I can't simply settle for the easiest way to do things.Does everyone else?I think not.

One thing at a time. Do you think that unsprung weight (mass, actually) is the be-all, end-all steering system target to aim for at the expense of all else? Have you even stopped to determine what the difference in unsprung mass really amounts to, let alone gone on to consider what small changes in unsprung mass in relation to sprung mass actually mean? Are you attempting to justify a reduced steering system inspection & maintenance program?

Original ideas are certainly welcome. But they have to stand on merit as part of a complete package, not as blingy individual pieces that you brag about in your internet forum signature blocks. You're pitching this to us on a performance-oriented basis, so letting you lay down another mirror for the folks at the car shows to see the uniqueness of your steering system doesn't count either. You cannot compare adapted parts with systems engineered at the factory level to work properly within the chassis (and which likely force various aspects of the chassis design itself) and to work as part of the specific suspension geometry. You don't know if the geometry as fitted to your specific chassis will even be as good as the OE arrangement, or if overall its compliances will be any better (think about those movements that David mentioned earlier). Hint: current top-shelf cars don't use adapted parts even though such parts might well be adequate for most normal driving.

If you absolutely cannot let yourself "settle", are you ready to design a R&P to specifically fit your chassis and its suspension geometry? Or pay an experienced consultant to do it for you?


Norm

[gordonquixote]

Lots of experience posted up above.......duly noted.

Lets see a picture of the car.

[Marcus SC&C]

I`m going to jump on the no R&P pile here too. The 2nd Gen doesn`t lend itself easily to a proper conversion and to date nobody is doing it kinematically correct. The 2nd gen already has pretty good steering geometry and bumpsteer characteristics so changing to a R&P kit would be an anti performance modification. Also while the R&P itself is lighter (a bit) than a 670 steering box (not all 600 series boxes are good,stay away from 605s for example) the bracketry needed to mount it to a car that never had a R&P makes the whole package heavier if you actually weight them. Why waste a lot of money on an R&P when you can buy a blueprinted and dynoed all new Lee 670 box for $515? Put the money you save toward other parts that will make the car perform better and you`re way ahead of the game. Mark SC&C

[DB Z28]

The 670 box is made Saginaw , Which is used in Chev Tahoes and other late Gm Vehicles. if you want to go that route.

[Boyd]

Wow! You come here asking for help, and on your second post, you bash those that take the time to answer your question? Shame, Shame, Shame.

P.S. Got any pics of that car?