[Hudc]

My tired old spings and shocks are past their prime and my ass end is dragging around... so much so my exhaust scrapes on certain hills/bumps (very painful sound to hear). I'm interested to see (pictures) and hear about what you're running.

I don't want my rear way up in the air... but I also don't want to have it sitting lower than the front which you sometimes see (which is my current problem). Also don't want to hit a bump and knock out my molars. All advise and supporting photos are welcome. So whatcha got?

[Buckshot]

Great question....I was just thinking about that last night myself. I have a 68 with the original springs in the back and they seem a little mushy not quite dragging the exhaust but I think I need to get new ones.
JB

[UPC-WU2]

I'm doing a frame-off on my '69. All new shocks, springs, bushings, etc were used. The drivetrain is in, the body is back on. I think the front is sitting awfully high. Granted, I don't have the front fenders, hood, or endura on yet, but I'm worried that it will not look right.

[runningbwdog]

Hi,
Here are pics of my 68 GTO with original springs and shocks. Seems to have a neutral stance. Wheels are 15x7 inch in all pics.
Mike

[Hudc]

Originally Posted by runningbwdog

Hi,
Here are pics of my 68 GTO with original springs and shocks. Seems to have a neutral stance. Wheels are 15x7 inch in all pics.
Mike

That is one beautiful goat. The ride height looks nice. Thanks for the feedback. Anyone else?

[NoMoCEO]

Still don't know how to post pictures but both of my 70's have stock replacement springs and 15x7 rims. The 15x7's don't really change the ride height that musch, just fill out the wheel wells.

Both have rebuilt suspensions. The first one, I remember the front looking awful high but I think, over the 10 years I had it, I just got used to it being so low,

When I got my other one this March, the whole car looked ridiculously low. I did the springs in the first week I had it and it sits exactly like my other one now. Exactly.

They both still lean to one side though, which pisses me off.

[1969 Ram Air]

UPC-WU2 - I'm doing a frame off too and my front end sits up a little higher than it should, but that's how most of them look when you replace everything. I like the look.

Regarding the rear end, if you order firm ride springs, they give you a better ride and the height is pretty close to stock. I've been happy with firm ride rear springs, and I've used them a few times.

[GTO JOHN]

The 69s sat low in the back from the factory. Thats just the way they were. I don't like the look myself and preferr the car to sit level.

I have an all original 69 with 75k miles and original springs/shocks. It sits low in the back and the mufflers drag on speed bumps etc. The suspension is tired.

I also have another rebuilt 69 that sits about 2-3 inches higher all around. It does have 15x7 wheels on it but the car just sits up taller than the other. It has Moog factory style replacement springs and Gabriel gas shocks all around.

[dxeven]

Originally Posted by NoMoCEO

They both still lean to one side though, which pisses me off.

I'm fighting the same thing on my '69 Judge, what a PITA. Right front is way higher than left front, which looks correct. I'm taking it to a frame shop to see if there are any problems with it next.

Here's my '69 GTO, think the springs have been replaced, but not 100% positive, original 14x6 JA wheels and 235-60-14 tires.

[goatless]

I redid the suspension on my '69 several years ago with poly bushings and stock replacement springs from Moog. The shocks you choose shouldn't affect ride height but can make a big difference in ride quality. For weekend cruising/general driving I'd go with a low pressure gas shock. You don't need to spend a ton of money and most people don't really want the stiff ride a high pressure gas shock will give you.

Here's a couple of pics of my '69. I think the ride height is just right. It's been a while since I did the suspension but it still sits pretty much the same as when the springs were replaced.

[gtohunter]

My 68 started out sitting around 12" from the floor to the bottom edge of the rockers. I think stock specs are 9.5" front, 9.25" rear(or something close to that; don't have my book handy) . Since driving it and it just sitting on the suspension It's now around 9.5" front and back. I have 14X6 tires (G70) and moog "cargo coils" in the rear, oem replacement springs in the front. It's kinda where I wanted it, and thankfully it settled down somewhat. The pics in the link might show it a little higher than it is now.

[UPC-WU2]

My opinion is that if you look at the bright rocker molding and imagine it extending forward and back, that it would go right through the center caps of the Rally wheels. Or maybe be a bit lower. But equal front and rear.

I personally don't like the look of the front being higher than the rear, even if that was how they were built. I like the level look.

[NoMoCEO]

OK, I think I figured this picture thing out. I just don't like that I can't see what I'm posting.

If it works, attached are photos of both of my '70's and the only photo of my '67.

All riding on the combinations I mentioned before.

[gto-owner]

http://



First photo after moog replacement springs, a little hard to see
second photo after blower install back end is about 1 1/2 inchs higher than front

[engineer]

correct factory specs are lower in back. info is in factory service manual.

[AdamIsAdam]

I HATE cars that are lower in the back. Our A bodies, and convertible first gen Mustangs to name two. They kind of remind me of GASS shoes from the 70's. Remember the guy walking on the beach? "The heals are lower than the soles, the way nature intended." eek!

Here's mine, with all 4 same sized wheels/tires. Rear springs are new but fronts are old (original, I would guess). The car's low in the front and I like it!



The ONLY time the front should be higher than the rear is here...

[Charlie Brengun]

Originally Posted by gto-owner

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q147/gto68207/Augustdaytrip.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...68207/Ohoh.jpg

First photo after moog replacement springs, a little hard to see
second photo after blower install back end is about 1 1/2 inchs higher than front

looks good, do you remember the part numbers for those springs? What size wheels are those in the rear? and the tires?

thanks,

[fyrebird68]

I lowered mine 1" using Eibach springs. They're a little stiffer so I don't get any bottoming out like I did with the original ones. here's some before/after pics:

This one is with 14x7 wheels and the old springs




This is with the 15x8 wheels and the Eibach springs. (The wheel wells hadn't been blacked out yet, so its a little disorienting):



You can see the difference in stance by looking at how much space there is above the tire to the lip of the wheel opening.

[gto-owner]

If I remember right they where Moog part number MOG-5383 , its been a few years now. The tires are BFG's 225/60/15's front(15x7), 245/60/15's rear(15x8) mounted on Cragar SS's

[Charlie Brengun]

thanks those # 5383 have a 9" installed height and 173 lbs/in. spring rate.
from the picture it looks like 275/60R15's would fit in the rear as well.. which is what i'll be running, now i know i can use a spring with a 9" installed height..

that picture with the blower makes it look like it dropped the front about between 1 and 2 inches.. i was planning on ordering spindles that will drop the front 2" but i might order a blower instead either way should give me stance i'm looking for (about the same as yours)