help please
everything I read indicates that a factory 396 ss car had 12 bolt with multi leaf springs. according to national parts depot catalog 396 was only available with mono leaf springs. does anyone know what it is supposed to be. thanks in advance

NPD is correct if you are just talking about a '67.

this is a 68 model year.

All '68 SS or Z/28 cars should have multi-leaf springs.

this is what I thought. if you refer to npd parts and eaton detroit springs there is no option for a 1968 396 camaro multi leaf spring. is this a mistake on there part.

I have seen '68 big blocks with single leaf springs. I helped a couple of friends install Hijackers on one back in 1970. I think they had to have the F41 suspension option to have multi leafs. It was a 396/325 model with a 4 speed and a 10 bolt diff. and drum brakes all around. All original factory stock. It was bought new at the local dealer, off the lot not a special order. Unless the dealer had special ordered it and had gotten stuck with it.

I remember because we compared that car to my '68 Z parked next to it. They were both Lemans blue with blue interior. Of course mine had white stripes but no spoilers

I have seen '68 big blocks with single leaf springs. I helped a couple of friends install Hijackers on one back in 1970. I think they had to have the F41 suspension option to have multi leafs. It was a 396/325 model with a 4 speed and a 10 bolt diff. and drum brakes all around. All original factory stock. It was bought new at the local dealer, off the lot not a special order. Unless the dealer had special ordered it and had gotten stuck with it.

I remember because we compared that car to my '68 Z parked next to it. They were both Lemans blue with blue interior. Of course mine had white stripes but no spoilers

Well not one survivor mono-leaf 68 BB SS has made it into the CRG database or they would not be reporting all '68 SS', big block or small came with multi-leafs...

this car also has a 10 bolt rearend. in my previous post we where concerned about the authenticity of the being a ture ss big block. my understanding is that the origanol bb parital vin matches the cars vin. now the idea was to correct the rearend and springs however npd and eaton springs only offer mono leafs for 396 application in 1968. please help.

Jason - I have read most of your other posts and it seems you are taking liberty with the info provided you and trying to turn this car into a real big block SS. Now you are claiming the cars orig BB VIN matched the car!! Maybe I'm mis-understanding you but the facts as I see them are that you have a small block AC car that came with a 10 bolt mono-leaf rearend.

Now if you want to transplant a big block, 12 bolt and multi-leaf have at it. Just don't pass it off as a real factory big block. Looking at a Classic Ind catalog they sell a '67-'69 mono for coupe and a mono for the convertible. The sell '67 - '81 4 leaf and '67-'81 5 leaf multi-leaf springs. I have no ideas about why NPD offers what they do shop elsewhere. YearOne a site sponsor has '68 and '69 big block 5 leafs and '68 and '69 small block 5 leafs. My guess is Ground Up (another site sponsor) does too.

Good luck with it, post pic's when you get a chance and enjoy your car!

Dennis
this is not my car, it is my bosses car. I am restoring a 68rs/ss of my own. Alot of money was paid for this car and I noticed a few things that seemed out of wack if you will. I posted my questions and you guys confirmed my concerns (thanks) when my boss confronted the car builder with the concerns his response (awaiting proof still) the origanol block partial vin matched the cars vin. the machine shop in I believe indiana that took the block in as a core suposedly has the block still and is sending photographs and a rubbing of the casting numbers, date codes and partial vin. the guys response to the monoleaf springs was the npd (eaton) availability and we know that monoleaf's perch is diffrent than multi streghtening his stand that 10 bolt with monos to be correct. I have chevrolet by the numbers and several other camaro restoration books that indicate useage of 12 bolts and multi leafs for all ss cars. i guess i am just a little confused and trying to help someone verify the correctness of his car. I do appreciate all the help you guys have been and do not want anyone upset with me for missusing any information provided.

http://www.camaros.org/suspen.shtml

And I'd be getting that core the machine shop has.....

That was already my suggestion. actually once i started questioning things my first response was why was it sent in. after paying 65k for the car 350 bucks is nothing.

Dennis
this is not my car, it is my bosses car. I am restoring a 68rs/ss of my own. Alot of money was paid for this car and I noticed a few things that seemed out of wack if you will. I posted my questions and you guys confirmed my concerns (thanks) when my boss confronted the car builder with the concerns his response (awaiting proof still) the origanol block partial vin matched the cars vin. the machine shop in I believe indiana that took the block in as a core suposedly has the block still and is sending photographs and a rubbing of the casting numbers, date codes and partial vin. the guys response to the monoleaf springs was the npd (eaton) availability and we know that monoleaf's perch is diffrent than multi streghtening his stand that 10 bolt with monos to be correct. I have chevrolet by the numbers and several other camaro restoration books that indicate useage of 12 bolts and multi leafs for all ss cars. i guess i am just a little confused and trying to help someone verify the correctness of his car. I do appreciate all the help you guys have been and do not want anyone upset with me for missusing any information provided.

