'67 Camaro Build - Suspension Issues??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 12-14-2016, 12:59 PM
PSmolchek's Avatar
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 7
Default '67 Camaro Build - Suspension Issues??

Hey all. Just finished a 'garage upgrade' on my 67 Camaro Conv. The original plan was to fix the brake issue that I had created (wrong fluid in the master cylinder) that turned into identifying bushing, linkage, and control arm issues.


So it turned into control arms, shocks, linkage, tie rods, disc brake upgrade (thank you Wilwood), wheels, tires, and new rear leaf springs. Pretty much connected to something that touches the ground.


Here is the issue. I used the BMR tubular control arms - based upon STOCK geometry, there system is based upon original geometry and should not change the angle, decent, etc. I then put new springs- MOOG 6312 on the car. We identified pretty quick this was incorrect -as they accidentally sent me the springs for a can w/AC, and mine is a non-AC. So we are working through that. And I also put on OER (Classic Industries) set of rear leaf springs and went back to stock shocks on the back (removed the Monroe spring assisted aftermarket shocks that were on it).


Problem: FRONT end jacked WAY up. With the new tires and wheels, the front end went WAY WAY up. Probably 4" or so. I know part of this is the spring, as the minute I jacked the car up, the spring pushed down SO hard on the control arms, that it crushed and split the upper bump stop on the upper control arm (red urethane bushing). So that is a problem, but putting in the non-AC spring isn't going to have THAT much of an effect. The 6310 is the proper spring.
REAR: with the new leaf springs, THAT is now jacked up another 2" or so.


Questions: Anyone else know of the spring issues from MOOG? Solution?? The 6312 is also listed as the correct spring for a '70 series Chevy Nova with a big block...so I dont' understand how that could be the same spring for my '67 stock small block car.
In the rear - how much will those leafs settle??


The ride height with the new tires - 17x8 front, 18x9 rear, running 275's in the back, and 245's in the front....seems to be all over the place now.
 
Attached Thumbnails '67 Camaro Build - Suspension Issues??-camaro_finished.jpg  
  #2  
Old 12-14-2016, 10:53 PM
Camaro 69's Avatar
Senior Moderator
January 2010 ROTM Winner
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The 'Burbs of Chicago
Posts: 18,306
Default

All the suspension pivot points want to be left loose, car lowered back onto the tires, front and rear of body bounced a few times with all your weight, then tighten down the nuts & bolts. You may have done this, but if the suspension was tightened down with wheels in the air, the bushings are pre-loaded and can hold the car up higher.
 
  #3  
Old 12-16-2016, 05:52 AM
Everett#2390's Avatar
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Va. Beach, VA
Posts: 2,595
Default

Maybe 6308's,
But, in addition to '69 suggestion, drive the Camaro across railroad track crossingfor settling the springs - drive it.
Last resort, cut off 1/2 coil at a time until height is obtained.
Also, top of frame is a hole between the upper control arm and its shaft.
Insert screwdriver into hole or watch and rotate spring where end of coil is showing, regardless of where bottom coil sets in lower control arm.
This sets spring in seat and properly aligns it.
 
  #4  
Old 12-16-2016, 09:39 AM
Gorn's Avatar
Fourth Generation Moderator
October 2009 ROTM
ROTM Winner's Club
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern PA,
Posts: 10,359
Default

By default new springs sit higher then old one. The old ones were sagging. Big block spring will make a small block car sit much higher. Beside those two things the only other thing I have seen is the spring is not sitting in the pocket. Since you know you need to change your springs just address pocket issue when you replace the springs.

Never cut a coil spring, the last coil on the spring is design to sit in a pocket, if you cut that coil off then the spring has a single point of contact and it will stress crack. It might take a couple of years but it will. If you want to lower it with springs then buy them with the desired height reduction.

With suspension upgrade on a rag top don’t think you going to improve the handle much. You can make the feel more responsive while driving as slow speeds but under stress you are going around corners on three wheels. The car has no rigidity. GM engineers refused marketing’s request to build a rag top Z28, they said the harder suspension could damage the structure of the car in a racing environment. In layman’s terms you stress the body enough around a corner and it will permanently twist.
 
  #5  
Old 12-17-2016, 08:40 PM
Coach62's Avatar
In the Staging Lanes
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 59
Default

Originally Posted by PSmolchek
Hey all. Just finished a 'garage upgrade' on my 67 Camaro Conv. The original plan was to fix the brake issue that I had created (wrong fluid in the master cylinder)
What did you do, use DOT4? Just curious.
 
  #6  
Old 12-17-2016, 08:48 PM
Coach62's Avatar
In the Staging Lanes
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 59
Default

Typically, new springs ans suspension will only settle 3/4" to 1". 4" - something has to be wrong. You're right, AC springs will NOT make that big of a difference. I'd do what 69 said after the proper springs are installed. Loosen everything, bounce on it, then tighten everything up.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Chaotic94
93-02 V6 Tech
8
03-13-2011 11:09 PM
madmax32
LT1/LT4 Tech
76
02-03-2011 01:48 PM
redemption91
LT1/LT4 Tech
2
10-16-2010 06:39 PM
1989_RALLYSPORT
82-92 General
2
10-16-2008 09:14 PM
MidniteLT1
82-92 V8 Tech
6
06-03-2007 04:59 PM



Quick Reply: '67 Camaro Build - Suspension Issues??



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03 AM.