Team Camaro Guys(& gals):

I would greatly appreciate your input before I purchase new rear springs(looking for same or slightly stiffer than stock)--has anybody installed the below listed rear springs to lower a 1st generation('68) car:

>Hotchkis-lower 1 1/2"-multileaf steel-about $300(new product-no firm $ yet).
>Global West-lower 1"-multileaf steel-$280.
>VetteBrakes-Lower1-3"-monoleafiberglass-$449

I am leaning toward Hotchkis(realize they are new product). How about Global West & Vette Brakes? Do they really lower by amount
claimed? Have 255/60 x 15" tires/rims with 4.5" backspacing. Will address mono/multi problem by switching lower plate(where shock mounts) if necessary. Also, has anybody tried the new Edelbrock shocks,are they as good as calimed?

Thanks alot for your input; want to get right springs the 1st time!

Al Nagy / SE PA

------------------
1968 Sport Coupe/350/Isky 270 Cam/4 Spd/Rallys/Teal.

I am very interested in Hotchkis' spring as well. I have been looking for something around 175 lbs. rate and have yet to find it accept for custom. Global West's spring is around 150 lbs. which is a bit light for me. I just purchased a set of Bilstien shocks but have yet to install them. CarlC's 68 has these shocks and his car handles well. I do not know anything about Edelbrock's shocks. All I know is that Guldstrand highly recommends the Bilstiens and that's enough for me. I usually like to research and understand what I am buying but, in this case, I went with a recommendation. Shock theory and design is not appealing to me.

Joseph

Your spring/rim/tire is almost identical to my '68.

If I could do it all over again I would have ordered the springs 1" lower than "stock". I was concerned at the time about sag, but it has not happened yet (1 year). Besides the mechanical drawbacks of lowering blocks (I have 1" blocks), you limit the size rim that can be put on the car. The blocks move the shock plate and shock so that tire sidewall interference becomes a problem. 4 1/2" backspace with your tire (same as mine) may slightly rub on the outer wheel well (mine do). I now have a set of 5" backspace rallys that I will try to fit (it will be very close with tire flex). If too close, I will re-arch the spring.

As far as the spring rate, I have the Guldstrand slalom springs (4-leaf), Bilstiens, 1" front anti-sway bar, and polyurethane bushings. The best guess is that the spring rate is approx 150#/in. With the Bilstien shocks and 60 series tires I would say that if the car is an everyday driver/weekend cruiser it is about as stiff as I would want to go. If you are just looking for something a bit stiffer than stock then these may be the ticket.

As far as who makes the springs, many companies farm this work out to other companies or outright purchase them from spring mfgs. Global West makes some mighty fine products.

------------------
To see a picture of my car http://www.geocities.com/casanoc

the Vette Brakes fiberglass springs have several advantages:

1> they don't wear out and will never sag like steel springs

2> you are not supposed to need traction bars with these springs, so you can maintain a more stock appearance if that is important to you

3> they are SUBSTANTIALLY lighter than steel springs. As a result, they react quicker to irregularities in the road

4> they offer a smoother ride because the fiberglass will absorb a lot of the jolt from potholes whereas steel springs just transfers it to the body.

I will eventually get a set, but its not high on the list right now.

------------------
Hugger Orange & white 69 Camaro with supercharged 350, Tremec TKO, and 3.73 12-bolt

See the car under construction at:

http://www/geocities.com/gheatly/camaro.html (http://www.geocities.com/gheatly/camaro.html)

There are a lot of advantages to fiberglass, but the last time I checked Vette Brakes only rates them for 400 hp. I believe RockyMtnRacer has them and is running more hp, and I have a friend who has a dynoed 525hp 4-speed car that runs them. However, my friend has not taken the car to the dragstrip since he would get kicked out after his first run. He has M&H street slicks but street traction is much different than strip. Rocky would be the expert on this.

------------------
To see a picture of my car http://www.geocities.com/casanoc

I've had the Vette Brakes fiberglass rear springs for a couple of years even though my car just became street-worthy last spring. When I bought mine I believe they were shown as maintaining the stock ride height and they did not lower my car much if any. I have inserted 2" lowering blocks which fit fine with my 17" wheels.

