[Ken K]

I think Maurader had a set of CC501 springs in the back of a convertable.He could probably tell you the difference.

[cas]

thanks ken, got your pm. who makes and who's the dealer for the cc501
chris

[getmygoat]

If you go to summitracing.com and type cc501 in the search box, the springs pop up.. they appear to be moog from the part #.

[Ken K]

They are Moog, I have that in my first post. www.northernautoparts.com has them for $43.99. You can put in the part number there also.

[Cammer-6]

I put a set of those on my 67 Tempest Sprint coupe about 20 yrs ago.
It still sits like a low rider and Ive taxed the load bearing of these springs
to the max.(it would surprise you how many motors and heads you can get in this trunk).
I havent changed the front stock springs and it sits low and level.BTW my car is an A/C car.

[brianberes]

So, what would the front and rear stance of these progressive springs look like on a 70 GTO coupe with a 400? I am wanting more of a G Machine ride and stance and handling, so would these fit the bill? I was thinking about installing Eibach Progressive springs but these would cost me half the price.

[Ken K]

I don't know what the stance on a 70 GTO would be, it must be at least equal or better than stock. There are spring rates, does Eibach supply them?

[brianberes]

This is what I found regarding the Eibach GTO Progressive Springs:
GTO, V8, Small Block A-Body 68 - 72; Lowering Kit drops vehicle 1.3" in the Front and 1.3" in the Rear. I could not find spring rate?

[Ken K]

A GTO and a small block can't be lowered the same amount in the front with the same springs. A Pontiac engine weighs more than a small block engine.

[brianberes]

I agree. I believe that they are generalizing classification of the Pontiac engine of all cid's as a small block compared to a Chevy Big Block.

[Ken K]

That's the problem with a lot of the aftermarket springs, they are geared for either big block or small block. Also one stance fits all instead of custom fitting the springs.

[marauder]

Originally Posted by Ken K

I think Maurader had a set of CC501 springs in the back of a convertable.He could probably tell you the difference.

My car definitely sits higher in the back with these springs and I liked the look much better than the stock squatty stance. I lowered the front about 3/4" - 1" with the Hotchkiss "big block" springs which may have made the rear look a little higher yet. I am running 295/50x15s in the rear which are about 26.7" tall. I'm glad I didn't lower the front any more since I have already bottomed out on the new Hotchkiss front sway bar twice.

I should have the motor back in next week and may make some additional changes in the stance at that time since I lightened the front just a little with an aluminum intake manifold and a high torque mini starter. That may not make much of a a difference however the new rear tires are 285/40x17s and are 26" tall and with the Judge spoiler I added I think the rear might look better just a little lower...... I'll let you know how it turns out and post some pics when I can.

[getmygoat]

Based on this thread, I purchased some moog cc501's from summit for my 1970 GTO convertible. The front springs are original and a little tired.

Personally, I'm not thrilled with the stance.. I'd prefer something slightly higher. (This is with a pretty full tank of gas). Especially since I plan to replace the front springs with stock.. which will raise the front significantly (I have another 1970 GTO with new springs front and back, and the front sits maybe 1.5 inches higher than this car).

Note that this picture was taken 10 minutes after the springs were installed, so the rear is likely to go lower over the next month.

What the next step up beyond cc501?

[Ken K]

Your car has a little bit of rake to it. That would not happen with stock rear springs.

[Ken K]

Unless the ride is real bad, I would not mess with the front springs. Most people try and get a stance like that if they want to change it. Bigger rear tires will help fill up the wheel wells.

[Ken K]

I'm going from memory since the big spring chart disapeared from the net. I think the next step up is CC625 for the rear.

[Ken K]

Those rear springs are shifting some of the weight toward the front. Maybe that's why the other GTO sits 1.5 inches higher in the front.

[Ken K]

If you have 2 1970 GTOs and the rear springs only take 10 minutes to change, try using the CC501 in the rear of the GTO with the new springs and see what happens.

[marauder]

"Getmygoat" - I think your stance looks pretty good now. Do you really want to raise the front an inch and a half???

When I had the variable rates on the rear only the car didn't corner nearly as well as it does now after I installed the stiffer fronts. The front felt mushy and not as responsive in the turns before, while the rear of mine was stiffened up from the variable rates and the sway bar....

[Ken K]

I think the stance looks good too. If the front springs are not up to the task, I would try and figure out how to get the same stance with new front springs.