1970 chevelle LS6 and L78 rear springs

[P.J.]

does anyone know what the factory height of the 70 chevelle
LS6 and the L78 is from the ground to the wheel openning mouldings front and back? The assembly manual shows 2 different part numbers for the front and rear springs was the L34 a different height than the L78 and ls6? The reason I am wondering is that I used the origional springs in my resto and when finnished the car sits lower in the back by 2 inches than the front. I know that over the years the constant pounding of the big block on the rear end took its toll on the spring height. I want to get it right
Please help
suprss70
Thanks
suprss70

[DarrenX33]

Paging Mr70. Mr70, you have a call at the front desk.

[Belair62]

Didn't know Rick got a new job ! Heh Heh

[Mr70]

It actually should sit lower in the rear,then the front, originally.
Any idea what Part numbers are on the springs you used,or even what two Letter suffix tag they had?
What are your front & rear measurements at now?
Starting in 1969,they selected springs diiferently,using a Computerized selection process.It wasn't so much about an engine being an L34-L78-LS5-LS6,2DR or 4DR,or even convertible,but more about what options the vehicle was determined to be built with,Power steering,power brakes,AM/FM radio,Transmission,Door locks,A/C,etc.
If you have a buildsheet what is the sufix call out in those respective spring boxes #13 & #14?
If they are GB-GC-OO-OQ,it originally used Front #3960665,& Rear #3960652.
The Assembly manual only shows Standard Base Spring numbers,nothing more specific.

[Motion Camaro]

[ QUOTE ]
Paging Mr70. Mr70, you have a call at the front desk.



[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> That is GREAT!!! </font>

[mrrec]

Your assembly manual has a chart that lists ride height. Remember, none of the Chevys were jacked up from the factory - they all look low in back.

Dave

[P.J.]

Rick and Dave
I have 24" 1/2 rear height from the floor to the wheel well moulding and 27" 1/2 front. I used the origional springs F41 suspension. I know that the chevelles did sit higher in the front than the back however did they sit 3 inches lower in the back than the front.? The assembly manual shows a floor to body height in the front of 9.70" with an f70 14 tire and in the back 9.46" curb height.Mine measures 9.5 " in the back and 10.5" in the front.In order to figure out
if that is normal for the chevelle as far as the car
sits is concerned one needs to know what the factory
dementions for the f41 rear springs are.By measuring my old springs I could then determine whow much they have shrunk.My front spring code is GB and the rear spring OO OO
I tried to post a pic and could not.
suprss70

[Supercar_Kid]

Has the car seen any road use since the spring installation? It's common for the front end to settle down quite a bit after a few bumps and bounces allow the coils to take set. Run it over a few speed bumps and get 30-40 miles on it, then check again, I think you'll find it sits closer to level. JMO.

[P.J.]

yes I will try to get some milage on it to see if it makea a diff. However if thats the way they sat so be it, MR 70
gave me the spring part number for the back I checked with
Delco and they told me that gm still has some I will try to order 2 to see if that changes the ride hight.
I would realy like to post some pics of the car but for some reason I cant post I am using phoshop 7 then saving for
web and then reducing the pic to 12.5% the smallest size and it still wont accept it.
can someone help
suprss70

[Fhakya]

Send them to me via my email via my username and I can resize them &amp; post them for you...Photoshop can be a pain to learn.