Joined
·
1,659 Posts
#GabrielHiJackers
What is the factory stance for my '68
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
...can't help but put a smile on your face!
Joined
·
3,461 Posts
That is great information found nowhere else I know.
Thanks for checking & posting!
After a twenty mile trip through town and parked for a night...
Springs are a finicky lot - got me second-guessing my measurements! I checked a few times.
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
Is this pretty close with all the options you have on the car?
When you assembled the rear springs, did you bounce the rear end a lot before tightening the shackles?
I ran the numbers using the AIM.
Front Adjusted for Options = 9.21" , Rear Adjusted for Options = 8.86"
Super-interesting. About 3/8" high in the front off the assembly line. Currently, I am 5/8" high in the back.
I did not.
My thinking was seeing those poly-bushing are all greased up to instructions it would not matter. Even torqued down fully, you could spin everything with a bushing by hand without too much effort.
Yet, it did settle. My bad.
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
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
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.
Joined
·
153 Posts
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.
![Tire Wheel Car Vehicle Hood]()
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.
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
Pretty sure close enough looks good enough today. I do believe shipped cars were 1/2 a tank of fuel.
There are so many different ideas about what looks good, too. Original? Dropped? Rear-end Up?
Agreed. That car looks fantastic!
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
Stupid autocorrect..lol..
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.
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.
Now a tribute-1968(L30/M20) Z-28 Black stripes/white, 350, M22,12bolt. WIP since 8/1979
Joined
·
162 Posts
Interesting, my measurements are exactly the same as this post.
Is your suspension new(ish)? or, more original?
You should post a side-view photo, if possible.
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
