ne of the most innovative developments on the automotive aftermarket suspension scene was the introduction of coilover shock absorbers. Among the first to offer billet aluminum coilovers for street performance and drag racing was Aldan American. Forty years later they’re still producing quality products that are made entirely in the U.S.

The obvious advantage to coilovers is that wrapping the springs around the shock absorber makes an extremely compact suspension system, and there are other advantages as well. Tuning the suspension by altering the spring rate is simply a matter of swapping the replaceable coil springs. As coilover springs they are available in a wide range of spring rates, finding the right one for any application is easy, quick, and affordable. In addition, altering ride height is just a matter of turning the threaded adjuster on the shock absorber body.

While coilovers have commonly been found on sports cars, hot rods, and other cars with custom chassis for a long time, converting larger vehicles with essentially stock suspension to coilovers was difficult and expensive. However, now there is an easy-to-install, affordable method to incorporate all the advantages of coilover suspension in a variety of GM products, including 1964-1972 A-body cars (the example we’re showing here is a 1972 Chevelle but the installation procedure for the others is basically the same).

t wasn’t long ago that a trick roller camshaft in a small-block Chevy was high-end, drag race tech that looked good in glossy magazine pages but was yet out of reach for the average hot rodder. Boy, how times have changed. These previously exotic grinds have trickled from “can’t get it” to “can’t afford it,” all the way down to “Yeah, my Silverado came with that.” And whether we’re talking classic big- or small-block or late-model LS/LT, roller camshafts are here to stay. Today, they’re a practical, readily-available upgrade to any big- or small-block engine.

When applied to camshafts, the word roller corresponds to the interface between the cam lobe and lifter. In older engine architectures, the lifter was of a flat tappet style (see last month’s issue), where the crown of the lifter rode directly on the cam lobe with no roller bearing assistance. The lifter had a slight taper to it and touched the lobe only on its outermost edge, which caused the lifter to spin in its bore during engine operation.

hen it comes to safely securing the human cargo in a pre-’70s Chevy, it’s rare to find an option that improves upon the basic lap belt. Vehicle designs of the time were more based on styling than safety, so when it comes to upgrading the restraint system in a vintage Chevy, one’s often faced with some daunting decisions. Such was the case when Jason Scudellari was bolting together a 1963 Chevy Nova for his wife, Randi. The lack of B-pillars in the hardtop meant even something as simple as mounting a traditional three-point shoulder restraint was out of the question. One of the motivations behind the build was to take it to track days and autocross events, pushing the supercharged LS engine through its rev range and around the course. That said, Jason decided that the safety of its precious cargo would be paramount, and a pair of lap belts just wouldn’t do.

While perusing his interior options with TMI Products, Jason spotted their Pro-Chicane Series bucket seats. Knowing that the provided bolster support would be perfect to keep the occupants planted, it was the shoulder harness cutouts that got the wheels turning. A separate conversation with Craig Morrison at Art Morrison Enterprises and Jason had the solution to his safety problem. Jason mentioned his idea for a simple harness bar, mounted to the floor behind the front seats to act as the upper mounting point for a four-point harness system from G-Force Racing Gear. Morrison recommended taking things a step further by incorporating the harness bar with a full rollbar that will span the entire height and width of the interior of the car, providing further safety for the occupants. To support the rollbar, a pair of removable door bars would be incorporated, as would a pair of rear support tubes, connecting the top of the rollbar with the rear floor of the Nova’s body. It should be noted that while this setup definitely adds a degree or two of safety to the vehicle, building a full rollcage that met the specs of any sanctioning body was not the intention.

orsepower and comfort don’t exactly go hand-in-hand. In order to make more horsepower, you sometimes have to sacrifice comfort, and to be more comfortable, you may have to sacrifice a little horsepower. In our younger days, those comfort sacrifices included stripping all of the seemingly unnecessary accessories off the front of the engine—it just seemed like the right thing to do. The air conditioning and power steering system often went to the scrap pile in an effort to save weight and take some drag off the engine. But there’s a time in every car guy’s life that he needs a little more comfort.

That’s the point we’ve reached with this 1964 Chevelle. It’s a cool cruiser with a mostly original 283ci small-block, but we’ve been fighting the original manual steering system for years. When simple tasks like backing out of the garage and navigating a tight parking spot at the local burger joint become a chore, you know it’s time to make a change. We’re finally doing something about it with a Power Steering Conversion Kit from Classic Performance Products (CPP).

The kit (PN CPP6467PSK) is a direct bolt-on system that includes a new 500 Series steering box, steering coupler, power steering pump, and hoses. In order to adapt the kit to our original 283ci engine, we ordered the 6468PSBK-SB bracket kit, as our engine does not have accessory holes in the heads. The guys at CPP helped us determine which pulleys we’d need to make it work. A CP38809 power steering pump pulley and a CP38812 add-on crankshaft pulley did the trick. We were also advised to pick up a power steering filter, so we grabbed a PSFF-K to make sure the new box would have a long service life.

ear ratio is one of the easiest ways to improve acceleration if your goal is a quicker car in the quarter-mile. Or, a gear ratio change can be used to establish a desired engine speed for a better highway cruiser. Or, you may be looking at what effect a rear tire diameter has on highway cruise rpm. These are common questions that come up when bench racing or planning your next project. While it’s common knowledge that a 4.10:1 rear gear ratio is better for the dragstrip than a 3.08:1 rear gear, the questions relate to how to accurately determine the exact result these changes might have on other aspects of building a street car.

If all we wanted to do was build a car for the dragstrip that accelerated as quickly as possible, figuring out that ratio would not be difficult. In fact, toward the end of this story, we’ll show you one way to approach that question. But for street-driven cars, the issue of gear ratio often involves compromise. A 4.10:1 rear gear is great for the dragstrip, but it comes at the unacceptable price of excessive engine rpm for highway cruising. This story will offer some simple math equations you can use that will offer insight into the effect of gear ratio and tire diameter. We’ll also illustrate how an overdrive ratio in the transmission will improve highway cruise rpm.

Let’s start with a simple example. Let’s say we are building a C10 Chevy pickup for the street. The truck will be powered by a mild LS 5.3L LS engine and backed with a TH350 automatic transmission. Let’s say that you may decide to tow with this truck so it needs a decent rear gear. Let’s put in a 3.55:1 rear gear with a 27-inch-tall rear tire. The question then is how to predict the engine cruise rpm at 70 mph.