Team Chevelle banner

Steering Box Upgrade (in 2019)

30K views 30 replies 20 participants last post by  67 SuperSport 
#1 ·
In the next couple weeks I'm looking to replace my steering box ('71, power steering) with something a bit tighter and faster, without breaking the bank. Now, I know years back the 'jeep box' from an early grand cherokee was the go-to, and is basically what I'm looking for - however I also recall those boxes (in good shape) becoming harder and harder to come by. What's the current bang-for-the-buck upgrade for these? Are there good rebuilt jeep boxes out there (if so, who's doing them?), has something else taken the throne? I've been out of the loop for quite a while :)

Thanks!
 
#3 ·
I used a steering box off a ZQ8 S10 / Blazer (12:1 ratio). Check the fitting sizes, I used a hydroboost brake booster off a 05 tahoe and everything just bolted together. Have 4000 miles on my setup and love it.
 
#5 ·
as odd as it may sound, a fella on fakebook, Hector Carillo rebuilds and sells these things... he on the Chevelle pages...

of course, Lee is a premier provider...
 
#6 · (Edited)
I'll probably go with the tried-and-true GC box. Ordered a dorman rag joint and will re-flare the pump end of a GC pressure line to fit the factory pump.

That said, I did notice on Rockauto they list some boxes for the Chevelle as "w/ 2-1/2 -3 Turns Lock to Lock" and similar - any experiences with these compared to the jeep box?
 
#7 ·
Hi. I have the Cardone 27-6509 steering box in my car. It's reported as a 2.75-3 turns lock to lock in the documentation, and I picked it up at Advance Auto Parts with a coupon for $84 after returning the old one as a core.

It is listed for many cars, and some say it isn't right for a Chevelle (not enough turning radius.)

But, in my car, I know that it goes right around 2.75 turns from full lock to lock. And, in my car, I checked, and the steering arm hits my lower control arms on both sides when I crank the wheel over hard left or hard right. Now, my control arms are aftermarket tubular control arms, so I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not, but in my case, the box is not limiting the steering radius (it's the steering arms that are as expected.)

I also contacted Cardone, and they reported that this box has a .175 T-bar in it (the JGC box has a .195 T-bar in it). So, this box is on the lighter side of the steering, but with a big block and big fat tires up front, it seems good for my car in parking lots and drives nice on the street. This box was also apparently built right, as it works great, returns to center perfect, and has absolutely no slop. I may have just won the lottery with it, but still, it seems to be an excellent unit.

I do have an AGR box with a .204 T-bar that is supposed to be similar lock to lock that I might try if I ever get bored enough, since the AGR box with a .210 bar was way, way too heavy (and also broken and had no return to center - but AGR sent me a new one with a .204 free of charge when the other one was found defective, but I had already swapped in the 27-6509 so I could drive the car - bonus points for AGR doing the right thing. :thumbsup: )
 
#8 ·
Hello,

The article that Bruce lists above is very good and I had not seen it before - I've saved that link for future reference to others. For me, it was a simple matter to pay a local yard 20 bucks for a 1996 JGC steering box and 25 bucks to pull it. I also got the JGC steering shaft for an extra five bucks though I did not need it. With a new Dorman 31011 rag joint, it all easily bolted up to my stock 70 El Camino steering shaft. My only real struggle was getting the old JGC Pitman arm removed but a big hydraulic press solved that problem. I was also able to reuse the hoses to my LS engine power steering pump with an adapter from Classic Performance Parts (pn CPP605SOL) bought through Summit Racing.

Be advised - the JGC steering box bolt pattern only has three bolt holes compared to four on original A-body steering boxes. But three bolts is plenty enough. Also be prepared for the lowest original steering box bolt used in an A-body to be quite rusty and I could not find them on the shelf locally for replacement. Most of the Chevelle / El Camino catalog places have them and I think I got my replacement set from Ecklers.

I'm very happy with the feel and my original box from 1970 had a leak at the Pitman arm seal. The JGC box is perfect in every way.

Rick
 
#9 ·
Thanks for the additional input - good stuff! Especially that CPP part number, Rick - I am using those 100%! Sure beats modifying the line or the inserts (which cost more and somewhat sketch me out with the metric threads with an SAE nut).