I like the springs - they ride fairly good and soak up the torque on hard launches without wheel hop. The car handles well also. The ride is just a little harsh but I think that is due mostly to the low profile 45 series tires I'm running. Not much sidewall flex with these "rubber band" tires!

I was talking to the Guldstrand guys the other day regarding my post on Body Stress Cracks and general chassis/body stiffening and they threw up all over my rear springs! They were not real specific - they just don't like them and recommended I toss them for standard Z-28 4 leaf springs! I'm not sure what to make of this but I don't plan on following their advice.

------------------
Scott
'69 400SB, Richmond 5-speed; '99 HD Road King Classic
www.geocities.com/sdenning1 (http://www.geocities.com/sdenning1)

The person I talked to at Guldstrand did the same thing regarding my Hotchkis 1 1/8 front swaybar. "way too big, blah, blah, blah..."

I think its that these guys have been working on 1st gens so long, they feel like their package or system is the best. I can't say one way or another because I don't use any of their stuff.

------------------
Hugger Orange & white 69 Camaro with supercharged 350, Tremec TKO, and 3.73 12-bolt

See my new and improved website at:

www.geocities.com/gheatly (http://www.geocities.com/gheatly)

I personally don't think a spring that has a slightly different spring rate, or a swaybar that may be a little to stiff is going to make or brake your suspension and handling. Just like most comanies they think their combination is the best, weather it is or not can only be told through trial and error and alot of money. Fiberglass spings look good to me and if they couldn't give you a real reason why they're not, it kind of makes you wander.

------------------
68 468 700R4

Rocky,

I got the same impression from Guldstrand when I discussed fiberglass with them. I decided on the 4-leaf and have been happy. But it does make one wonder....

Concerning the stress cracks, I took the dive and have got one through-the-floor subframe connection in and starting on #2 tomorrow night. It's really not that hard to do, just time consuming to get it to fit properly. Total cost for the steel = $17 for the tubing and Joseph gave me the u-channel for the front. The hardest part of the job was to convince myself to cut a big-a%$ hole in the floor board. I would rather stick a #2 phillips in my arm. If you like I will be taking some digital pictures and I can send them to you.

------------------
To see a picture of my car http://www.geocities.com/casanoc

Carl -

Pics would be great! I also have questions:
- Why did you go with the fabrication route on the connectors vs. some of the available products?
- How are you connecting the tube to the rear frame/spring mounts?
- What are you using for subframe bushings? Any thoughts/concerns on having the frame welded to the body at the rear and flexing thru the bushings at the front?

I have bolt-in subframe connectors and have been considering the merits of welding them in place vs. getting the "real" weld in version. I think the welded connection to the floor would provide substantial additional stiffness so maybe the best rout is the one you're using.

------------------
Scott
'69 400SB, Richmond 5-speed; '99 HD Road King Classic
www.geocities.com/sdenning1 (http://www.geocities.com/sdenning1)

I'll try and borrow my neighbors digital camara and take a few shots.

I don't even know if weld-in types are available for through-the-floor connectors. If you have the ability to cut (YES! my Tremec TKO just got delivered!) steel then making the connectors is simple. 21 deg. cut on one end, 4 deg. on the other. About 31 1/4" long trimmed to fit. 2" x 3" x 0.125" tubing (0.090 is fine but not as popular. I got a 10' remnant of 0.125" for $17). I used my 10" Makita chop saw but I melted every piece of platic on the thing. I forgot to take the dust bag off for the first cut and the damn thing caught on fire! DUH!!!

To attach to the rear of the subframe Joseph and I use a piece of U channel that slips over the end of the subframe. This U channel will allow welding on the outside and inside of the subframe for a strong connection. The 4 deg. connector cut will weld on to the U channel. Fortunately, I was able to help Joseph do the initial fitting for these connectors in his car so I learned a lot from his experience.

