Suspension/steering question

Since I'm replacing brakes, I've decided to go ahead and do some suspension work. I was thinking about Rick's poly rebuild kit, which is about all I have in the budget right now. Anyone have opinions on this kit.

Also, I have a lot of play in the steering and the car wanders all over the road at highway speeds. Would this be related to the worn suspension (which is 100% original) or something in the steering?

And, lastly, how do I determine if the steering is "fast ratio" or not. There are two kits offered by Rick's, and I'm not sure which one I need. Thanks!

Polyurethane is not recommended for early Camaro's. I got this info from two reputable 1st gen Camaro parts suppliers here in California. I am planning to rebiuld with standard rubber material for suspension and body mounts just to keep close to original as possible. I did'nt know that standard rubber material was designed to help absorb road conditions where as polyurethane is too stiff and allows too much road shock energy to travel thoughout the frame and could lead to weak spots in the frame and shell which will show up as uneven gaps throughout your cars body panels, doors, etc., and mixing standard rubber bushings with polyurethane bushings is not recommended. 
As far as the excess travel, that is usually cause by worn bushings. Plus original rubber is less expensive than polyurethane. Hope this helps.      

To diagnose the wandering on the road, start with the simple things first. You can easily adjust the backlash in the gears of the steering box first. Then check your tie rod ends for looseness. Finally, and a bit more difficult, check the ball joints for play. But, if you are going to replace all the rubbers you might as well bite the bullit and get a front end kit to replace everything. If you are still running on orignal parts you most likely need it. And it's easiest to do it all at once rather than teardown the front end twice!

quote:

ORIGINAL: JRs72RS

To diagnose the wandering on the road, start with the simple things first. You can easily adjust the backlash in the gears of the steering box first. Then check your tie rod ends for looseness. Finally, and a bit more difficult, check the ball joints for play. But, if you are going to replace all the rubbers you might as well bite the bullit and get a front end kit to replace everything. If you are still running on orignal parts you most likely need it. And it's easiest to do it all at once rather than teardown the front end twice!

 
Absolutely, do it once while you're there the first time.
Clyde

quote:

ORIGINAL: frostlime69

Polyurethane is not recommended for early Camaro's. I got this info from two reputable 1st gen Camaro parts suppliers here in California. I am planning to rebiuld with standard rubber material for suspension and body mounts just to keep close to original as possible. I did'nt know that standard rubber material was designed to help absorb road conditions where as polyurethane is too stiff and allows too much road shock energy to travel thoughout the frame and could lead to weak spots in the frame and shell which will show up as uneven gaps throughout your cars body panels, doors, etc., and mixing standard rubber bushings with polyurethane bushings is not recommended. 
As far as the excess travel, that is usually cause by worn bushings. Plus original rubber is less expensive than polyurethane. Hope this helps.      

GM goes with rubber over poly because they have to create a happy medium between ride quality and performance, not because poly is bad for the car. the places that told you that info sound kind of like they don't even seel poly parts and just wanted you to buy their rubber.
 
in the real world poly will keep the car tighter and your "gaps" will actually stay more precise because the car has less flex than rubber. yes, poly does give a slightly rougher ride than rubber but the advantages are more than worth the slight ride deterioration. this is the first suspension mod I do on all my cars! there is no reason to try build a stiff handling suspension on a sloppy rubber base. also rubber makes other parts wear out quicker because of the slop in the suspension

Polyurethane was designed for later model light (import) cars, i.e. toyota, honda to improve handling/looks. In 1969 rubber bushings were in "the real world" and were meant to be replaced especially on unibody cars, before any "slop" or wear developed, thus avoiding too much wear on suspension/steering parts. I will be happy to send you the info I got. They will sell poly if the customer requests it, but they will also inform them of potential structural problems. Why risk it?
Poly is great for light weight 4 bangin' front wheel burnout imports and dynacorn resto mods.
!?!? Did I just go there !?!?       

quote:

ORIGINAL: frostlime69
Polyurethane was designed for later model light (import) cars, i.e. toyota, honda to improve handling/looks. In 1969 rubber bushings were in "the real world"

Good Point, polyurethane bushings are used by those who want to improve the handling of their car. Rubber was used as the norm in the "old" real world, but this isn't 1969 any more. Those who want to make their car handle better by polyurethane are willing to sacrifice some ride comfort. And a lot of those same cars, mine included, are built up to be way stronger structurally than GM built it in the day. Considering body shock waves, I would concern myself more with the type of tires (lower profile ride rougher), how much air you keep in the tires, stiffness of the springs, and stiffness of the shocks.

polyurethane bushings are used by those who want to improve the handling of their car. Rubber was used as the norm in the "old" real world, but this isn't 1969 any more. Those who want to make their car handle better by polyurethane are willing to sacrifice some ride comfort. quote from Camaro 69
 
Another great point! If a 1st gen Camaro was designed for a 6-cyl. 230-c.i. w/140-h.p & 220 lb-ft of torque and someone want's to drop in 600+hp beast i.e. for drag racing or protouring and fails to reinforce the rest of the car, including upgrading body mounts and suspension to polyurethane, problems with the frame, doors and body panels should be expected. The only Camaro's designed by GM for that kind of power were L78's, L89's and COPO's. As far as competitive handling, the Z-28. (Wish I had one!) 
Got my info from "Camaro Restoration Handbook" suppliers index- Camaro Classics, Stockton CA. Ask for Jim.
Anyway, we all have our preferences and thats a good thing. Keep's the hobby alive.  

