RE: Rear Springs

[Steven Charette <stevec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mo,
	Double check that dimension - IIRC the front segments on superstock
springs are 20" - thus the longer hangers are available for bodies with
longer front segments...

	According to the old DC Race Manual the 62-63 Body cars had 20"
front segments (SS springs should be a bolt-in) and the '64-'65 B-Bodies had
21" front segments (can you say "2% car"?).  A-Bodies had the 20" front
segment as well.  I think the intent of the 2" longer hangers was for the
'66-up cars, E-Bodies, etc.

	Double check all this... As I get older the information fades...

SC

-----Original Message-----
From: MO ( Steve Mick) [mailto:micher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 3:48 PM
To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Rear Springs


Dave, I am getting ready to do the same thing. Here is what I find so far: 
The SS springs are about 2" shorter than our 62-65 B body stock springs> You
can get a 2" extended front spring hanger that bolts in.  It has two sets of
holes for the front eye bolt , I would guess to set your ride height. 
People I have talked to say they ride fine for the street. My bet is you
could tell the difference on a 400 mile roadtrip! My debate is, to have new
HD stock springs made locally and use Cal-Trac adjustable traction bars--or
to use SS springs...........................MO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave64" <lt7dave@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 9:38 AM
Subject: Rear Springs


>
> I'm going to be swapping a different rearend into my '64 Belvedere 
> (2D,
> HT) in the spring.  While I'm at it, I'd like to replace the rear springs.

> I'm thinking about installing a set of new super stock springs, but 
> I'd like to get feedback from you guys who have done this.  Are they a 
> bad idea for a street car?  What other options may be better?  I'm 
> looking to get the ride hight up a little.  Even new stock springs 
> would probably get it up a bit higher than the 45 year old ones that 
> are on it now, but I'm thinking something more substantial than stock 
> may be the way to go.  I don't plan to make the car into a heavy duty 
> strip car, but occasional 1/4 mile activity will be in it's future.  
> I've read that some guys think the ride height is too high with ss
springs, and others think it's just fine.
> All opinions are welcome and appreciated.  Thanks!
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person -- 
> directly to that person.  I.e., send parts/car transactions and 
> negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended 
> recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will 
> protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune 
> the content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!
>
> '62 to '65 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html.
>
> 


----
Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person --
directly to that person.  I.e., send parts/car transactions and negotiations
as well as other personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to
the Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your privacy,
reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the content signal to Mopar
topic.  Thanks!

'62 to '65 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html. 


----
Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person -- directly to that person.  I.e., send parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!

'62 to '65 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html.