[blubiu65]

Have any of you put a leaf spring suspension on your 63 cars?? If so can you post details and maybe pictures??

[tom s]

I never have,most of the ones I have looked at sat too high in the rear.Tom

[Transporter]

I am probably going with leafs on my wagon, BUT I am going to use a rear frame mount leaf spring slider rather than a shackle as I think it will drop the rear down some as Tom noted leafs "can" sit high.

Do not have any pics as the car is still at the BS.



http://www.summitracing.com/parts/AF...6S?seid=srese2

[tom s]

I have done 3 of these cars and IMHO coil overs and ladder bars are very easy.Tom

[Radman]

As noted leaf's just sit high. Here was the solution done on my car, buy a guy who builds the race chassis for Rahall racing.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by blubiu65

Have any of you put a leaf spring suspension on your 63 cars?? If so can you post details and maybe pictures??

In the late 60’s I built a 63 Lemans using a stock ‘57 Pontiac rearend and leafs. For the front mounts I used plates inside on the floors and plates on the bottom with bolts thru the floorboards. Rear shackles used plates too. I ran a tripower 421/Muncie setup and the car ran straight as an arrow on the strip.

Years later I bought for my use as a parts car, a built ‘63 that was using a “wide” Mopar rearend and Mopar leaf springs. The springs were wider spaced than 46”. The front of the leafs were mounted in the same area as to where the stock Tempest control arm mounts. The front part of the main leafs had been shortened considerably and new eyes rolled to make them fit. That car ran a 455/Turbo 400 and a 3.08 or so posi.

Currently I am building a ‘63 Lemans using an older 9.3” BOP style rearend and Mopar XHD leaf springs (not the Mopar Super Stock leafs). The ones I am using were the ones used on Mopar E-body cars (Barracuda/Challengers) that had 440 or 426 engines and weighed similar to the 63 Tempests. The rearend leafs are spaced at 46” center-to-center width like the ‘57 Pontiacs were. I think my Mopar leafs are spec’d at 22” front length and 35” rear length. I did a test and put the weight of the rear of the car on these leafs and they seemed to compress to a “normal” ride-height arc configuration. The car will be using a tripower 428/Muncie with 3.64 posi.

My setup is basically a “bolt-in” setup using pieces of 1/4-inch steel angle iron, some 1/4-
inch steel plate, some 1/8-inch steel plate, some 1“ pipe and various nuts and bolts. Upper shock mounts were made using some pieces of 3“ square steel tubing. All pieces were made up on my work bench using cut-off disc tools, a small drill press and other small hand tools.

With the springs on 46” centers, the passenger side rear shackles just barely clear the frame rail there. However, the driver side rear shackle is hung so that the “inside” part of the shackle swings “inside the frame rail” and the bottom of the frame rail has a slot cut in it to allow for the inside part of the shackle to swing.

Use of springs on anything less than 46” centers causes an interference with both frame rails and the gas tank. Anything much greater than 46” limits tire size.

I looked at using the Chrysler type sliders but mounting them any higher up than the bottom of the frame rails requires substantial modifications to the frame rails. Mounting them at the bottom of the frame rails gives you no “higher” spring mount point than does the use of shackles. My Mopar springs have the eyes rolled “up” as probably is the case with most other springs. Having the eyes rolled “down” would lower the car ride height a small amount.

In my case the top of the shackles consists of a piece of 1” pipe welded to a piece of 1/8-inch steel plate bent to match the curvature of the trunk floor. A “matching” curved plate is inside the trunk and the plates are sandwiched to the floor with small 5/16-inch bolts and lock nuts. An effort was made to install the bolts through the flat flange parts of the rails that are bent over and attached to the floor.

The front mounts were made by welding a piece of angle iron to the outside face of the frame rail and a piece of angle iron to the inside vertical face of where the floorboard sheet metal and the rocker panel sheet metal join. The vertical parts of the angle iron pieces are cut to match the contour of the bottom of the floorboard. The horizontal parts of the angle iron are level with the bottom of the frame rail.

A flat piece of ¼-inch plate (approx. 12”x8 ¼”) is placed below the flats of the welded angle irons. The plate has a piece of angle iron about 3” wide welded to the rear of the plate. The vertical part of the angle iron extends up to serve as a “cleat” to bolt to where the stock control arm mounts.

Mounted under the plate are a couple of pieces of angle iron with their vertical parts drilled for the bolt for the spring eye. The lower angle iron pieces, the plate and the angle iron pieces welded to the car are all “sandwich” bolted together with several half-inch bolts. My springs have the front eyes rolled “up”. Having the eyes rolled “down” would lower the car ride height an inch or so.

A few pics will show you the idea.

[beemergary]

Originally Posted by tom s

I have done 3 of these cars and IMHO coil overs and ladder bars are very easy.Tom

X2 I've did a 61wagon and 63 coupe. On the 63 everything is bolted in and the transaxle could just be put back in short time.

[blubiu65]

Is there a specific ladder bar coil over set up that you recommend?? Bolt in would be easy. What kit is a bolt in?

[beemergary]

You still have to weld the brackets on your axle and where the front rod end attaches on then ladder bar. What I meant by bolt in I used the same bolt locations for the cross member that the coil overs attach to and the panyard bar that keeps the axle centered.

[mjm421]

If I ever do another conversion, I am going to take a long look at a torque arm set up. On a mostly street car, it would be a far better driver than a ladder bar set up. Proven by late model F bodies you can certainly make them work at the track too.