That explains a whole lot... Nobody wants to pay more than twice the value for something and when it happens it's a hard pill to swollow. With you and your boss being in CA labor costs are very high so depending on what the resto shop did to the car and it's starting condition it may be hard to recoupe anything. I have seen a $10k project car roll into the body shop and it cost $30k in body work alone once the car is opened up. After paint there is $50k invested in a very nice car with no drivetrain or interior. Once the interior is done and the drivetrain is gone through, it's only worth $30k on the market. So with that said unless your boss has anything in writing the guy doing the resto most likely has several ways he can arrive at the final cost. You should have your boss go to the CA BAR or at least mention it to the resto guy, those in the auto business here in CA don't like hearing from the BAR. Good luck and keep in mind if that BBC shows up, you can get blocks stamped real easy these days...

I just read the 69 mono/multi thread from CRG. I did not realize that all 350 CI got the multi leaf. If true, that answers a question I have had for a long time. My original motor was gone, and I was curious if it was a 307 or 350. The car still had it's original monoleafs when I bought it, so it must have been a 307.

thought I would post an update on this topic everyone was helpful on determing athenticity or lack there of. car builder now claims machine shop destroyed block and no pictures available (imagine that) 10 bolt date codes to car probably origanol and to top it off the transmison shop who installed the th350 just informed my boss that the car had a pg trany to start. a 12 bolt was purchased from the car builder supposedly date coded for 4500 dollars, geuss what it is a nova 12 bolt that has been modified. 60 some odd thousand for a 30 thousand dollar car. once again thanks all for the great help. I will post the results of the pending law suit.

wow that blows............good luck to you..

As an update on the springs, NPD sells the Eaton springs which are based off the original GM blueprints for design, number (if a multi-leaf) and application. As mentioned, we do have a listing for big block '68 models with a mono-leaf. It's unclear how many might have gotten these versus the multi-leaf (listed as the optional spring for '68 big block cars), but according to the original specs and paperwork they were used.

Just thought I'd clarify.

Derek

Since no original 68 b/b with monoleaf has been documented by CRG, (or others that I've heard of) I'd question the validity of the "original specs and paperwork" that were used to make that assertion. But that's just me.

As an update on the springs, NPD sells the Eaton springs which are based off the original GM blueprints for design, number (if a multi-leaf) and application. As mentioned, we do have a listing for big block '68 models with a mono-leaf. It's unclear how many might have gotten these versus the multi-leaf (listed as the optional spring for '68 big block cars), but according to the original specs and paperwork they were used.

Interesting. The AIM doesn't show any monoleaf application for the 68 396, nor does any original sales or service literature we have in the CRG archives. The P&A shows nothing but multileaf applications for 68 big blocks as well, so I'm curious as to where this comes from.

Can you share the documentation this is based on?

Ed

I don't have actual documentation, but when you consider the sheer # of springs they make for numerous applications beyond the restoration industry and the fact they have been in business since 1937 and are very meticulous on details, I'd take their word on most spring applications. I know there can be hesitation on some springs but you can't convince everyone on classic stuff anyways since what is correct and what isn't can be argued by some until the cows come home.

For those wanting to question it, you can always contact them through their website at www.eatonsprings.com (http://www.eatonsprings.com) or call them and ask for Mike Eaton.

Again, remember they are basing their information on original blueprints, and as I already mentioned, it doesn't say in any way how many cars were made with monos compared to multis. Short of having at least one year of every Camaro to compare it on, and that still doesn't take into consideration low volume # cars that might have been ordered by say a west coast dealer that has features at east coast car never had.

Just my $.02

Derek

I don't have actual documentation

Boy, that's too bad. I would love to see it because according to the AIM, for the 1968 Camaro 396, there was only 4 applications for the rear leaf springs and all of these are multileaf:

OH - 3930084 (5 leaf)
OJ - 3930096 (5 leaf)
BI - 3932719 (5 leaf)
OG - 3932720 (4 leaf)

I would call them, but they could probably care less.

Ed

Boy, that's too bad. I would love to see it because according to the AIM, for the 1968 Camaro 396, there was only 4 applications for the rear leaf springs and all of these are multileaf:

OH - 3930084 (5 leaf)
OJ - 3930096 (5 leaf)
BI - 3932719 (5 leaf)
OG - 3932720 (4 leaf)

I would call them, but they could probably care less.

