I'm starting a separate thread on this because I don't want anyone taking any of this personal. If I reply in any other existing threads it could, even though not intended to. There are a lot of guys installing 2" drop springs, Hotchkis, Eibach and others and not getting the desired results. Also it seems this happens on both front and rear installs so it's both leaf and coil spring.

We know this doesn't happen on all cars and it's not likely the manufactures are just tossing out one good set and then a couple bad sets. It does seem to happen a lot and more with '67 and '68 than '69 but I have read of some '69 with this problem as well. The common replies always come up, springs in pockets, tighten the suspension after the car is on the ground, etc and rarely are any of them the cause anymore.

When I read these issues I'm starting to wonder about the individual cars themselves, is it possible the suspensions have been assembled with wrong parts for the car (excluding springs) or not assembled properly? Is there even a way to install the suspension wrong and it still works ok? The next thing that comes to mind is body bushings being wrong or installed wrong and finally what about the body and frame? Could something have been done over the life of the car so that when you install a 2" drop spring the car still sits like a 4x4? Could rear frame rails have been replaced or fenders and quarters not installed in the right place? See where I am going with this?

If any of these conditions pre-exist what can be done to prove the car is correct or not to begin with? Anyone else got any ideas or comments? I hate seeing a guy post his dissapointment after going to all the trouble to lower his car and not get the desired results... What are we missing?

Suspension-wise, my first thoughts are incorrectly tighten LCA or leaf shackle bolts (not tightened loaded on the ground), and maybe incorrectly installed springs. Other than that, there isn’t much there I can see to impact height. Body bushings too.

In reality, there are so many variables, with weight being the biggest variable, IMO. BBC/SBC, transmission selection, aluminum manifolds, radiators and water pumps, etc., all add up. Maybe even NOS/OE metal vs. repop, which as I understand is often lighter using modern metal (I’m no expert). Even fiberglass hoods vs cowl vs. flat. I am aware of different engine mounts for these cars, but I am no expert. But if different stands can be made to work for similar engines (say SBC), the engine location can change and maybe that can have impact.

Plus, the beginning comparison is tough. I know that the Hotchkis springs I put in my 77 will raise the rear (probably several inches) because the rear leafs are wasted. It sits real low now.

See I have always thought other than the obvious reasons that Dennis described that most of the issues are with the old springs or the persons lack of knowledge as to there condition, or more so there belief that the old springs where in fact in better shape than they really where. If you put new lowering springs in place of old worn out sagging springs whether coil or leaf the new springs may not actually lower the car, but in some cases raise the car.:clonk: Now please don't bash me I'm not saying that this is always the case, but more times than not I have found this to hold at least some merritt.

I put new (stock OEM replacement) leafs in the back of my '55 Chevy Hardtop about 3 months ago. It has a later model 8.5 camaro rear end, but stock leafs. So, the exchange was stock out - stock in.

I compared the old worn out leaf springs (on my garage floor) to the new ones. There was 1 1/2" difference in height (the new one was taller-greater arc). Once installed in the car the difference was nearly 2 1/2" higher at the rim.

The reason I am adding this is that I think the posters above are on to something.

I am still a couple of months away, probably, from installing the Hotchkis TVS kit I have already purchased. When I do install it, I will give my comparisons in height of both the springs and the car.

Cool, this is the kind of conversation I was hoping for. If your car fits the bill here please don't take it to heart. The intent is to try and come up with ideas and some of them will question the installers skill set and understanding of the project. That's the reason I didn't start this in an existing thread. As you read the comments here reflect on your skills and knowledge, if you know you grasp the process move on to checking other issues mentioned here.

Harley touches on a good point, we do see lots of low cars because they have old tired springs and bushings. If you are about to invest in new springs, drop or stock find out what stock measurments are and know where you stand compared to stock. Don't measure from the ground to the fender lip, tire and wheel size comes into play. Don't measure from the ground to rockers, I can let some air out of the tires on you and really mess up your measurments. Do measure from the axle (center of hub or wheel) to the fender lip.

I have also seen drop springs leave a car higher than stock so there are a lot of variables.... I try not to bring weight into this too much, it does have an impact but I load my car with 4 adults all the time so there could be as much as an additional 800lbs loaded, 50 lbs for a battery, hood etc should not really cause a 2" difference in suspension height as I see it.

Keep this going, it give the poor guy with the problem more things to think about. If you do read something here and it helps you figure it out post up so we can highlight it for the others...

When I did mine, I bought "stock replacement springs" from a popular repro house.
In front, I replaced old original sagy spring with 1 coil cut out, and ended up at about the same ht, 24" from ground to fender lip (23.5" tire) the front was in the weeds, and still is, good thing I like it there.

In the back I replaced old non-original multi's with new multi's and it went up an inch or two.

