67 non-tele lower steering column assembly?

[Daniel E.]

I am in the process of restoring the steering column for my March 67 Corvette (column is dated C67 7). I ordered replacement parts per recommendations found in recent posts as well as advice from the vendor. I am in the process of reassembling the lower section of the column and none of the new parts match that of what I removed. I have referenced many vendor catalogs and the 67 overhaul manual and can't determine the correct parts or assembly order.

Could someone post a picture of the lower steering column assembly for the early or late late design?

What I took apart appears to be parts of the early and late design! Is this possible????

Thanks in advance
Daniel

[Joe L.]

Re: 67 non-tele lower steering column assembly?

Daniel------

You're a braver man than I. I would not even attempt a tele or tilt-tele columm rebuild. Some professionals won't even accept a 67-68 Corvette tele column for such a job.

I know of no "1st design" and "2nd design" for 1967 tele columns. However, the 1968 tele column is very similar. It's possible that some of the 1968 parts for the tele-column could have become the SERVICE parts for the 1967 tele column. It's also possible that the configuration of the SERVICE parts for the columns changed over the years.

Unfortunately, I don't have any pictures of a disassembled column to provide. If I had some, it would likely mean that I got them after disasembling a 1967-68 tele steering column. Believe me, that would NEVER happen.

[John H.]

Re: 67 non-tele lower steering column assembly?

Daniel -

Your March 7th 1967 non-tele column should be the 2nd design, which went into production at St. Louis in February. Here's a photo of the components, in assembly sequence, for the bottom end of the 2nd design column.

[Joe L.]

Re: 67 non-tele lower steering column assembly?

John-----

Yes, somehow I mis-read this question and thought that he was referring to a tele column. Don't ask me how I did it since it was clearly stated as being a non-tele column in the subject line. Anyway, Daniel had e-mailed me regarding my mistaken reading of the column in question. I had little familiarity with the 67-68 standard column and had not got around to researching anything regarding it. So, I'm glad to see your response; now I don't need to do any further research.

[Daniel E.]

Thanks! I appreciate the information. *NM*