Sounds like a compromise is the best choice then. Use rubber for the sub-frame mounts and radiator support. To minimize deflection in the control arms thus improve handling, use poly for front and rear (leaf spring eyes) suspension.

quote:

If a 1st gen Camaro was designed for a 6-cyl. 230-c.i. w/140-h.p & 220 lb-ft of torque

 

  I have heard this before from my suspension teacher Back in 1985. The Camaro was designed as a 6 cylinder. It was not intended for the V-8's. That is why its one of the few cars that sags in the middle. It is not uncommon for the cross member to "sink" causing the the top of the tires to move in towards each other to the point Camber spec can no longer reached. This condition requires a quick pull on a frame machine before it goes to the alinement machine. This was so common there was upper control arm offset cross shafts available . I never understood why people used the crossshafts considering the car was on the rack less the an hour. Back then it was $60 hour. The shafts themselves where $50 plus installation.
 
  Since owning a first gen I have done a bit of research I can say its BS. The designers just screwed up. They knew there was going to be a V-8 put in these cars from day 1 of the design. The reason the Chevy 350 was designed was to be in the first SS Camaro It was not a after thought. The Camaro was to directly compete with the Mustang. At the time they started with their pony car design the V-8 was available in the Mustang. Big blocks are another story. While some of the first cars made where SS's 350's the car was in production for months before the first big block came out. One could argue the Big Block was not an original design.
 
 Sorry didn't mean to Hi jack the thread but the above quote just triggered a thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gorn

Since owning a first gen I have done a bit of research I can say its BS. The designers just screwed up. They knew there was going to be a V-8 put in these cars from day 1 of the design. The reason the Chevy 350 was designed was to be in the first SS Camaro It was not a after thought. The Camaro was to directly compete with the Mustang. At the time they started with their pony car design the V-8 was available in the Mustang. Big blocks are another story. While some of the first cars made where SS's 350's the car was in production for months before the first big block came out. One could argue the Big Block was not an original design.

Thanks for the input. I remember reading about this. GM did'nt want to put too much emphasis on the Camaro as being in direct competition with the Mustang. Early advertising even pionted out that there was a 4cyl./155 c.i. w/90hp & 152 lb-ft of torque. Can you imagine? Maybe to keep Ford from running too fast with performance options.
Then GM advertised the 67' SS396 Camaro just after its debut in the fall of 66'. I'll double check that though, unless someone can add to this.
Oddly enough though, this Fri & Sat I was helping a friend of mine replace the rear seal and bushing on a T-10 4-speed man. trans on his 65 Mustang GT (clone). Leaking gear oil after trying to beat my SS. jk... it was leaking soon after he bought it.     

FYI My 350SS was built early November 66 the first big block came off the production line January fo 67. I think they had to wait for a modifcation (aka Tracktion bar) to reduce wheel hop before they could put in the big block. That kind of tells me there was not a lot of big block testing going on before product release.

So, poly vs. rubber argument aside, I'm planning to replace inner and outer tie rod ends, upper and lower ball joints,
idler arm, pitman arm, upper and lower A-arm bushings, and sway bar end links. While I have the master cylinder and booster off, I'm also replacing the steering coupler. Are there any other parts I should consider while it's torn down?

Also, any input on the fast-ratio steering question? Is there an easy way to tell without removing the box?

Check your sway bar mounts, they can get pretty out of shape with age.
Not certain on the steering box, but I think the standards had a little over 4 turns lock to lock.
Quick ratio was around 3 turns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skinner67
Also, any input on the fast-ratio steering question? Is there an easy way to tell without removing the box?

just turn your box lock-to-lock and see how many turns you have. depending on how much you want to spend, you can get boxes with a lock-to-lock that's as low as just over 2 full turns

They have body stiffening rails that run from the front subframe to the front of the rear leaf spring housing they come in either bolt on or weld on , I would start there and take care of some of the body torque that comes from hole shots fast acceleration etc , would also take some of the twist and preasure off of the frame bushings . As for the handling issue if you are concerned more with the handling asspect than the original asspect i would go with a rack and pinion upgrade with adjustable coil overs , i know you mentioned that budget is an issue but my opinion has always been save your money and fix it so you dont have to fix it again later . I know people that have had handling issues with older style suspensions and were amased at the difference in the rack and coil over upgrades .

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigdog59

They have body stiffening rails that run from the front subframe to the front of the rear leaf spring housing they come in either bolt on or weld on , I would start there and take care of some of the body torque that comes from hole shots fast acceleration etc , would also take some of the twist and preasure off of the frame bushings . As for the handling issue if you are concerned more with the handling asspect than the original asspect i would go with a rack and pinion upgrade with adjustable coil overs , i know you mentioned that budget is an issue but my opinion has always been save your money and fix it so you dont have to fix it again later . I know people that have had handling issues with older style suspensions and were amased at the difference in the rack and coil over upgrades .

first off those "rails" are called subframe connectors. also, that is one of the last things someone should worry about if they are looking to fix handling issues. you should ALWAYS start with your 'wear' parts before you start adding things that didn't come from the factory. as a final note, coilovers are a great item, but they are much more unfriendly to the car, on day to day street use, than a good quality shock is