Ed

Not a blueprint, but from a 1/70 dated GM parts catalog:

part # 3909940 mono leaf lists for the following:

-67-69 Convertible 2V carb (except special performance suspension, 3.55 ratio)
-67-68 Coupe w/ 396 engine
-68-69 Coupe 6 cyl w/ special rear springs
-68 Nova (exc heavy duty suspension, 327 engine w/ special high performance or 350 engine)

Derek

Boy is that a big typo!

The 3909940 is a BH code single leaf spring, but for the 68 Camaro it was only used on the following:

L6 Convertible (with or without AC & with or without HD Springs)
Base V8 Convertible

Looks like someone in the literature department screwed up at some point because I checked the Spetember 68 P&A and it says the same thing yours does (67-68 Camaro Sport Coupe w/396)!

In actuality though, that spring wasn't used on the 68 Camaro 396.

Ed

Over the years I have heard this argument regarding single leaf springs in a 68 396 Camaro, but I have never seen one from the factory with any kind of documentation to back it up. All of the argument has been because of the typo in the 68 P&A manual that was never corrected by GM all the way through 1983! Let me put a spin on this by looking at it from a production point of view.

Putting a mono-leaf spring in place of the standard multi-leaf springs would not be an easy application for the factory to do without a lot of cost. First there would have to be a different axle just for that spring because the spring perches are different from the multi-leaf ones. In theory that could mean that there would be up to another 30+ axle codes just for that spring. that would mean a lot of inventory to stock.

Second there would be a different shock application because they are shorter on the mono-leaf springs by almost 2". Thus there are not any shown for the 68 with a 396 and mono-leaf springs.

Third, if there was a "special" mono-leaf spring for the 68 396, then it would be shown under the L34/35 section of the 68 AIM in the rear suspension area as there would have to be a design/drawing change noted for the assembly line to properly build the rear suspension using the correct shocks, shock mounting plates, and spring pads. Looking at the 68 AIM section L35 sheet A13, there do not appear to be any changes to the rear suspension drawings after production began other than a change in the shock part number. It went from 3192830 to 3192832 and that was noted being implemented on 11-01-67. The drawing itself was "redrawn & redesgined" on 07-21-67 before production of the 68 Camaro began.

Just as Ed states, only 4 rear springs are shown in the AIM for 68 Camaros with a 396, and none of them are mono-leaf...................RatPack...........

It appears that typo probably started in the September, 1968 P&A.

Per the January 1967 P&A (1967 model year):
1967 Camaro Coupe: 396 engine std suspension
1967 Camaro Conv: 327/210 with std suspension or with "special frt and rr susp"

The November, 1967 (1968 model year) P&A lists it as being used on the Camaro convertible 327/210, but only as: "Exc. Spec. Perf. Susp. Or Spec. Spring Equip".

- it is no longer listed for any 396 engine and for the conv 327/210, it's only listed as: "Exc. Spec. Perf. Susp., or Spec. Spring Equip." - i.e. std suspension only-which is different than the January 1967 parts book!

The 1968 applications are:
- conv with 327/210 exec 3.55 axle
- coupe 6 cyl

So the spring for the hot 396 in '67 was relegated to 6 cyl in '68!

(Special thanks to Greg Davies for the info.)

One more bit of info (per Troy Criscillis), is that the April, 1983 P&A still shows the typo, so no one caught it for over 15 years! He also said that these springs were discontinued by 1988 (with no superceeded part number available), so the typo may have even lasted for 20 years!

Ed

As an update on the springs, NPD sells the Eaton springs which are based off the original GM blueprints for design, number (if a multi-leaf) and application. As mentioned, we do have a listing for big block '68 models with a mono-leaf. It's unclear how many might have gotten these versus the multi-leaf (listed as the optional spring for '68 big block cars), but according to the original specs and paperwork they were used.

Just thought I'd clarify.

Derek
Aside from the Eaton application chart being wrong, do the actual springs look anything like original springs?

Last time I checked, the mono leafs where single taper instead of double taper, and the multi leafs anti squeak pads where mounted in holes instead of stamped depressions.

AFAIK, no one makes correct mono leafs and correct multi's are available but cost double what the Eaton springs are listed for in the NPD catalog

I owned a 67 SS Convertible with 375/396 in 1970. Bought it from the orgional owner. It had mono leaf springs.
Pop

Pop, ALL 67's had mono leaf springs. We're discussing 68 big block cars in this particular thread.

Ed

See what age will do to a fellar.
Pop

Don't feel bad pop. I can't even remember if I have alzheimer's or not!!

:D

Ed

LOL. Thanks men, for making it worth reading all the way to here!

wow this thread really went in a diffrent direction. Just to add a note when this was all still moving around on my bosses part I went down to a local spring shop that had been around forever, He had a catalog printed in 1970 something that showed original gm part numbers and alternates for 1968 camaro 396 mono leafs.