I've had bad experiences with Cardone reman parts (very low quality including dead-on-arrival parts!). I was considering a reman box from Autozone but it has pretty bad reviews as well. It seems a lot of people have used the Lares 1353 from Rockauto, so I'm leaning that way for sure. Whatever I get, I'll be sure to bench test it as best I can before install; really don't want to get the car back together just to find the box is bad.
 
#11 ·
Very interesting! I'm in the middle of the job right now (changing manual to power) and am planning on returning the unit I bought from NPD because it has a four bolt pattern and my 69 Chevelle SS has only three. (Lares 970, 3 turn) Also, the Pitman arm I ordered is exactly the same length as the one that is on the car, so was planning on returning it, too. Anybody have any comments about this? Maybe I should check out Autozone, too; $84 verses the $159 I paid not including the $125 core charge, from the post above. Also, the PS pump didn't fit the bracket, so I exchanged it for a 68 Camaro pump. The return line goes straight down, avoiding the bracket. Nothing is easy!
 
#12 ·
I believe the difference in pitman arms is not the length but rather the size of the steering box output shaft (and thus the splines on the pitman arm), one is larger than the other for manual vs power (don't remember which way around).

Not sure what to suggest for a stock-replacement box.
 
#16 ·
I have installed several AGR boxes, but mostly back when they were $300-$350 through Summit (I think one was $300 before a 10% off coupon). They all worked great.

One of them, I even swapped from a GM 12.7:1 box, and the AGR had a noticeably tighter feeling on the road, made the car feel much better... Even with a stock pump (Cardone rebuild) and stick 275-width tires on the front, turning never too difficult (couldn't 1-finger in a parking lot too well)...

The increased feel, or firmness, is what will make the most difference in road feel... Whether its a 12.7:1 box or a 14:1 ratio...


As for the 3 vs 4 mounting ears, the Chevelle uses 3, but some boxes have 4... The needed 3 for a Chevelle are the same on the 4 ear boxes...


BTW, just in case anyone is new and confused, the "12:1" box some places advertise is really a "12.7:1", the quickest ratio GM made...

A Jeep Grand Cherokee (1992.5-1998) box will be about 3.10 turns. Lock-to-Lock... As some have noted, some steering arms may hit the control arm (external limiter stop) before the internal box limits.

But IF you are buying a box listed only by its number of turns, Lock-to-Lock ( like many resto suppliers advertise/sell), then you may NOT be getting a "quick ratio/ 12.7:1" box. And who knows which T-bar they have. That T-bar is important to the road feel...

IMO, if you are truly interested in improving the feel, beyond just removing the slop of a worn box, then make sure you specify and receive a true quick ratio and/or larger T-bar box...


Anyone have any comments on the newer Delphi boxes?
 
#17 ·
Lee makes great boxes but I am cheap so I got the correct year JGC box from a yard for $50. Lee hooked me up with some adapter fittings and after a clean up and paint I was off and running. I did try with one of the CPP "500 Series" boxes but they are made in China, can't be rebuilt and don't last, so don't waste your money. Feel is much improved over stock with no slop and the ratio is much quicker.
 
#20 ·
I have an AGR box and it's excellent. Whichever way you go, consider other factors. I also have universal ball joint fittings instead of the rag joint and a DD bar steering shaft. It tightens things up even more, although there is considerable road noise transmitted to the steering wheel while driving and you can feel the steering box gears working on the wheel when parallel parking. It's strange at first, then quickly becomes unnoticeable. Big improvement.

Also make sure your tires are good. I chased a highway wander for a long time, had tires that seemed to be in good shape with good tread and wear patterns, but then the wander went away when I switched to another brand due to the present set being out of date.

Correct alignment settings are crucial, and by "correct", it's not what "The Book" says. The factory specs are for bias ply and for a time when highways were a new thing and far less common. They are terrible for radial tires. What you need is nearly opposite of the The Book. Make sure the shop you work with knows this and is willing to deviate from factory specs. Many shops have never heard of this and some are unwilling to do it when you ask or will just resort to The Book anyway. The specs you'll need is as much positive caster as possible, although factory control arms will be limiting. I was able to go from 0* to 3.0* positive on both sides, and the highway control improvement was tremendous. Even more caster, up to 6* is desirable, but I think you need aftermarket control arms or offset shafts to get there. Camber, I believe, should be 0* to -0.5*, and toe in should 1/16 each side for a total of 1/8. I'm pretty sure those are correct, but double check it. There are many threads on here with the numbers.

