67 front end rebuilt - sits too low - Team Camaro Tech
Brakes, Suspension & Steering Conversion questions, Steering & Handling

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 8th, 12, 01:31 PM Thread Starter
Tech Team
Den
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 41
67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Hi guys, I need your help. This is what has been done to my 67 RS for the past month:
- Savistke uppers with tall ball joints
- Ebay specials lower control arms
- New front shocks
- Moog 6308 springs
- 3rd gen steering gear box
- New tire rods etc.
- disc brakes in the front
- the springs were installed within 1/8" distance from alignment top hole.

The spindles came with the kit and are supposed to be stock height. I compared them to my drum spindles and they are identical.

The tire to fender distance is now: 2 fingers on the RH and barely 0.75 on the LH side.

If you look at the attached pictures, the lower control arms are almost at the same level as my Hooker headers!

Did I mess it up by putting Savistke control arms with the ebay lowers? Should I put my stock lower control arms back? Or did I do something stupid like installing the lower control arms on the wrong side?

The car never sat that low. A good bounce on the LH side will rub the tire against the fender.

The lower control arms are not yet torqued to 75 ft lbs. I wanted to lower the car off the jack stands to do it.

Any advice will be appreciated.

The reason I went with cheap lower control arms was their cost (almost the same as rebuilding my old stock ones with new bushings, powder coating etc.)

Thanks in advance,
Denis

'67 Camaro RS, 383, 3.73, TH350, Comp XE268, Harland Sharp rockers (1.5:1), Stealth intake, Edel. 750cfm, 9.4:1CR, 487X heads, Hooker headers, AeroFlow Chambers, Comp. Eng. SF, traction bars.

Last edited by darom; Feb 12th, 12 at 11:08 AM.
darom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 8th, 12, 01:57 PM
Moderator
David Pozzi
 
davidpozzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Central California, USA
Posts: 10,065
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Non stock lower control arms can change ride height. Did you use these same springs before on your stock arms?

Check my web page for First Gen Camaro suspension info:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

67 RS 327 original owner. 1965 Lola T-70
davidpozzi is offline  
post #3 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 8th, 12, 03:11 PM Thread Starter
Tech Team
Den
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 41
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

The original springs were replaced with the Moogs. Height wise they were close in size to the new ones. The car was sitting somewhat low, but not like now (it used to be about 3 fingers between the fender and the tire).

David, thanks for the response. Should I try getting stiffer springs with the stock lowers? I like the built quality of the ebay specials and would prefer leaving them on the car.

Would stiffer/longer springs fix the ride height?
And is this normal for the lower control arms to sit so low to the ground like headers?

'67 Camaro RS, 383, 3.73, TH350, Comp XE268, Harland Sharp rockers (1.5:1), Stealth intake, Edel. 750cfm, 9.4:1CR, 487X heads, Hooker headers, AeroFlow Chambers, Comp. Eng. SF, traction bars.
darom is offline  
 
post #4 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 8th, 12, 07:35 PM
Senior Tech
mike
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: east coast
Posts: 2,288
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

That does look close I have stock suspension and I have the same problem(actually mine looks closer) except my passenger side rubs over dips lol. You may want to get the alignment done before you start throwing parts at it. If the toe is off the top of the tire will be out further then it is supposed to be. Just a thought anyway.
bigblockragtop is offline  
post #5 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 8th, 12, 09:07 PM Thread Starter
Tech Team
Den
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 41
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Mike,
Thanks for the advice - the alignment was on my list until I saw my lower control arms sitting so low to the ground

Do your cotrol arms have the same stance? I don't mind the RH side, I am wondering if I should use a .5 or 1 inch spring spacer on the LH side?

'67 Camaro RS, 383, 3.73, TH350, Comp XE268, Harland Sharp rockers (1.5:1), Stealth intake, Edel. 750cfm, 9.4:1CR, 487X heads, Hooker headers, AeroFlow Chambers, Comp. Eng. SF, traction bars.
darom is offline  
post #6 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 8th, 12, 10:15 PM
Senior Tech
Tom
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rochester Mn
Posts: 7,728
Smile Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

I would put the stock lower a-arms back on. In the picture the bottom of those lower control arms is only about 1" from the bottom of the tire, which would be the ground when off those wooden ramps. You say the spindles were the same length but is the wheel shaft the same distance up from the lower ball joint ? It looks like either your spindles are lowering spindles or the lower arms are wrong.

69 Camaro -originally a LM1 car. 327, Edelbrock E-streets, hooker, DUI performance distributors, ultradyne cam, stewart, TRW etc. Vintage Air, AGR steering, Corbeau GTSII seats, 700R4 transmission, 12-bolt w/Eaton 4.11:1
TJS69 is offline  
post #7 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 9th, 12, 07:37 AM Thread Starter
Tech Team
Den
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 41
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Tom, I am going to take another measurement of the spindle. They did look identical to my old drum ones. I will check them again. Thanks.

'67 Camaro RS, 383, 3.73, TH350, Comp XE268, Harland Sharp rockers (1.5:1), Stealth intake, Edel. 750cfm, 9.4:1CR, 487X heads, Hooker headers, AeroFlow Chambers, Comp. Eng. SF, traction bars.
darom is offline  
post #8 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 9th, 12, 08:56 AM Thread Starter
Tech Team
Den
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 41
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Do you guys have pictures of your front setup showing the tubular lower control arms? Can you post it here in this thread or a link? I'd appreciate it.

I've contacted the seller to see if mine are for the correct model.

