[Ken K]

The springs they used from the factory were soft. A taller spring is easier to compress. If you open the hood and push down on the core support and the car moves down easy, you will know you have soft springs. If you do the same thing with a good set of springs, it does not push down easy. When you remove a coil, the spring becomes harder to compress. It drops the car down a little bit but not like you think will happen. I noticed that the 68-72 A body cars used a little bit shorter spring than the 64-67 cars. The springs still make a lot of the cars sit too high in the front. The #5400 springs are for a 68-72 car, they are 17 inches tall to begin with. The rears springs are different than the front. Variable rate springs in the rear will give you more of a performance spring. They ride normal until you get a load on them and then they are harder to compress.

[67TIGER]

Well definately don't want to cut a coil off and make it firmer! That's part of the problem.
I tried to bounce the front and can barely move it. But when I barely push down on trunk,real soft.
I measured the rocker height and it seemed to be a little high but level. I know these cars came from the factory with the fronts up a little and the rears down some(TUGBOAT LOOK).
I just don't remember them being that stiff on the front.

[6567GTO]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I recently reworked the complete suspension on my 64 convertible GTO. I went with the polygraphite stuff in the front with a 1 1/4 swaybar, and rubber in boxed arms in the rear with a 7/8 bar. Fropnt springs were replaced with Hotchkiss 1"lowered items with 1/2 coil removed. Recently replaced NAPA shocks were retained. I went with 16x8 wheels all around and big/little radials.
There are no squeaks, the car rides smooth, handles great and is totally flat in the corners. I have not noticed any harshness except for a very minor increase when hitting sharp bumps. I'm going to try and include a file so you can see how it sits.
Good luck on your upgrade! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
MikeD. - I have to admit I like the way yours sits more and more. Why the rubber bushings in your rear arms? Was it for ride quality? It seems that yours rides more like a modern car which I wouldn't mind honestly. I have a newer 300M with a tight European suspension and I like it. Beautiful car you have there too.

I hear that Edelbrock shocks are a good investment. Anyone try those?

[Ken K]

67Tiger, just change the rear springs. They cost less than $50.00 a set. If you still don't like the way the car is then change the front springs. How do you want your car to be in the back?

[6567GTO]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In addition to the other suggestions, I would suggest:

- Edelbrock IAS shocks all around
- Quick Ratio replacement steering box
- Maybe a hydraulic TO bearing clutch to elim the slop in original linkage
- Four wheel disc conversion in addition the front you are planning
- Tubular control arms front upper/lower and rear upper/lower

Getting the most out of the suspension will be all about the tires !
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Jim - Any advantage to using the tubular front control arms over using polygraphite bushings in the original A-trays? Those things are big bucks!
Hydraulic TO bearing clutch setup sounds interesting! Might just do that! Where to buy?

Definately getting a quicker ratio box.

OK, what tires are you thinking? I may endup selling one of my sets of Rally II's to help offset the costs of this stuff!

[Droptop64]

Phil,
I went with the rubber in the rear bushings because of what I read on this site. The general consensus is that, due to the geometry of the rear arms, there is a certain amount of flex that is needed to prevent binding when cycling through the range of motion. My past experience shows that generally, the front will control the handling, and the rear will define the ride. Notice I said "generally".
If you push on a front fender of my car, you'll swear the suspension is way too stiff - and that's what I thought when i put it back together, prior to taking it out to test. On the road, it rides similar to my '96 Impala SS I recently sold. Firm and sporty, but not annoying. The rear setup with stock springs helps to smooth the ride as well.
And - thanks for the compliment.

[bobbyj1]

I got my rebuilt quick ratio box from Partsamerica.com. It bolted right in and works like a charm so far. $128!!!!!!!

[6567GTO]

Thanks again Mike!


Bob, that's incredible! $128!!!

Is this the P/N? ...
http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductD...pe=255&ptset=A

[bobbyj1]

Yes, that is the part#. It is a rebuilt unit that looked just like the one I took out (except newer)!

Bob

[67TIGER]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ken K:
67Tiger, just change the rear springs. They cost less than $50.00 a set. If you still don't like the way the car is then change the front springs. How do you want your car to be in the back? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the reply Ken.
The car sits pretty good, just a little stiff. I guess it just hasn't settled in the front as much as I think it should have. I checked my receipts and the front springs I installed are #5244. This sound about right for a '67? I might just look into a new set of rear springs,possibly for a convertible? Maybe that will bring the rear end up a tad more.

[67TIGER]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Is this the P/N? ...
http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductD...pe=255&ptset=A </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That looks great! I gotta get one of those. Last time I drove the GTO I was doing a "K" turn and literally forgot how many turns it took to go lock to lock
Felt like steering the SS Minnow! "Hard a port".

[Ken K]

67Tiger, that sounds like the right part number for the springs. They are 17.75 inches free height and rated at 315 lbs in. Those are soft springs. What kind of shocks are you using?....If you go to the Chevelle site, everyone there is having the same problem with springs. They complain about the front sitting too high. They talk about using small block springs for the big block cars....Someone mentioned using the #5400 springs for a big block with A/C LOL.

[bobbyj1]

I have those springs in the front of mine and convertible ones in the rear. I believe the convertible ones are a tad taller. Ken K could probably verify.

bob

[Ken K]

Without a part number, I couldn't tell you anything about the springs. The spring charts only use part numbers, not the application. I looked at the spring catalogs at both NAPA and Carquest for a while. They have a part number and a code for the application. If you look up the vehicle. it will give the part number. Some of the rear springs can have the same spring height and use a larger wire diameter, they don't compress as much as the springs with a smaller wire diamter.

[Ken K]

I went to the Parts America web site and looked up rear springs for a 1967 GTO convertable. The part numbers show RCS5409S and CS5409. 2 different part numbers for the same spring by 2 different brand names. If you take off the letters on the part number, you will have the Moog part number. The convertable, hardtop and post coupe all use the same rear springs. Those springs are not variable rate, they don't start with CC. The 5409 spring is 13.44 inches free height and has a wire diamter of .554. The CC501 spring has a free height of 12.63 inches, and a wire diamter of .610. The CC501 spring is shorter but uses a larger diamter wire and is a variable rate spring. Installed in the car it might have the same ride height, I don't know for sure. The CC625 rear spring will lift the back up for sure.

[6567GTO]

Ken and all, thanks again for the info. I appreciate it.

[67TIGER]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ken K:
67Tiger, that sounds like the right part number for the springs. They are 17.75 inches free height and rated at 315 lbs in. Those are soft springs. What kind of shocks are you using?....If you go to the Chevelle site, everyone there is having the same problem with springs. They complain about the front sitting too high. They talk about using small block springs for the big block cars....Someone mentioned using the #5400 springs for a big block with A/C LOL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Those are Soft Springs"???
I would hate to see the firm ones

Ken, The ride height isn't too bad,just a little low in the rear. My problem is with the stiffness of the front springs. Oh on the shocks, AC Delco oil shocks-all around. I put one set of these (5244) in the first time and the car sat higher than it does now. Took those out and got another set(same #) and installed those. A little bit better but still too firm.
I can go around a corner in the GTO and the front end doesn't lean AT ALL. You hit a small bump and you know it! Feels like riding in a go-kart.

I took the first set of 5244's that I removed and installed them in my '65 Olds 442. This car has a big block Olds,auto trans and A/C. The front end sat level just like it should and I can push on the front fenders and get it to bounce.
Can't do it to the GTO. This is my biggest concern.