babbah

I have a 1967 BB roadster - 435 Hp, no power steering of course....

I noticed on the small block version of these models that is a steering stabilizer installed - one side to the steering relay rod (center link) and other end to the frame.

What does this stabilizer do? It looks like a shock absorber....

Why don't the Big Block Cars have these?

I am thinking of installing one on my BB roadster. Will it help somehow with the steering? All parts are available with associated mounting hardware and brackets.

John Z, can you respond? Thanks !!

buns

I don't mean to get off on a rant here, Bubbuh, but NedP1 replied to your post with a very informative answer. If you view his profile you will see that his occupation is engineer. I don't think that means he drives a train. No offense to JohnZ, but he his not the only informed person on this forum. It is 1:30 a.m. in Michigan right now so NedP1 is probably in bed. That is why I am replying. I have also given information on this forum only to be ignored until John or Duke replied to confirm. I sincerely hope that no-one pisses off JohnZ like they did Duke. Or you are all f**ked.


Just my 2.07 cents worth. ( 2 cents plus sales tax)

p.s. Happy Canada Day/ 4th of July weekend.

stingrayl76

Sorry guy, JohnZ is at the 2006 Camaro Superfest in Ypsilanti, MI today. Over 250 Camaros registered.

Dave

67L36Driver

Aligned to factory specs a C2 exhibits a lot of bump steer with its attendent toe change (shaking). Hence a steering damper was used. JM .02

I don't think a damper will clear the 6 quart BB pan.

NedP1

Last weekend I asked a corvette parts guy about the six quart pan. He says it will clear the 6 quart, but it won't work on Power Steering.

I may be looling for another pan, and I quess I would to to a used 5 quart. I have looked many times as the Mildoon, at the SEMA convention, and in the Summit catalog. I don't like their looks and don't trust their baffling. I have a Z28 windage tray and earlier the flat one.

babbah

Thanks for the replies, including NedP1 and yes it clears the 6 qt pan...

IMO - John Z's and Duke's information that is provided on this forum has been very informative and has helped me resolve many problems in the past. I know that he can address the question of why these were not in big blocks as he worked for GM - That is why I asked......since NedP1's response did not address that part of the posted question.....

JohnZ

I don't know what the Engineering reason was not to have the steering stabilizer on big-blocks (wouldn't have been pan interference, as you could get power steering on a big-block, and the power steering ram occupies the same real estate as the steering stabilizer). Some development engineer decided it wasn't needed with a big-block, so it wasn't released for that usage.

NedP1

Absolutely correct. If a development engineer asked to spend that kind of money he must have plenty of data to support it. Back then, objective data was not as easy to collect I would imagine data was mostly subjective. I have a close friend who after GMI became a development engineer for chev. From what he tells me he sort of reported to the design engineer who released the part. Sometimes when one is working on this kind of a problem a slight change is enough to correct it. Perhaps the change in front end weight with the BB.

Bottom line the stabilizer is put on to correct a problem and not to improve steering feel. If it was valved to have no effect on returnability the bleeds would be quite large and and there would still be friction from the piston and seals. You can't have any air in the pressure tube and I would imagine they used a freon bag if you cut one open.

I'll have to ask my friend (employee) if he remembers any on this. He later quit GM, got a masters at Stanford, and started to work at Ford where the development engineer had an equal status to the design engineer. He did his masters thesis on steering systems and made much of his own test equipment - before winning the world hot air baloon championship. He tells great stories about his GMI days. He watched a chev BB blow when it hit 650 HP on a Dyno.

NedP1

Absolutely correct. If a development engineer asked to spend that kind of money he must have plenty of data to support it. Back then, objective data was not as easy to collect I would imagine data was mostly subjective. I have a close friend who after GMI became a development engineer for chev. From what he tells me he sort of reported to the design engineer who released the part. Sometimes when one is working on this kind of a problem a slight change is enough to correct it. Perhaps the change in front end weight with the BB.

Bottom line the stabilizer is put on to correct a problem and not to improve steering feel. If it was valved to have no effect on returnability the bleeds would be quite large and and there would still be friction from the piston and seals. You can't have any air in the pressure tube and I would imagine they used a freon bag if you cut one open.

I'll have to ask my friend (employee) if he remembers any on this. He later quit GM, got a masters at Stanford, and started to work at Ford where the development engineer had an equal status to the design engineer. He did his masters thesis on steering systems and made much of his own test equipment - before winning the world hot air baloon championship. He tells great stories about his GMI days. He watched a chev BB blow when it hit 650 HP on a Dyno.

NedP1

Absolutely correct. If a development engineer asked to spend that kind of money he must have plenty of data to support it. Back then, objective data was not as easy to collect I would imagine data was mostly subjective. I have a close friend who after GMI became a development engineer for chev. From what he tells me he sort of reported to the design engineer who released the part. Sometimes when one is working on this kind of a problem a slight change is enough to correct it. Perhaps the change in front end weight with the BB.

Bottom line the stabilizer is put on to correct a problem and not to improve steering feel. If it was valved to have no effect on returnability the bleeds would be quite large and and there would still be friction from the piston and seals. You can't have any air in the pressure tube and I would imagine they used a freon bag if you cut one open.

I'll have to ask my friend (employee) if he remembers any on this. He later quit GM, got a masters at Stanford, and started to work at Ford where the development engineer had an equal status to the design engineer. He did his masters thesis on steering systems and made much of his own test equipment - before winning the world hot air baloon championship. He tells great stories about his GMI days. He watched a chev BB blow when it hit 650 HP on a Dyno.

Procrastination Racing

Heck, John, the answer is easy. At slow speed, there is so much weight there, the wheels don't dare shake. At high speed, the wheels aren't on the ground anymore, so a stabilizer is meaningless.

Odds are it was not so much engineering as sales. Those buying the 250 hp and 300 hp were more likely to have women drivers than the high horse big blocks. So sales probably wanted them to not shake and scare them. Anyone buying a high horse was not going to be scared by a little shaking, as they were probably already pitching the car left and right.

Yes, that is chauvenistic, but then, car sales were chauvenistic back then and have been historically. And yes, I know several women who can drive circles around most of us.

babbah

Thanks all for the replies