looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
3800 plus car w me in it. big block. auto400 trans. m/s, m/brakesl. battery in front. front is good. so far. need to drop an inch from center of wheel down thru center cap
|
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
What do you currently have for traction devices in the rear?
|
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
car has H R Parts plus 1/4 inch lowers and anti roll bar. Morrison 3 way upper kit set on lowest hole. 30 inch tires. Forgot to measure rear spring compressed hight, got in from working on it a few ago.
|
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
Not familiar with the Morrison kit, sold a number of the BMR Xtreme sway bars similar to the H&R bar. "A" bodies normally sit lower in the rear.
Were the rear springs changed? if so the ones you have may be taller? I would double check to see if the Morrison kit is limiting suspension travel? and double check the links for the "anti roll" bar, |
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
The upper kit I use is a no hop bar set up w 3 spots to attach at rear end housing..
I use the lowest neaest the factory spot on top of rear end pumpkin. The lowers are just plus uarter inch to center wheel in wheel well, so they are not up against the front of the rear wheel well fender lip w a tall tire. Very much a stock style suspension, which the Morrison kit is used in stock eliminator as is the anti roll bar. The lowers being plus length I believe are not. There is no binding and my friend gave me an old set of rear coils I will try but do not know what they are from. I'm hoping there is a moog numberor eaton to lower a little, car is nose diving now. w 30" talls rears and 27" talls front as in tires I tried Hotchkis. Lowered it to much so the front of the lower trailing arms were pointed to the ground. To low for my car. |
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
Chris you have a Pm
|
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
Chris, what exactly are you trying to achieve, what is your ride height now at each wheel well opening?
Here's my former Chevelle, BB, turbo400, ps, pb with 27" front runners and 30" slicks and it's ride height is perfect.;) http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/o...DSC00680-1.jpg http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/o...r/DSC00681.jpg |
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
Wow Ed, that car still looks great to me. I miss it. But understand progress and its working well for you.
My car now sits just like that. I thought I should get the tail end down. My car sits pretty square now left to right side. Off about 1/4 to 3/8 side to side. I swapped rear springs as car was 5/8 taller on pass side w no driver. It appears to have helped big time so I think I may need rear springs. I stil have to cut an extra 1/2 coil off pass side to keep front suare but a measurable difference in measurement of lower control arm to frame measured at lower bump stop. I had to put aftermarket front control arms on as I bent 3 sets of Morosos. Always come out curved The new arms appear to keep spring straight in front frame pocket now. I've been trying to dial in car before I race again, hopefully this year. Thanks for looking Ed. Chris. |
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
sorry, but I forgot to add, I broke somehow the right front shock, red Koni, w the morosos, and started to hit the new Calverts I purchased. I put the Santhuff springs in next, flat bottoms on bothend but there was not gonna be enough clearance w the fatter Calvert shock(fatter tehn the koni that is) Global West arms are not for me but they seem to let the shock breathe all around in the spring and the springs do not appear to arch .
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r...riscar11-1.jpg you can see moroso spring hitting new calvert shock on right front. |
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
Chris, something ain't right or wasn't right if you were bending springs with the factory A arms and breaking shocks. That said, I never used Moroso "trick" springs on the Chevelle.
I'd be checking everything for square as well all attachment points for a crack or broken weld before I'd run it down the track again. Made over 4000 passes with my Chevelle, never bent a spring or broke a shock("red Koni" too) and the A arms were the ones installed at the factory in 1968... http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/o...scan0001-1.jpg |
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
chassis is good. arms, I only have 1 pair, no spares. What I have learned is the new arms lower spring pocket keeps the spring more square with the upper frame pocket. I always have to cut the lowers to get correct hight with 1/2 coil off pass side to keep level.
The factory arms are angled toward the outside of car. I can see it on my buick n chevelle. One other thing I apoligize for not mentioning is the bump stop under my upper control arms are cut in half. My car has never been quite as low as yours in the front. Did you use full bump stops on top or any other limiting device. My kowers appear to go lower then yours in the pic, you can see the curve in my morosos, and they are up against the shock in my pic, with rub marks on them. |
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
I used moroso rear trick springs im my malibu and it lowered it alot over the factory coils. And there is a left and a right coil (one is stiffer than the other) Car still sits level too. Check out moroso PN:47500
Heres a link to the site : http://www.moroso.com/catalog/catego...?CatCode=26002 I put air bags in mine just to adjust ride height....5 psi in the bags rase my car 3/4 of an inch. Hope this helps |
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
Quote:
Again, if your bending springs and breaking shocks there is a reason why and it ain't the factory a arms or springs that are the reason. |
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
Gentlemen thank you so much. Ed I've always had to cut springs to get car to correct ride heights.
I think that is a big culpret. I put my stock arms next to my tubular ones and there was a huge difference in angling of how the coil will sit in the lower spring pocket. the shocks never broke in half or anything, just rubbing and adjuster failed in the koni. still worked as a shock tho. calverts are much fatter and were left with nice scrub mark. I will reinspect next week. I've had the chassis straightened by Super Dad in North Babylon. He is one of the best out there, and car went straight as an arrow after. If you look at angles of spring pockets, they never fully allign on same plain to be parallel top and bottom. I consider myself a super pro replacing them now. lol. I think there is a large difference between the cut up morosos to factory ones which you used. which were discontinued eons ago. I remember when you first gave me the part number and I could not find them . I bought more morosos. more cutting. It really is something you need to see close up. I need to take some pics. I will next week as I will not be touching cars this week. I truly appreciate yours and everyones help. Chris. I think a big problem I caused was cutting the snubbers down so far. should have left stock and found a better spring, but that was a long time ago I did it. |
Re: looking to lower rear of 1970 Chevelle
Chris, just to be clear, the Moog springs that I installed in my Chevelle over a decade ago are not "factory" replacement springs for a Chevelle.. What I did was take the Moroso trick spring's specs and found a Moog spring that matched all the specs except rated load as the trick springs were rated for 1800+ lbs. and my nose weight was nearly 2300 lbs. The Moog spring I chose is a heavier wire diameter, .61, rated for 2100 lbs. but the free height and loaded height are virutally identical, so the Chevelle's nose is 10% undersprung.
As to your Calvert shocks rubbing the inside of the coil spring, the fix is to move the lower A arm shock mounting holes outward 1/2", same as required to install Afcos. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.