After passing through a 3" x 9" hole that must be cut into the floor, the connector will attach (weld) to the leaf spring torque box. This can be accessed by peeling back a section of the rear floor. Measure about 1 1/2" on each side of the rear seat floor hook and carefully cut through the first sheet metal layer. The sloped section is hollow but the horizontal surfaces are all connected (spot welded) to the torque box. I will try to get good pictures of this since it is most citical. Once you see how they connect I hope my feeble explanation will make sense.

I am using aluminum subframe bushings. I belive the concern is that with a flexible cabin (polyurethane) there may be a tendancy to induce flexing at the connector-to-leaf spring torque box connection. This could lead to metal fatigue failure.

It took me 6 months to decide to go this way. First, Art Rasmussen stated that these are the stongest connctions you can make short of a roll cage. That in itself is good enough for me. Second, there is no reduction in ground clearance and they are stealthy from a distance. Third, I finally figured out a way to modify the carpet so that it will look fairly normal. Belive it or not it was the carpet that has had me stuck for so long. The drawback is that except for helping Joseph I have not seen a car with this type of connector so it's virgin territory.

I'll try and post some pics soon. Any questions please fire away.

------------------
To see a picture of my car http://www.geocities.com/casanoc

Carl,
Have you thought of using 3X1, square tubing for the connectors instead of the 3X2? If the front were gusseted to the subframe, I think it would be strong enough, and the floor would be flatter.
David

For frame connectors I have decieded to use the ones from Alston. These are not just straight pieces of tubing. These are contoured to match the floor board so you don't have to cut it up. Ground clearance loss is very minimal. I was told they hang down past the rocker panel lip about 1 to 1.5 inches and they fit up tight to the floor. These also connect to the rear subframe, not the leaf spring perches as some do. They can be bolted on or welded on and are powered coated. I just ordered a set so I have not tried them out yet. The price is on the high side(159) but I think they will be worth it. As far as leaf springs are concerned, Eaton Spring in Detroit sells a dearched 5 leaf for $219. They can be ordered in whatever ride height you want. Has anybody out there tried out Superior Spindles coil over shock kit. I have been thinking about giving them a try, but would like to hear some feedback on them first. The same goes for the Steeriods rack and pinion set up. Has anybody tried this out. I am seriously thinking about ordering this kit.

david-

I didn't think about a smaller tube. I guess I took my cue from Steilow and Rasmussen. I would be concerned about the torsional capabilities of the 3x1. Like your swaybar calcs, it's an in^4 equation (a little more difficult with square cross-sections than with round) and small changes in the cross-secional shape can make for big changes in the torsional proporties of the member. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And when I'm done, I still won't know. This site is great but it was so much easier before when I was in ignorant bliss.

------------------
To see a picture of my car http://www.geocities.com/casanoc

Great Point, Carl. First Gen Camaro's and Ignorant Bliss Forever!!!

P.S. I am having trouble locating a Hurst Comp + mounting kit for muncie for '68, #373-4529, anyone got a spare, call me please!!

Another way...
I used 2 x 4 steel box to tie my frame and did a little trick. I tied the rocker panel to the frame too by taking 2, 2 x 4 pieces and welding the frame to the rocker where the rear seat floor curves up at the rear seat. This also provided a platform for my roll cage. I also welded the 2 x 4 frame connectors to the metal plate where the front seat mounts. The frame and the body of the car are now connected. Another trick is to weld the top of the roll cage to the roof of the car with a custom bracket at the top near the 1/4 window. The Vintage Trans AM cars did this. The only thing is your have to get creative if you have a headliner in the car. http://www.camaros.net/forum/biggrin.gif

Another advantage of using the lightweight rear springs is the the amount of saved weight. Steel multileafs are heavy and the savings have to be at least 50 to 100 pounds(a guess)
maybe the reason the guys at guldstrand do not like the fiberglass is because they don't sell them. http://www.camaros.net/forum/biggrin.gif



[This message has been edited by Toby T. (edited 04-05-2000).]

I think Guldstrand likes the multi leaf spring because it's a rising rate spring. The fiberglass spring is not rising rate.
I like the lighter weight of the fiberglass spring. I also like the way a fiberglass spring would absorb vibration. I wonder if the fiberglass spring would allow more movement side to side?
I know when the corvettes went to the fiberglass spring, the ride improved a lot.
David