[gtodash]

Many of the people I have talked to in the past 5 years have noticed a lack of spring height on replacement springs for the rear of 67 GTO's.The old parts books list several applications for many options.There has been a reduction in the part numbers for replacement spring as the manufactors have combined applications because in some instances there was not much difference. To compound this problem many of the companies
have bought out each other and there are not as many of them left. There is probally just one actual producer of springs and everyone reboxes under their label.The point is that the spring height is to short for the 67 application but could be correct for a 66.
Has anyone else noticed this problem?
Is there a better mfg to use? ie.perfect circle,moog,trw.
Darrell Roach

[gtodash]

Many of the people I have talked to in the past 5 years have noticed a lack of spring height on replacement springs for the rear of 67 GTO's.The old parts books list several applications for many options.There has been a reduction in the part numbers for replacement spring as the manufactors have combined applications because in some instances there was not much difference. To compound this problem many of the companies
have bought out each other and there are not as many of them left. There is probally just one actual producer of springs and everyone reboxes under their label.The point is that the spring height is to short for the 67 application but could be correct for a 66.
Has anyone else noticed this problem?
Is there a better mfg to use? ie.perfect circle,moog,trw.
Darrell Roach

[mike nixon]

darrel, from what i've been told the reason that replacement spring are shorter is that the coils are stiffer and the extra length isn't needed to maintain ride height. is it the spring that is short or is the ride height low? if it is ride height try installing station wagon units for the same body style. in my expereince this will gain approx 2" in height as a general rule. as for the manufactures i've had the best luck with moog chassis parts,although they do sell parts to other companys that rebox them. mike

[gtodash]

Actually the ride height and free standing height are short.When installed the car actually sits lower in the back than the front.If you view the decklid from the rear it is on an incline instead of being level or slightly angling down towards the back window.
Station wagon spring seem to be the only fix for this problem.I never knew i would need the springs for a 9 passenger GTO! I think the application is for a 66 GTO . I had to use a 2inch spacer on my car to get it right.
Darrell

[67TIGER]

Darrell, Have you looked into 67 A body
convertible springs? From people that I have
talked to, that rearward rake was close to
the way the cars were originally.The way I got my 67 GTO close to level was to install
convertible springs.Many manufacturers
dropped most of the different part #'s because there is not a lot of difference between them and also in this day and age of
get the mostest with the leastest,its not
profitable to carry every part # made.

[Charlie Huntington]

On my '66 GTO Convertible all that was available was Lemans convertible springs. I went with station wagon springs. This sets the back end of the car up which I wanted. These cars were originally down in the back. the individual owner needs to decide between stock or raising the rear.

------------------
Check out my homepage at http://barney.wcupa.edu/~badgoat

[bus15241]

I'm currently dealing with 67 gto rear spring/height issues. I installed factory spec moogs and only noticed after installation, that there were 3" lift spacers under the coils (I didn't notice them because all the undercoating blended in with the rest of the vehicle). This made the back end to be up too high. I guess the original springs were extremely weak. Anyway, I took the spacers out and the car sits normal, but a little too low for my liking. I'm going to cut the spacers down to 1" and put them back in. I think this will be the ideal combination.

[TheTempest]

At the risk of getting blasted....why not use a set of air shocks to help attain the "right" height versus the factory correct one? Obviously this would not be something to use on a "Trailer Queen", 100 point show car but for a daily driver, why not? Get the new springs but use the air shocks to fine tune the ride height. Gabriel still makes 'em......

Mike

[Big Injun]

You can adjust ride hieght with air shocks but you loose handling characteristics.

------------------
Dave "Big Injun" Anderson
www.PontiacDragDays.com
www.PontiacEnthusiast.com

[old gto]

Good point, Injun......I have "Hi-Jackers" on my `66 if anyone needs proof. (But then, we only use it for the Saturday night cruises, and we`re into looking good, not performance with a carload of kids in the back.) I`ve heard about the moogs, but can`t remember a part number....anybody know it?

[vaccaraj]

i have the same problem with my gto. i'm on my second set of rear springs. the first pair i bought were from napa. the second pair were supossedly heavy duty units from warrior racing. by the way, this car is a convertible, and the first set of springs i bought was for a convertible car.
so, what i'm gathering from this forum is to use station wagon springs or spacers.
what do the spacers look like . do they fit under the spring in the spring pad, along with the rubber insulators. this is a real problem with my car because if i hit a bump, the body will hit the tires every once in a while.
tony

the car has 10" wide radials on it. thats why the body hits the tires.

[This message has been edited by vaccaraj (edited 09-08-2000).]

[mike nixon]

usually the spacer that is mentioned above fits between the top of the spring and the upper mount. generally they are rubber and replace the insulator. mike

[vaccaraj]

i'd like to raise the back end of my car about 1 1/2". i don't think a spacer that thick would be the right way to bring the back end up. i don't want to use air shocks either.any recommendations? would the station wagon springs be the answer?
tony

[mike nixon]

i'd go with the springs ,they should cost less than $100.00 and are easy to install. mike

[Cardo]

I have a 66 GTO and i did use the springs for a 66 lemans wagon. It picked the car up in the back and it has a slight rake to it. It looks really good, and doesn't look all jacked up in the back. I used TRW springs, but don't have the part number at hand. E-mail me if you need it. Also, i don't think that 66 & 67 rear springs interchange, the bottom perches are different diamaters.

[vaccaraj]

i believe you're right. the '66 gto spring is open ended while the '67 is pig-tailed. so the '66's wouldn't work in my car.
i want that racy looking stance without the back end looking like it was jacked-up. i'm going to look into the '67 lemans station wagon springs.
tony

[Tim Corcoran]

I just replaced the rear springs in my 67 LeMans (old ones were saging). I ordered the "progressive" springs and ordered them one inch longer than stock. The progressive springs are supposed to give a soft ride like a factory spring but get stiffer as the load increases to prevent sag with a full back seat. They also are supposed to work well in drag racing as they still react fast but don't go wild with too much movement. The ride height looks great and the ride is nice. There was no extra charge for the one inch. Of course I never charge either when giving extra inches, LOL. The springs were cheap but work great. I can supply the name of the supplier, part number and price if you email me. When I ordered my springs I asked the guy if they made their own springs. He said that everyone orders their springs from the same place. You could probably get the same springs from Performance Years.

Tim Corcoran