Detroit Eaton Springs on my 1967 Camaro Convertible - Way Too High!
#1
Detroit Eaton Springs on my 1967 Camaro Convertible - Way Too High!
Hello guys,
I'm new to the forum, and I have a question that maybe I can learn from the wisdom of the group here.........
I just installed a pair of Detroit Eaton Springs on my 1967 Camaro Convertible SS. These are OE standard Designed mono Leaf Springs with an NPD part # C-7503-3B. I replaced with rear shackles and installed new rubber cushions where the springs comes in contact with the axle as part of the install. The leaf springs did mount up correctly on both sides and I tightened up the front eye busing and rear shackles when the car was sitting on the ground with the full weight of the car upon them as recommended so they would not bind. The problem is that after 72 hours they provide too much lift in the rear of my car and appears to now sit approximately 2-3” inches above stock height. I thought that in time, they would settle but I haven’t seen that yet. I’ve taken some pictures to show you just how high my car now sits. I’ve even re-loosen both the shackle and front eye busing bolts with no luck to drop the rear end.
I'm new to the forum, and I have a question that maybe I can learn from the wisdom of the group here.........
I just installed a pair of Detroit Eaton Springs on my 1967 Camaro Convertible SS. These are OE standard Designed mono Leaf Springs with an NPD part # C-7503-3B. I replaced with rear shackles and installed new rubber cushions where the springs comes in contact with the axle as part of the install. The leaf springs did mount up correctly on both sides and I tightened up the front eye busing and rear shackles when the car was sitting on the ground with the full weight of the car upon them as recommended so they would not bind. The problem is that after 72 hours they provide too much lift in the rear of my car and appears to now sit approximately 2-3” inches above stock height. I thought that in time, they would settle but I haven’t seen that yet. I’ve taken some pictures to show you just how high my car now sits. I’ve even re-loosen both the shackle and front eye busing bolts with no luck to drop the rear end.
As a bit of a background, this is my 4th set of Detroit Eaton Springs that I’ve installed, and I’ve not had any problems with ride height with any of those other non-Camaro cars. I don’t know what else to do at my end.
Any ideas from the group? Thanks in advance.
Any ideas from the group? Thanks in advance.
Detroit Eaton Mono Leaf Springs on my 1967 Camaro Convertible ride height - too darn high!
!
#4
Thanks for the welcome
#5
Yeah, don't forget that the originals had some sag in them and the new ones haven't yet settled in.
Like my front end. 3" drop up front, but new body bushings and springs so with the sag I had and the new bushings and stuff, my drop will probably be more like 1.5" - 2" total - at least on paper anyway. =)
Like my front end. 3" drop up front, but new body bushings and springs so with the sag I had and the new bushings and stuff, my drop will probably be more like 1.5" - 2" total - at least on paper anyway. =)
#6
Update: To give both Eaton and NPD credit, they sent me new springs, this time from the '67 couple which has less of an arch in them. This has dropped the car down almost two inches in the rear. It's still a little high, but at this height, it should settle in time. They really tried to right the situation to their credit. Eaton says that they make their springs from GM blueprints, but after this experience, I wonder if its in the manufacturing process that they are too high when fitted to the car? Anyone had perfect fit experiences with them?
#7
Drop blocks
If it still sits too high, you can go to O'Reillys Auto Parts or anywhere else and buy some drop blocks to drop the rearend. Our local store stocks 2" drops and you can cut them in half, if need be. They go between the rearend and the spring and drop the spring and body.
Hope this helps, ~~joe
Hope this helps, ~~joe
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AMBAPTISTA
67-69 Transmission & Differential
2
10-28-2010 01:53 PM