1969 copo camaro front springs

[John]

You guys are really great on this web site...I always learn something new...I have noticed the the front end on original "Copo" camaros sit a little higher then a Z/28, SS big block camaro, or even a SS big block camaro with air conditioning. Since the copo camaros where built with parts already available on chevrolet autos...are the front springs the same ones used on a larger chevrolet ( like an impala or station wagon )?....or is it my imagination?

[William]

In those days Chevrolet was touting "computer-selected" springs.

Spring selection was based on desired "trim height." There is a chart in the '69 AIM. There is no mention of big-block or A/C; it relates to tire size and std or G31 rear springs. Z/28 has its own line.

In other words all 1969 Camaros with, for example, F70 x 14 tires and standard rear springs should have the same trim height regardless of equipment. Cars with the same trim height may have used different springs.

The Camaros you see today have all been messed with. Correct trim height is difficult to dial-in on a restoration due to the limited selection of service springs. We did a COPO that sat far too low. Dismantling the carefully painted and detailed suspension to change springs was no fun.

[YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY]

We have an original blue coil spring tag from a low mile Yenko Nova, the part number is for the L65 350 with a/c. Obviously, the COPO Novas don't have the a/c, but the springs are designed to hold the extra weight. Without the extra weight, the Novas sit high-nosed. We think those springs were selected because Yenko chose the 'heavy duty cooling package' on these cars, and believe that this package actually part of the a/c package; 3core rad, 7blade fan, big clutch, ect.. and stiffer springs. We believe this cooling package addition was part of COPO 9737 for '70.

A lot of people replace the 5leaf rear springs with the generic ones, which makes the rear sit way too high. This makes it look like they have the incorrect front springs when it's the rears that are wrong.

Thoughts?
M

[Edited by YENKO DEUCE REGISTRY (02-04-2002 at 10:35 AM).]

[John]

Thanks for everyone's input. I know that the "goose-neck" radiators came on the "Big block with a/c packages...But when I saw a "Big block a/c camaro...even those did not seem to sit the way the copo camaros sit. My Hugger Orange Yenko camaro sits up in the front and has the (5) leaf spring on the rear. I just wondered if they would have ordered heavier springs to hold the front end up and transfer more weight to the rear for added traction...since these were meant for drag racing.

[Chevy454]

The COPO cars have the heavier springs, but don't have the extra weight of the a/c stuff to drop the nose down to where most of the other cars reside. I'd like to think that the reason for the heavier springs was due in part to true purpose of the cars (drag racing), but I wonder if an engineer just decided they should get the heaviest of the suspension components, without giving it much thought. But, like someone mentioned before, it's a pain in the butt trying to find springs that give the correct ride height, as a lot of the restored cars I see sit WAY to high (for me, anyway!). I never did care for the way my LS-6 sat (way too high) and it wheel-hopped like crazy because of this as well.

I can say, though, that a nose high attitude is a DEFINITE plus on the drag strip!

[Edited by Chevy454 (02-04-2002 at 07:06 PM).]

[Keith Tedford]

Check out an old Camaro parts book. For Chevelles there wer 26 different front spring codes listed in group 7, Spring Chart Illustration 8. Illustration 9 lists various options including engines. There is a weight variation for each option. Totalling the variations for your car gave a number which you used in Chart Illustration 10 to find the proper spring. On 13637 cars there were 3 front springs listed for the standard suspension and 2 for the F40 depending on the weight of the options. The COPO Chevelle build sheets that I have list standard SS396 GW front springs. I would think that Camaros did the same thing. A lot of the replacement springs have the cars sitting a mile high. Our Chevelle sat quite low and had the rear springs replaced under warranty. The front sat more than an inch lower than normal.

[Edited by Keith Tedford (02-03-2002 at 02:35 PM).]

[Edited by Keith Tedford (02-04-2002 at 11:07 PM).]

[JoeC]

The ride height should match the AIM specification. You can have a 400 lb spring or a 600lb spring and still have the same ride height. On a coil spring It is a function of spring winding, wire diameter size, and length of the spring. If the ride height is too high it may be the wrong spring.