Other than being lowered a couple of inches, a 1 1/8" sway bar in the front, 7/8" sway bar in the back, boxed rear control arms, and Monroe Sensatrac shocks, the suspension on my Malibu is stock (rebuilt relatively recently with rubber bushings). Nothing crazy or expensive, just mild upgrades and it handles pretty much as well as a new car. I am due for some new springs, but that's going by ride height not drivability. It's not as soft going over bumps, of course -- it's a GM A body -- but I have no trouble keeping up on mountain roads with present day performance sedans such as Audi's, BMW's, or Mercedes. For a bigger car, the handling is excellent.
 
#21 ·
Tires are only a couple years old; no issues at present, just upgrading while it's apart. That alignment sounds pretty close to what I've got set up, I may have a bit more negative camber. It's no corner carver but it's competent. Some day it'll get heavier swaybars and probably aftermarket uppers to get more caster (and fix the camber curve with taller balljoints) but that's no time soon. Front suspension is stock, rebuilt a few years ago with rubber bushings (except endlinks, those are poly just because); UMI tubular arms with poly bushings in the rear; nearly-new stock-ride shocks all around. It's comfortable; like I said eventually it'll get a little more handling work but for now just looking to swap out the box while it's all apart for a little more hand-to-road communication. Maybe the manual box in my rx7 has spoiled me ;)
 
#24 ·
I have a 12:7 box for sale that I rebuild about 5yrs ago. Have maybe 50 miles.
It's a 3rd gen camaro box with the stops removed and the Lee aluminum fittings to use the stock hoses,just need the rag joint.
I can let it go for $50.00 plus the ride.

I went to a Delphi 600 box and type 2 turn on pump.
 
#25 ·
I picked up a set of CPP 605SOL adapters for the lines, Dorman rag joint, and ordered the Lares 1353 box; I'll be using stock lines/pump. Hopefully in spring/summer I'll come back and let you all know how it turned out - thanks for the help!
 
#26 ·
Looking at Rockauto I also see the Lares 11182 (instead of the Lares 1353 referenced earlier in this thread)

https://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinfo.php?pk=6146769&cc=1182114&jsn=388

.210 torsion
says 12.7:1 (but then the info link shows it also comes in a 10:1)

I dont see the specs on the 1353 anywhere. Is the only difference if its reman or not?

1353
https://catalog.larescorp.com/part/1353/Jeep/Grand Cherokee/1995/330/6Cyl 4.0L L

11182
https://catalog.larescorp.com/part/11182/Jeep/Grand Cherokee/1995/330/6Cyl 4.0L L
 
#27 ·
I am way too far down this vortex.....

Using just the ACDelco parts because they list more details on this site i found the following.

The part listed for a 1995 Jeep grand Cherokee is 36G0115
2.5-3 turns to lock

For a 67 El Camino it shows 36G0097
2.5-3 turns to lock

Really the only difference I can see is the output shaft with the '67 being 32 splines and 0.8" vs the '95 at 26 splines and 0.72" (this would just mean a different rag joint correct)

Is there some internal difference between these boxes?
 
#30 ·
More different than better on the fittings, I assume the O-rings are less likely to leak, but P/S hoses are pretty good seal wise already, right? All I know about actual use is on my El Camino. It had what I assume is factory power steering. It was just over 4 turns lock to lock and an infant's pinky could steer it. After the JGC Box swap, it is just over 3, and much more normal feeling. I would not call it stiff at all, but much much better then the "luxurious" over assisted box I removed. I used to have to hand over hand (with no feel) making a right turn at an intersection.
 
#31 ·
I was in the same boat last year, not wanting to spend $400. Maybe I should have. I went with the reman Dorman fron Autozone. It was a POS from day one and only got worse. I then went back and check reviews for these boxes on multiple sites and they were 50/50 good or bad. I should have done that first.

For me the quick ratio felt a little too quick right off the turn, took a little getting used too. GM also made variable ratio boxes that came in later chevelles. my friend has one in his 69 and he loves it.

Also, someone mentioned that his box "snapped back" to center very well. Isn't that more of a function of the caster angle? I could be wrong. That, to me, is the thing that probably bothers me the most about driving old cars. I have never had one that centers itself very well. And yes, I have all new suspension parts, front end alignment etc. The one thing I never tried was new upper control arms to get a better caster angle. Maybe soon.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top