PDA

View Full Version : steering box



wayne918
02-16-2016, 06:17 PM
can anyone tell me if you can use any other steering box on a tri five

Rick_L
02-16-2016, 06:43 PM
There is no ready substitute other than an aftermarket power steering box made for the car, like a CPP 500.

chevynut
02-16-2016, 07:00 PM
There a 605 box conversion that was "the thing" to do for many years. Lots of cars used these power steering boxes.

markm
02-17-2016, 06:38 AM
No reason to use anything other than a 500 style PS box if you want power or OEM rebuilt for manual steering. The stock box on these cars was one of the first recirculating ball steering boxes, they are very good boxes compared to other cars of that era. The 605 is a step backwards in technology and requires you cut up an original box to build an adaptor.

chevynut
02-17-2016, 07:19 AM
If the 605 was "a step backwards" then why was that the upgrade to do in the late 70's through the early 2000's? The boxes came in the 70's and early 80's cars. Lots of guys did it back then before the newer boxes were available. There are better alternatives now, but the 500 isn't the only alternative.

NickP
02-17-2016, 07:38 AM
If I recall correctly, the 605 was available back in 1964 on a Buick Special & Pontiac Tempest. Regardless, far from a "step back".

chevynut
02-17-2016, 07:53 AM
Found this: http://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hmn/2007/05/Saginaw-Steering-Boxes/1455074.html

"The Saginaw gearbox is a rotary-valve type unit using recirculating ball bearings. They are referred to as recirculated ball-type because they use the same ball bearings on both the worm gear and the sector gear to reduce friction within the housing. You will often see this gearbox referred to as an "800" or "605" unit. The only major difference between these two units is how the pitman shaft is held into the unit. An 800 unit has a four-bolt cover on the top of the unit (the end of the shaft opposite the pitman arm spline). The 605 units use a single snap ring that holds a round cover into the top of the housing. GM also used two gearboxes, depending on the weight and size of the model. Station wagons, full-size cars and large front-wheel-drive cars used a heavy-duty gearbox usually identified by GM part number 5687962. These units had a 3.5-inch piston diameter, and the pitman shaft will turn anywhere from 3.5 to four turns between fully locked left and fully locked right. These units were rated at a 17.5:1 steering ratio. Mid-size and smaller models used a steering box tagged 5691676, and these units used a 3-inch piston. The travel on the smaller-piston unit was three to 3.5 turns lock to lock. The mid-size gearboxes were rated at a 14.4:1 steering ratio. Both the 3.5-inch and the 3-inch-bore gearboxes have a .813-inch input shaft diameter, and most will have 31 splines on the input shaft. You can substitute between both of these units. Aside from the mounting bolt pattern (most are 4-bolt mount but there are two different three-bolt mounts, as well), these units are all interchangeable. The more responsive 14.4:1 ratio gearboxes replaced the earlier 17.5:1 ratio boxes in most models by 1973. This is a good thing to remember when you begin your search for a replacement. You can locate one of the basic Saginaw "800" series power steering boxes in one of these vehicles:

1964-'76 AMC
1961-'76 Cadillac, including
1963-'76 Eldorado
1964-'76 Buick and Pontiac full-size cars and Riviera
1973-'76 Regal
1975-'76 Skyhawk, Seville, Monza and Starfire
1965-'76 Chevrolet full-size cars
1967-'76 Camaro and 1968-'76 Nova
1964-'76 Chevelle, Cutlass, GTO, Grand Prix, Lemans, Ventura and Tempest
1971-'76 Vega and 1975 Pontiac Astre
1960-'76 Oldsmobile full-size cars including 1966-'76 Tornado
1971-'76 Jeep Cherokee, Wagoneer, Gladiator and J-series pickups
1972-'75 International Scout and Traveler

MP&C
02-17-2016, 07:57 AM
Here's a CPP500 we're installing, it does have a few challenges with header clearance...
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204076.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204077.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204078.jpg

Header clearance tool for tube #4...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204079.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204080.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204081.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204082.jpg

Drum sander clearance for tube #3... looks like we have some touch up painting to do..

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204084.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204085.jpg

Much better...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204086.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/rmccartney/1955%20Chevy%20Wagon%20Restoration%20Album%205/Picture%204087.jpg[/

rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017
02-17-2016, 08:46 AM
NICE^^^^^^^^

Rick_L
02-17-2016, 10:21 AM
A 605 box does NOT have recirculating balls like the stock box. It has a simple worm and rack.

Also the hydraulic valve in a 605 is built to give you WAY too much power assist too soon, and there's no good way to fix it.

For those reasons and more, a 605 box is a step back from a CPP 500 box or similar box.

There are no hard parts available to rebuild a 605 box. All you can do is seek out good used parts. (There are seal kits available.)

For comparison, a stock manual (or power) box is 20:1 ratio, a 605 is 16:1, and a CPP 500 is 14:1.

A CPP 500 box is a newly manufactured box (in Asia) that is a clone of a Saginaw 670 box except that the housing is configured to bolt to the frame like the stock box did. The housing is one piece, no welding.

Borgeson and a couple of others sell rebuilt 670 Saginaw boxes that have a fabricated lower housing and a longer sector shaft. I haven't checked prices in a long time but they were more expensive than the CPP box back then, and some required a new pitman arm too. (CPP uses the stock pitman arm.)

There are also people out there selling 670 Saginaw boxes from Jeeps, unmodified, with an adapter plate. Thing is, that box and its adapter plate don't fit a 55-57 right because it's too thick.

There are some other manual boxes on the market, but they don't fit. (Same could be said of boxes from other cars.) Thing is, they are the same technology as a stock manual box, so there's no advantage.

As for a 605 box in 1964, I don't think so. To my knowledge, that was the first year for a Saginaw 800 box. An 800 box is bigger and has a 4 bolt top cover. It's too big for a 55-57 in most cases, and I don't think it's ever been built with a long sector shaft like is needed.

markm
02-17-2016, 11:12 AM
Thanks Rick, I believe a 605 made its day view on low cost G bodies like the 1978 Malibu. Most I have seem have had the optional Saginaw. A far as clearance goes I don't understand I have headers on the 396 in my 55 with a CCP500. Yes its tight, but its a BBC. As far as Cnuts chart goes he must have cut and pasted that from somewhere, that missed an important point. The early 800 Boxes were junk, example the one on my 67 SS 350 had no road feel, the one bolted in place from a 77 Z28 with variable ratio was wonderful. I had similar results on my 70 Chevelle SS 454 using a later Trans Am box.

Found this explains my results. http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/chassis-suspension/ccrp-0901-gm-steering-box-upgrade/

wayne918
02-17-2016, 01:31 PM
I would like to thank you for the response to my question. I know it will be very helpful. We are just getting started on the 55. We will have more ? i fill sure. thank you

rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017
02-17-2016, 02:49 PM
There a 605 box conversion that was "the thing" to do for many years. Lots of cars used these power steering boxes.

The 605 is kind of like drop spindles. They were the thing back when but now better used as boat anchors LOL.....

chevynut
02-17-2016, 03:19 PM
I still say you're wrong about dropped spindles. They're a better way to lower the car than screwing up the suspension geometry by angling the lower a-arm up. ;)

Rick_L
02-17-2016, 03:30 PM
To expand on markm's comment, the Saginaw 800 boxes have 2 or 3 things going for them that 605s don't. One is that the factory had several torsional hydraulic valves from loose to tight, and choosing the right one can really make a difference. Also they made different ratios through the years. 16:1, 14:1, and 12.7:1 variable - again you can choose the one that suits. Any valve and any ratio can be swapped into most cases, or the whole unit can be swapped. They were also manufactured from the 60s through at least the 90s (my 95 truck had one, tight valve and 12.7 ratio).

The 605 was only manufactured for a few years (79-84 I believe), and the valve and ratio were the same in all.

Rick_L
02-17-2016, 05:31 PM
rocky said,

The 605 is kind of like drop spindles. They were the thing back when but now better used as boat anchors LOL.....

Cnut said,

I still say you're wrong about dropped spindles. They're a better way to lower the car than screwing up the suspension geometry by angling the lower a-arm up.

I've been studying this debate for a bit. I will post some comments soon. My current thought is that the real answer is somewhat between your positions, but I haven't completed my layouts and analysis of them yet. I can say that dropped spindles will be a benefit.

chevynut
02-17-2016, 06:19 PM
The only reason I mentioned the 605 is that it IS an alternative that was used by a lot of tri5ers over the years, and many still use it despite it's deficiencies. It's a viable alternative to the stock box, which is what the OP originally asked about.