I really can't think of anything that could be wrong with the car to cause the ride ht not to end up where it "should be" tho. Especially in the back, nuttin there but a leaf spring. for sure gotta wonder about those new front springs that leave the car lookin like a dog begging for a treat!

In front, I replaced old original sagy spring with 1 coil cut out, and ended up at about the same ht, 24" from ground to fender lip (23.5" tire) the front was in the weeds, and still is, good thing I like it there.

O.K. when it comes to suspensions - I am a motorcycle guy, not a car suspension expert (yet). On streetbikes we cut the springs to increase spring rates (make them higher-stiffer), and it does not drop the height of the bike. So my guess is a cut old spring is still at a higher spring rate than stock, so the car height is still the same. Once again, as a reminder, I am using my motorcyle experience as my guide. I could be all wet regarding your situation. However my explanation on my '55 is from true experience.

Im one of those who has posted here about not getting the drop we expected on the rear of the 67. The front 2" drop worked perfect with Hotchkis coils however the leafsprings from Hotchkis left us too high. The customer service from Hotchkis was great, they sent us a replacement pair however unfortunately it made no difference. The car has never been hit with all frame specs right on and not tightened until on ground etc. I can not figure out why this issue exists however looks like dearching is in our future. The only conclusion that makes sense to me is that perhaps the spring rate is higher on some of their leafsprings.

Possible options or change of wieght ratio's front to rear. The addition of Aluminum parts such as heads and intakes? Could shackels be of different leaghts in the rear or holes in other locations that cause sprinng attachment location changes?

Something to think about in the front are the new coil overs that install directly in the place of the shock and spring. You can then adjust the front ride hieght. The rear, I think I will use lowering blocks if I run into this probllem in the rear. My hotchkiss coils in the front gave the desired effect. I have yet to do the rear.

Joe

I have always wondered what "stock height" meant when it came to ride height.

Take one car, with 40 year old springs and shocks, looks great from a ride height stand point but that does not make it stock. Stock very well could have been 2" higher. Pull out those 40 year old springs/shocks, and install new stuff expecting the ride height to be the same as the 40 year old springs is asking for heartache.

Tire and rim size plays a BIG part in the equation.

Good thread Dennis.

I've always just figured it was people replacing old, worn-out suspension, that has sagged so bad and they dont take it into account. If your old leaf springs have sagged 3'' for the past 15 years, installing 2'' drop from stock, is still going to make the car 1" higher then it was before the swap. Of course, this is an extreme comparison, but it the scenario I believe happens most often.

I know 1st gens, 2nd gens and Novas use spring pockets to mount the front spring eye of the rear leafs. I believe there are differences in these and it would be easy for a parts store in the '80s or someone shopping the salvage yards to get the wrong ones. I figure a lot of these old Camaros went through restorations more than once in their lives.

Another thing I'd like to see is a side view on level ground of a stock '67 or '68 setting at text book height with 14" or maybe 15" wheels and 60-70 series tires. Then another pic of the same car with no suspension changes with some 235/45-17" tires and wheels on it. Maybe a lot of what we see is visual and the difference between a 27" tall stock tire and a 25.5" tall tire...

I also had issues when lowering my 67 with the Hotchkis TVS System. But 8 months & 200 miles later it has settled some what. However the rear is still higher than i'd like, even after I added a bunch of stereo stuff in the trunk. And the car is sound as far as frame & body. I also dealt with this when I lowered my 68 C/20 Pick Up. It had the original, old, tired springs. I put some 2" Front Drop & 4" Rear Drop. It sat at the same hieght as before, but handled soooooooo much better it was unreal. So it does make sense that the old saggy springs would be lower than a new higher spring rate coil or leaf spring.

I guess what I dont understand is why do some cars with Hotchkis leaf springs sit lower than others with the same size wheel/tire combos.

I posted a few minutes ago on another thread re my 67 w/Hotchkis springs. After the intial install by a shop the front end was high in my view. I gave it several months to settle (it didn't) and when looking at what I thought was the sight hole in the frame, I couldn't see the coil. I had the car at the shop again for some other work and mentioned the springs and asked if he could revisit the seating. When I picked the car up, it looks great and he said he needed a bar to get them where they needed to go. At this point, I don't think I want to know more of the details, but he said it was a little loud. The springs are visible in the sight holes now. No charge for the second visit.

I haven't stuck my head deep enough into the fenderwell to know what the spring has to go over, under or in between to get to seated properly but now I think mine are. The hub to fender lip is now 14.5" in the front. The work with the bar took about an inch off the front ride height.

The rear leafs lifted the rear end from where it was with the stock springs (almost 40 years and 200k miles old) and it is now 15.5" hub to fender lip.

So here's two votes:

1 - incorrect installation
2 - saggy original springs give us a bad point of reference for what 2" lower really is.


Brent

As an owner of a '69 with the Hotchkis set-up, I knew it would RAISE my car when I installed it. I was running a 1" lowering block on orig. mono-leafs in the rear and had cut over a coil out of my replacement fronts. With it installed, the rear rose about 1/2-3/4" and the front about 1". Suits my taste just right and rides much better. It did settle some after initial drive. It also seems to settled a little after 2 years of sitting, but I don't have measurements to back that up.
I agree that there are multiple variables to consider on what the final ride height might be. Things like rim/tire size, S/B vs B/B, aluminum heads, aluminum radiator, aluminum intake, billet pulleys, headers, etc.. all come into play. And finally there can be install error to work around. Dennis hit the nail on the head when he started this thread. Are the front springs properly installed in their spring pockets, was the car settled on the ground before tightening the rear shackles, are the correct shock plates and shocks being used?
It sounds like Hotchkis is backing up their product when called upon & it sounds like their quality control is top notch. At that price it should be.

I just installed front 2" lowering springs and in the rear 2" lowering spings. Looking at the camaro from the front it is leaning to the driver side. How can I find out if it is the front or back spring giving me the problem? I have a small block in it and no interior.
Thanks

Just saw this post and I am one that was disappointed to the 4 day results of laboring (back aches, busted knuckles, dirt in the eyeball, grease on the door knobs (wife not happy),etc) on the car in anticipation of getting a 2" drop and saw no change. Now in my case I was probably duped by marketing to start and not thinking through what I was doing prior to the switch. The multi's I have were truly old and I have no idea if they were the originals or even the correct ones for my car. I also learned to follow directions as tightening up the shackles before lowering may have an affect on stance and also the proper shock positioning could be a factor. Even though it was dissapointing I did learn something and was able to share with some of you an experience that might prevent you from having my expectations. With all that said even though the results were not what I expected the travels through the project and working side by side with my son was worth it all. In fact, Friday night when we started the process I asked him why he wasn't out with his buddies he said opportunities like this and working under a car with my dad will provide me with wonderful memories when I think back later in life.

In my quest to lower the car about an inch, what would be the downside of sticking a 1" block between the springs and the perch on my setup?
http://www.fattonyracing.com/Camaro/rear_susp.jpg

Has anyone looked into Cal Trac split mono leaf springs? They say all you have to do is call them and they can make the drop you want. I might go this route if Hotchkis springs don't lower the car enough.

Good topic, I haven't heard say anything about the spring material or temper. I would bet that that has changed in the last 40 years. I got into a Trifive, pulled the stock springs to cut one coil and lowed, did that but man wanted it lower, installed 2" drop spindles and new 1" drop spring, still to high, pulled and installed orginal springs, got it . The old spring was what we needed.
On my Z, pulled off road .750 wire 500# springs out , installed new recommended spring. Car too high , put my old springs back in and these were put in new to raise front end during my warranty period as the factory springs were too low.
So my take is , not all springs are treated correctly today. I have found cases where some companies list the same part # spring for my 57 as they do for a first gen. Someone may have caught on to just going by spring rate and height.

When I worked in Moroso's r&d dept back in 1996, we revamped the entire line of front trick springs. I personally spent six months getting corner weights for each application from actual NHRA and IHRA cars. We then designed the springs to meet the following criteria: Front corner weights, percentage of weight on front end, ride height, installed height and wire diameter. Each application had prototypes made by our vendor, Carolina Coil. The prototypes were sent out to actual racers to install and try. I know for a fact that one spring will not please everybody. For instance, on a stock eliminator 69 Camaro with small block two out of three testers had differing opinions. Some liked the way it sat some said too high some said too low. What we ended up doing was make several different versions of each spring based on total front end weight.
My point is that every car is different. If the manufacturer can tell you what installed height and front weight their springs were designed at then you can check this against your current specs.

O.K. when it comes to suspensions - I am a motorcycle guy, not a car suspension expert (yet). On streetbikes we cut the springs to increase spring rates (make them higher-stiffer), and it does not drop the height of the bike. So my guess is a cut old spring is still at a higher spring rate than stock, so the car height is still the same. Once again, as a reminder, I am using my motorcyle experience as my guide. I could be all wet regarding your situation. However my explanation on my '55 is from true experience.

Strick,
There is a significant difference in a car, the spring on the front is at a leverage disadvantage and on a Camaro the coil moves aprox 1/2 of the wheel movement. Cutting a coil in this application does lower the car because the spring is so heavily loaded, each coil can have 1700 lbs of load on it! Almost the weight of the whole front end!

I see several errors by members when doing COIL spring changes:

1. No manual.
The GM "Helm" manual is worth it's weight in gold! Get one, use it! I know it's expensive but so are mistakes or injuries.

2. Improper springs for the application.
Moog only lists a few coils, and NONE for a Z/28, at least in my old Moog book from the 80's. GM used a dozen or more different coils depending on a calculated weight based on factory options. That leads me to surmise that most replacement coils from Moog are not going to be ideal matches, and often raise the car more than desired.

3. Improper installation of the coil,
I'll add here some cut the coil too quickly or complain about ride height when the engine is not yet in the car. Springs take time to settle, especially cheap replacement coils or OEM coils. Racing springs are a different story.

4. Toe in settings
can affect ride height. Soft stock coils with a excessive toe-out will lower the car when pushed forward, and raise the car when pushed rearward. The tires push or pull and force the front end up or down depending on direction. You can't really set ride height without the toe in set and the car needs to be rolled around to remove friction. If you just drop a car down off a floor jack, the wheels are pushing outward and will hold the car up higher. Alignment shops use turntables to free up the suspension and bounce the car to allow it to settle to ride height.

5. Front anti-roll bar arms
can bind if the ride height is low and the anti-roll bar uses polyurethane end links and they are tightened excessively. Also end links that are too long can put the anti-roll bar arms at an angle.

6. Spring seat taper.
The spring seats are tapered and when cutting coil ends to lower the car, the results can be unpredictable. Once you reach one full coil cut off, the coil end drops down into the spring pocket and the car drops a lot. The first coil cut off does very little to ride height because the first coil is flattened. The second coil has a much larger effect.

7. SAFETY
I'm surprised we haven't heard of a member getting hurt badly from a coil flying out or car falling on them.

Very reciently a member of Pro-Touring.com had his wife come home to find him dead under a truck he was working on. The truck fell off the jack stands and on him.

I'm pretty tired now, I'll try to post some leaf spring thoughts another time.

David

Has anyone looked into Cal Trac split mono leaf springs? They say all you have to do is call them and they can make the drop you want. I might go this route if Hotchkis springs don't lower the car enough.

I called Calvert Racing (CalTracs) and they told me that it would give me a 1" 2" or 3" drop over stock height... I asked what is "stock height" and he said he didn't know. This being said he told me that if I had original springs I should assume ~1" drop as my current setup. He said that if I like my current height to install and 1" drop spring on the car and that every pair that they sell comes with one free replacement and can be used to adjust for ride height. Can't go wrong there! When I get around to putting my original monos up on the shelf for indefinate safe keeping I will buy a 1" Calvert split leaf mono with a set of CalTracs. If I find it rides to high and I want to go 1" lower, I will trade them in for my second set. Sounds like great service to me...

I followed the advice from David Pozzi's site for ordering my replacement front springs... I should have it on the road again in a few months.

4. Toe in settings
can affect ride height. Soft stock coils with a excessive toe-out will lower the car when pushed forward, and raise the car when pushed rearward. The tires push or pull and force the front end up or down depending on direction. You can't really set ride height without the toe in set and the car needs to be rolled around to remove friction. If you just drop a car down off a floor jack, the wheels are pushing outward and will hold the car up higher. Alignment shops use turntables to free up the suspension and bounce the car to allow it to settle to ride height.
THE ABOVE IS A BIG PROBLEM WHEN DOING FRONT SPRINGS.
ANOTHER ISSUE IS CONTROL ARMS AND CONTROL ARM BUSHINGS.
ON ANOTHER NOTE I ORDERED A SET OF 3 INCH DROP SPRINGS FOR THE REAR OF MY 67 CHEVELLE..IT PUT MY CAR SO LOW ON THE GROUND I COULD NOT GET THE CAR OFF THE LIFT?..WHEN I MEASURED THE DIFFERENCE FROM "STOCK" BRAND NEW REAR COILS UNLOADED TO THE 3 INCH BRAND NEW LOWERING SPRINGS. IT WAS 5.75 DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT? THE REAR HAS NEXT TO NO VARIABLES, UNLIKE THE FRONT..

According to this post springs have a top and a bottom....
http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=147034&highlight=coil+spring+seat
Seeing as I just painted mine I'm not sure which end is up. Could this also be a common problem?

I didn't read all the posts....but think if a 40+ year old car was sagging and "drop springs" were added... they could raise the car or have it sit the same ? since the springs are new and stiff.

Just thinking out loud,

Wondering....Is there a way to know if I have lowered leafs in the back. When I bought the Firebird (69) it had QA1 coilovers in the front and QA1 shocks in the rear. The wheelwell edge is 26" high from the ground. Don't know what stock would be, nor how to identify if I have Hotchkis leafs or stock.

Wondering....Is there a way to know if I have lowered leafs in the back. When I bought the Firebird (69) it had QA1 coilovers in the front and QA1 shocks in the rear. The wheelwell edge is 26" high from the ground. Don't know what stock would be, nor how to identify if I have Hotchkis leafs or stock.
Make sure you take into account the tire dia. of your tires as well as any car you compare to as that will affect ride height.