Do you have a factory assembly manual (or AIM for Assembly Instruction Manual)?

Here is a pdf: 1968 AIM Camaro.pdf

Look at Page 16 of the pdf (not the page marked 16) and following.

I don't think 7/8 difference is acceptable if you are looking at the factory settings. Lots of guys liked them higher in the back though, so no telling what has been done.

I am guessing someone here has a set of stock shackles they can measure. If no one steps up, I have a pair in the garage I can dig out. Mine are for a 69, but I believe they are identical.

 

I am guessing someone here has a set of stock shackles they can measure. If no one steps up, I have a pair in the garage I can dig out. Mine are for a 69, but I believe they are identical.

I do have an AIM, thanks for attaching the digital version!

It looks like stock was typically 1/2" higher in the front. Interesting.

Now, I need to see if the wife notices that I jacked with her car...

 

Very interesting thread. I will be following along. Can you explain exactly where you are measuring from to get the stance measured? I thought mine was too high in the front myself.

 

Can you explain exactly where you are measuring from to get the stance measured?

I measured from the ground up to the bottom of the welded seam under the door sills - two points furthest apart & closest to the wheels.

 

Thanks. As you post, I will watch.

 

Correct factory measurements taken are at J and K.

 

Not entirely clear if the AIM is describing the bottom of the pinch-weld - or, the bottom of the rocker panel where it is flat??

I measured from the bottom of the pinch-weld..

Everybody likes photos, right? ->

 

A real positive after replacing the worn-out bushings and crappy shackles is that the car has more return-to-center in the steering. This may be caused by the slightly greater rake to the vehicle??

Either way, I am calling it a win.

I may consider a taller 15" tire in the back if I ever replace the rubber. Something with a bit more sidewall would be perfect. It has 265/50R15 Rears, now. I am not quite sure what that size would be.

 

My intrerpretation of correct ride height on my 68.

 

Looks terrific!

Is that a drop all-around?

 

Yes, 2" in front and about 1" in rear with multi leafs and 1" block.

 

Where would I get a 1" block? That may just fix me right up.

Is that something you made?

 

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/aaf-all56130

They come in a bunch of sizes, just be aware you may or may not have to readjust your pinion angle.

 

After following along, I measured mine (less the hood) and the front was 8.5 and the rear was 9.25. I like that .great info guys.

 

Agree. Right now I am 25-1/2 and 27-1/4 at rear fender wells. Before with 2" springs in front and 2" block in rear it always looked like car was accellerating. Im happy as pig in slop now.

 

I appreciate the dropped road-racing look. It’s cool.

But, my dna still wants to see the a$$-end up! lol.

 

#GabrielHiJackers

 

once upon a time, it looked like this or you were driving a grocery getter.......

 

...can't help but put a smile on your face!

 

Factory shackles are 3 and 1/8 inch center to center.
Here is an NOS one.

 

Factory shackles are 3 and 1/8 inch center to center.
Here is an NOS one. View attachment 301047 View attachment 301048

That is great information found nowhere else I know.

Thanks for checking & posting!

 

I didn't see this in the any of the above discussion posts, but you need to be on level ground, for curb weight a full tank of gas and 24psi tire pressure all four per AIM. Also bare in mind this was with bias ply tires, how today's radial tires affect this I would think it does. I suspect that you will need to determine the bias ply tires height from the ground to the center of the axle. Once you know that you should be able to see where the radials put that height plus or minus difference and adjust for it.

Radials do not have as much side wall deflection as the bias plys I believe. I suspect the Radials will be higher at the center-line. Hopefully someone with the same set up and weight as your car that are running bias ply tires can see what their cars height to the axle center-line measures.

I hope this helps and please respond back with your procedure and findings... I am curious as to what you find out, Good luck and I hope this helps. JD

 

I didn't see this in the any of the above discussion posts, but you need to be on level ground, for curb weight a full tank of gas and 24psi tire pressure all four per AIM. JD

Those are all good points. I used the “shipped” column in the AIM which just has a couple gallons of gas for a requirement.

I certainly appreciate your insights into bias, ply, tire construction. I don’t have any personal first-hand experience with those tires.

I started thinking the same thing with the bias-ply tires. Ultimately, my question was only about stance. With all four tires originally being the same but of a completely different profile I won’t get a number for exact vehicle height - but, I will get an idea of how the car might have sat.

it appears slightly nose up off the assembly line and now tail up 55 years later in my garage.

 

I've stressed over this issue myself on every 67 or 8 I have owned over the last years since I quit putting air shocks on them.
This is the most original 68 car I know of around here. It sits factory with radials and I measured it at the top of the center nose panel and center of the bottom of the deck lid. His is 1/2 inch lower in the front and exactly the same as mine in the rear. Stance is fine to me. I could stand a little lower in the front myself, but I think it is a 70s thing.

 

Stance is fine to me. I could stand a little lower in the front myself, but I think it is a 70s thing. View attachment 301061

Agreed. That car looks fantastic!

 

What was factory for stance?

IMO - doesn't matter, your car sits dang near perfect in my book, I like some gap at the top, to me looks aggressive.
I do agree, a little more sidewall in the back would be nice. BFG doesn't list a 265/50 that I found. They do list a 295/50, that may be what you have, those tires are wide! There is a 255 and 275 in 60 series - may be worth a look. That picture from the rear is sweet.

 

BFG doesn't list a 265/50 that I found.

Thanks!

They are 265/50's in the rear. Datecode is 2003 - BFG dropped that size from their offerings some years back.

Maybe 275/60-15, someday.

 

This conversation reminds me of one i had with a friend who has a mostly original 68Z, we were talking about the mandatory rear bumper guards on his car and i had read it was because the Z only 4-leaf springs they put on the car lowered the rear bumper below the Federal rear crash standard, GM had to add the rear bumper guards to meet the rear collision standard. His 68Z sits low in the rear also.

 

I dont think that's entirely accurate. If there's an article stating such, please post it.

 

At least you have the tools to find it if that is your desire and I am sure that this post helped someone out... and what matters most is that your car makes you happy... seeing what someone has done with their car is in it self enjoyable. I am fond of the muscle car Street Machine look as this is how my car back in the day was set up... running 15x7 E78 front with air shocks in the rear to keep the 15x8 L60's from bottoming out...