Rick_L
02-17-2016, 06:45 PM
You are right on that. And there have to be 605 boxes out there for sale cheap. In fact I have one that I haven't offered yet. That will fit the budget of some.

rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017
02-17-2016, 07:01 PM
Cnut keep polishing that turd. I'm personally not concerned about your bolt design. If we are going to discuss fatigue I'd be more concerned about the aly C4 parts 50 years down the road. Rick keep studying it. I'll be in Bay Town Texas on June 12 and you can plop your azz in my car and take it for a spin or I'll gladly scare the living sh.. Out of you in it if you wish and end this BS lol. Nut my work is shown in the last post of the thread you called me out on. It matches every thing you googled and posted in prevoius threads in an attempt to say I'm full of it. And your Cowardly ass never even responded.

rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017
02-17-2016, 07:07 PM
And for the record Rick and to stay on topic it has a 500 box lol.

markm
02-18-2016, 06:37 AM
The 605 is kind of like drop spindles. They were the thing back when but now better used as boat anchors LOL.....

I buy some 55-72 repo parts from a guy who has 605 boxes laying on the ground outside his shop in the rain and snow. Hardly an alternative to any serious build when 500s run $400.

Getting kind of tired of arguing with a guy who builds show cars.

chevynut
02-18-2016, 07:07 AM
If we are going to discuss fatigue I'd be more concerned about the aly C4 parts 50 years down the road.

Who was discussing fatigue in this thread? ;) You obviously know very little about metallurgy or fatigue so your comments and "concerns" are meaningless imo. Tell us in technical terms why you're so concerned. Which parts do you think will fatigue and why?

The C4 parts will be around long after your stock parts have rusted away. Some have been around since 1984, already 32 years, with nary a sign of your prediction of impending fatigue failure. A lot of aluminum airplanes have been around for well over 70 years and are still flying.


you can plop your azz in my car and take it for a spin or I'll gladly scare the living sh.. Out of you in it if you wish and end this BS

Yes, poor suspension geometry design can scare the living shit out of anyone :). Have you driven your Nomad hard yet? Have you ever driven a tri5 set up like your Nomad is? Comparing to your Olds is irrelevant.


Nut my work is shown in the last post of the thread you called me out on. It matches every thing you googled and posted in prevoius threads in an attempt to say I'm full of it. And your Cowardly ass never even responded.

First of all, I never "called you out". I made a technical comparison of your solution to the C4 suspensions and to a stock suspension with dropped spindles. I explained what your solution did to the suspension geometry. Sorry if a technical debate bothers you so much.

You started all of this by claiming that dropped spindles are junk and your 2" cut springs are better. Trying to get you to understand the fallacy of your argument is like beating a dead horse because you conveniently ignore certain aspects. I've explained in more than one thread why you're wrong but you can't seem to grasp it. The bottom line is you've moved the roll center downward, significantly away from the CG which is not good for handling. Oh yeah, you'll "fix" that with stiffer springs so it rides like a truck. LOL. :)

I didn't know you responded to my last post on the other thread...it must have dropped off my "new posts" list. I'll go check it out and explain why you're wrong again. :) But it's your car so do what you want with it.

I'm looking forward to Rick's analysis.

chevynut
02-18-2016, 02:58 PM
Cnut keep polishing that turd. I'm personally not concerned about your bolt design. If we are going to discuss fatigue I'd be more concerned about the aly C4 parts 50 years down the road. Rick keep studying it. I'll be in Bay Town Texas on June 12 and you can plop your azz in my car and take it for a spin or I'll gladly scare the living sh.. Out of you in it if you wish and end this BS lol. Nut my work is shown in the last post of the thread you called me out on. It matches every thing you googled and posted in prevoius threads in an attempt to say I'm full of it. And your Cowardly ass never even responded.

And that's sure keeping on topic, eh Rocky? I don't know what "turd" you're talking about because I don't give a rip about stock or 605 or whatever steering boxes you use. The 605 was viable for years and it's still a cheap, viable solution today that many still use. Face it.

BTW, I started a new thread on suspension geometries where hopefully we can discuss the pros and cons of each from a technical perspective without you injecting a bunch of off-topic crap. So some on over and supply some REAL information about the various suspensions without getting emotional and getting your panties in a wad. I took some careful measurements off of a stock clip today so we can see what's going on. Rick and the rest of us who are interested can use those to evaluate what a 1/2" taller balljoint really accomplishes.

We'll see who the "coward" is now. ;)

wayne918
06-02-2016, 04:39 PM
can anyone tell me if you can use any other steering box on a tri five
can anyone tell me the proper name for the metal sleeve that is in the upper shock hole that was factory installed 1955 chevy