'67 Camaro RS, 383, 3.73, TH350, Comp XE268, Harland Sharp rockers (1.5:1), Stealth intake, Edel. 750cfm, 9.4:1CR, 487X heads, Hooker headers, AeroFlow Chambers, Comp. Eng. SF, traction bars.
darom is offline  
post #9 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 9th, 12, 01:16 PM
mike
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: nor-cal
Posts: 18
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Nobody addressed the fact that if all the same parts are installed on left and right sides why does it sit uneven.. Especially if all the parts are new i would say you have something very wrong.. I also think the lower control arms are way to low to the ground... Are the springs installed correctly???
t-bag'n is offline  
post #10 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 9th, 12, 01:27 PM
Gold Lifetime Member
Mike
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Walla Walla, WA
Posts: 4,289
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Do your LCA's have a lowered spring pocket? Go back to the Ebay listing (or find one from the same seller) and check. The side to side difference isn't a big deal (to me at least), but the car is way too low.

Mike - '68 Camaro with lots of stuff done to it.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mkelcy is offline  
post #11 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 9th, 12, 01:38 PM Thread Starter
Tech Team
Den
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 41
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Mike,
Here is the link to my original ebay item:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI...E:L:OC:US:1123

It is hard to tell but the spring pocket is almost at the same level as tubular frame. Hopefully, the picture I attached shows that.

Does this mean my LCAs came with the lowered pocket? If the seller responds to my emails, I will ask him.

I did make sure to seat the springs at top within 1/8" to the alignment hole on top. Here is another weird things about these Moog 6308 springs:
- when positioned on the floor, I couldn't determine which side was flat to install it on top. Both ends of the springs while on a flat surface, leaned like crazy to the side. Wrong springs? They didn't have any manufacturers' stamped IDs either.

Thanks!

'67 Camaro RS, 383, 3.73, TH350, Comp XE268, Harland Sharp rockers (1.5:1), Stealth intake, Edel. 750cfm, 9.4:1CR, 487X heads, Hooker headers, AeroFlow Chambers, Comp. Eng. SF, traction bars.
darom is offline  
post #12 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 9th, 12, 01:39 PM
Senior Tech
Steiner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lyman, SC
Posts: 8,348
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

The spindles look OK to me. That lower arm looks bad. Take a look at my SPC's (which do have a 1" lower pocket). The bend in my arm is right under the sway bar bushing. Yours is further in towards the mounting point and the angle looks less obtuse than it should be. Is your upper arm sitting on the frame right now with weight on it?

Then again it may be the springs. I've got Eibach 1" lower sport coils and still seem to have more showing than you. I know the 6308's will drop the front though compared to stock.







'69 Camaro
Dart 400-AFR 195-224/224 HR-Powerjection III TB with F.A.S.T. Sportsman XFI
TKO 600-Moser 3.42-Detroit Truetrac
500hp/538lbft

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

'69 Camaro Beater-SFT 327-M20-Moser 4.10-sold
'02 Z/28 vert-stock-sold and totaled

Last edited by Steiner; Jan 9th, 12 at 01:59 PM.
Steiner is offline  
post #13 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 9th, 12, 01:59 PM Thread Starter
Tech Team
Den
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 41
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Steiner, thanks for posting the pictures - yes, it is clear to me that there is something wrong about my LCAs. I will have to check my upper control arms position tonight after work.

Before installation I tried flipping the LH/RH arms to see if it makes any difference. The way they are installed now provide for the best vertical spring alignment to the top spring perch.

'67 Camaro RS, 383, 3.73, TH350, Comp XE268, Harland Sharp rockers (1.5:1), Stealth intake, Edel. 750cfm, 9.4:1CR, 487X heads, Hooker headers, AeroFlow Chambers, Comp. Eng. SF, traction bars.
darom is offline  
post #14 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 9th, 12, 02:06 PM
Gold Lifetime Member
Mike
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Walla Walla, WA
Posts: 4,289
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Quote:
Originally Posted by darom View Post
Mike,
Here is the link to my original ebay item:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220894235586&ssPageNam e=ADME:L:OC:US:1123

It is hard to tell but the spring pocket is almost at the same level as tubular frame. Hopefully, the picture I attached shows that.

Does this mean my LCAs came with the lowered pocket? If the seller responds to my emails, I will ask him.

I did make sure to seat the springs at top within 1/8" to the alignment hole on top. Here is another weird things about these Moog 6308 springs:
- when positioned on the floor, I couldn't determine which side was flat to install it on top. Both ends of the springs while on a flat surface, leaned like crazy to the side. Wrong springs? They didn't have any manufacturers' stamped IDs either.

Thanks!
I took another look at your picture (actually as enlarged by Steiner). It's hard to tell but it looks like the bottom of the spring pocket is dropped. SPC sells spacers that will restore your ride height.

Mike - '68 Camaro with lots of stuff done to it.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mkelcy is offline  
post #15 of 27 (permalink) Old Jan 9th, 12, 02:16 PM Thread Starter
Tech Team
Den
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 41
Re: 67 front end rebuilt - sits too low

Mike, I have been researching the spacers on this forum and quite a few people suggested SPC and AFCO adjustable ones. This one was mentioned:
http://www.speedwaymotors.com/AFCO-A...cer,23948.html

I am still baffled by how low that LCA arch is to the ground. Steiner's car, for example, has an extra 3-5 in of clearance.

'67 Camaro RS, 383, 3.73, TH350, Comp XE268, Harland Sharp rockers (1.5:1), Stealth intake, Edel. 750cfm, 9.4:1CR, 487X heads, Hooker headers, AeroFlow Chambers, Comp. Eng. SF, traction bars.
darom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Team Camaro Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address.
NOTE we receive a lot of registrations with bad email addresses. IF you do not receive your confirmation email you will not be able to post. contact support and we will try and help.
Be sure you enter a valid email address and check your spam folder as well.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome