I get alot of PM's, and I have seen this come up a quite few times in threads.

About a year ago, there was quite a bit of experimentation done with methods for lowering the rears of our cars. There weren't any known, inexpensive, g-body application specific springs that would lower the rear any more than 1" or so. The proposed solutions that come to mind were cutting IROC cargo coils, and using QA1 coil-over springs, without the central strut. There are inherent problems with both of these methods.

The stock rear springs for the G-body are "pigtailed" on both ends. This means that the spring diameter reduces from roughly 8-9" to about 3-4", and the end slip over the spring seat on the frame and on the rear end axle tube. On the upper spring perch, however, there is a "pocket" that will also support a "box" end spring, albeit this was not the intended design.

Pigtailed ends (both top and bottom)


Tangential on bottom, boxed on top


By cutting a cargo coil or any other spring, you end up with not a pigtail, not a box end, but a tangential end. This leaves a very small area for the spring to contact the upper spring "perch" (it's not really even a perch). The entire corner weight must be transfered through that small contact area, causing high stresses on the frame, and possibly damage. This can be somewhat mitigated with a spring isolator, but the isolator will take quite a bit of abuse because of the stresses. If you want to see an application that the tangential end spring was designed for, take a look at the lower control arms up front. They have the tangential pattern stamped into them, which is why the spring has to be "clocked" correctly.

Another problem associated with cutting the rear springs is that the spring can come unseated rather easily. Again, the frame is not designed for any type of spring other than the pigtailed one. So any type of spirited driving could potentially dislodge the spring and then you have big problems. I was able to unseat a cut IROC cargo rear spring during an autocross run once, and I was VERY lucky that I didn't do any further damage.

Cutting springs also increases the springs "rate" which is a measure of the springs stiffness. The foce (in pounds) required to compress the spring 1 inch is it's rate. The spring rate, and more specifically the distribution of spring rate from front to rear, plays a prominent role in determing how the car handles. So if you cut cargo coils (you will have to cut them ALOT to get down to even a 2-3" drop) then you will end up with very stiff rear springs. The cargo coils are already stiff to begin with, you can see how thick the wire is that is used to make them. The long and the short of it is, you end up with a car that tends to oversteer. It is "loose" in stock car terms, or basically, the rear of the car will lose traction first in steady state cornering. (Search "Roll Stiffness" for more information.) This becomes hard to control at times (think emergency lane change maneauvers) and is not a good thing for racing... especially with V8 torque. Again, I know this from experience. Overall, cut springs are a very bad comprimise for the money saved, and there are much better solutions.

Some have tried running the QA1 coilover springs, as they can be ordered with many different spring rates and dimensions. They fit the pigtail, from what I have read on this forum, and they can provide the ride-height drop that many desire. However, as pointed out by many of the guru's on this site that are much smarter and experience than I, they are designed for coilovers, and as such, using them without the central supporting strut can cause problems. The length to diameter ratio of the spring is very large, which lends well to buckling. Just for understanding's sake, imagine you had a spring that was 1" in diameter, and 2 feet long. Trying to compress it would likely cause it to fold up rather than compress uniaxially. The coilover springs are obviously not this bad of a case, but they are getting to the point where they could potentially buckle instead of functioning properly. I have personally never tried running these springs, so I cannot comment on how they work in practice under all conditions, or how the car handles with them.

Finally, there are the springs that are pigtailed on both ends, and provide a 2 or 3" drop. OPG offers the only 2+" drop springs that I know of that are marketed as "G-body springs", but they cost $170/pair. There is one other option that I know of...

Classic Performance Products sells springs that are marketed for '67-72 A-bodies, and they advertise a 2 or 3" drop. When these springs are used in our cars, the "2 inch" springs provide an actual 3 or 3.5" drop, and the "3 inch" springs are far too short for the G body. The best part is that they sell for right around $100 shipped. They are pigtailed on both ends. Many other companies also sell A body springs, Belltech sells 1.5" drop springs for the G-body, and between all of the manufacturers, you are bound to find a spring that puts you where you want to be, safely.

Now that we know of springs that will drop the ride height to where you want it, there are some other things to consider... at least for drops of around 3+ inches.

The stock frame side bumpstops will begin contacting on a regular basis. I have removed mine completely, but left the pinion snubber.

The big problem with droping the rear 3+ inches is the suspension link geometry. The springs only locate the rear end in the car vertically. The upper and lower trailing arms are left to do the work of locating the rear laterally and longitudinally (left/right and fore/aft). The lower the car is, the more the trailing arms are pointed downward on the front (frame) side and upward on the rear (axle) side.

As you would expect, the trailing arms pivot about their frame mounts, and the result is that the axle mount travels in an arc path. At stock height, the arms are parallel to the ground. When the car makes a turn, the body rolls towards the outside of the turn. The outside spring goes into compression, and the spring on side of the car that is on the inside of the turn goes into droop. So the outside trailing arm travels upwards in its arc, and the inside one goes down. If the arms are parallel to begin with, there is no problem because the axle mounts are still the same distance from the rear end.

With a severely lowered car, and no further modifications to correct suspension geometry, the trailing arms are not parallel to the ground. When the body rolls during a turn, the outside arm travels further up in it's arch, and the inside arm travels down in its arch, ending up closer to parallel with the ground. This means that the outside arm pulls the rear end further foward, and the inside arm pushes the rear end further back towards the rear of the car. The rear ends up actually steering the car, as it is no longer perpendicular with the centerline of the car. This is called "rollsteer", and it is not something that you generally want, at least not in sever amounts. (See picture- The wheel would travel down with the axle side of the control arm, illsutrated by the heavy grey line above and below the heavy black line. The black line is where the control arm is at static ride height, and the grey lines illustrate the inner/outter arms under body roll. Upper trailing arms have been omitted for simplicity, but the concept is the same.)



There are relocation brackets that will lower the axle side mount of the lower trailing arm, and get it pretty close to parallel with the ground. I am not aware of any solution for the upper trailing arms though. I have the BMR lower trailing arm relocation brackets, and they help, but there is still a very noticable amount of rollsteer in the rear of my car (~3.5" drop). It is enough to make me very cautious when entering and exiting turns. I still have to solve this issue, but I think it is going to entail relocating the frame-side mounts for the upper arms.

Finally... there is the issue of pinion angle. Because of the arcs that the arms travel on, and the fact that the upper arms are shorter than the lower ones (and because they are angled in, further reducing the longitudinal distance between the frame mount and the axle mount) the pinion angle becomes more severe, the lower you go. Adjustable upper trailing arms are needed to remedy this, and with stock arms and a 3.5" drop, the driveline vibrations were absolutely unbearable on the highway. I have the Currie Enterprises Curectrac adjustable upper arms with the johnny joints, and so far, so good. I have also noticed that by using the BMR reloation brackets, and adjusting my upper arms to be longer (to account for the pinion angle) that the rear axle actually sits further back in the wheel well. It looks a bit funny, and I'm sure that it hurts the corner weight distribution a little bit by making the rear axle a hair lighter than it used to be. I even went as far as putting a longer yoke on my driveshaft just to make sure that it was engaged well enough.

I hope that this sheds some light on lowering the ride height on the G-body. As with most mechanical systems, you cannot simply alter one aspect and expect that it will not affect something else.

Great write up Bernie! Should be sticky'd

X2!!! Awesome write up bernie! this will help answer a lot of questions!

Yes, quite a writeup! There are a few Moogs numbers that lower it pretty well. They are high rate, low height springs. Not to sit on the bumpstops of course, but a good bit lower.

Hey Bernie - great info!

One thing I think should be added is that everyone can use a 3" drop spring for the rear.. and say you only want 2" of drop, find 'spring spacers' for the rear. Basically they are used for lift by the donk crowd, but they are made to fit the perch very well and the pig tail top fits in there nice too. And since they are aluminum, they can be trimmed if you really want to dial in the rear height. So they could be used in conjunction with the CCP springs that you mention.

Also I'll add that OPG does (last time I checked) offer rear springs for g-bodies in 1, 2 and 3" of drop. They are nice and fairly accurate from my experience. Yes they are pricey, but doing it once and right is always cheaper in the long run.

Again, you could go with a 3" OPG drop spring for the rear and use the spacers I mentioned to dial in a 2.5" drop.

I have the OPG 3" drop spring in the car. They are good but VERY stiff. My car never bottoms out. You can not put the car down at all.

...Bill

Hey I looked on OPG's website and couldn't find the drop springs for the Monte. Do they still make them for the rear?

They're under 78-88, low profile srings, down toward the bottom of the page:
http://www.opgi.com/product.asp?topcatid...&yearrange=
If you're looking to buy this month there's a discount code that I got for 10% off, I think it's OCTDISC
Larry.

i was looking for the springs myself...thanks whitess

Wow Bernie that was very good, I actually learned something today. The drawings turned the light on for me. If I don't have a print to reason it out in my head I'm blind.

So you have some issues with the set up. Have you ever considered putting a corvette rear and suspension under the Monte?

i need to check into those lowering springs!

Thanks it was really starting to bug me!!!

You're welcome. Their site is kinda wierd to use sometimes.

$330 for opgi's springs?? WOW

no it's $155 a pair

http://www.classicperform.com/chevelle.htm

RCS60342 will lower the G body 3". That's what is in my car in this pic (and currently)

[img]http://www.sickspeedmonte.com/ProShot.bmp[/img]





I have considered that, but that is dreaming big. Maybe one day... I have seen it done to a few Novas and even '50's pickup, and it involves re-engineering the frame from the ground up (or should I say from the suspension mounting points in.) I would do that for different reasons though, namely the weight distribution advantages of the rear transaxle, the torsional rigidity of the torque tube tying the frame points together, the LS series engine, the independent suspension's ride quality and ability to absorb bumps.

Simply relocating the frame mounts of the suspension and getting the correct length arms should sove the issues that I addressed in the original post.

There is an interesting 3 link convorsation going on as well in the chassis forum.

This thread also addresses something else to consider when lowering the rear of the G body, as well as proposed solutions.

http://www.montecarloss.com/community/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=737111#Post737111

if you know how much weight to hold up, you can use 2.50 diameter hypercoils. just do some math using spring rate and spring free length. to determine how much to lower the car. at the given amount of weight to hold up at a given spring compressed height
$60 a pop

Geez good research and writeup. But most of my mods get done by accident!

I got some Intrax Impala SS for my Fleetwood but they dropped it silly low, so I put them on my son's '88 and they're perfect. I had to use an industrial tiewrap around the top since they're almost 1" shorter at rest than the axle drop. Good ride especially with the Bilstiens.

I didnt see that part number on the chevelle site. Will this part number work?

FCS6330D 1967-72 Front Coil Springs 1-1/2" drop, pair

Moog CC507 cargo coil (72 and older Monte etc) work in our cars; with 5662's in the front with 1/2 a coil cut off and CC507's in the back car is just slightly raked - going back to the alignment rack with it to get a good look at lower rear trailing arms to see if they are parrallel with ground - front lower control arms are level when viewed from the front - just put a post up for info on drop spindles.

Have always had a pronounced vibration 80-85 mph and up; this is mentioned in tech section as a rear suspension/pinion angle problem without a defined cause. Since I pulled the CC627 coils out in favor of the CC507's it has abated somewhat; the 627's had the rear approx 2" higher than it is now - also had the 5662's in at full length, car was really up high (I called it my 'urban suspension'). Any info on this symptom?

RCS6034

Sorry about that, I don't know why I had a 2 in there.

Is the first gen Monte an A body?

I touched on pinion angle in the original post of this thread as well.

It's because the universal joint is not a constant velocity joint. The velocity of the shaft on the output side of the U joint goes by a sine wave pattern, which is a funciton on the input velocity and the angle between the slip yoke and driveshaft, (or the driveshaft and pinion). If you have equal U joint angles on both ends of the driveshaft, the sine waves cancle out and you get a constant velocity at the pinion flange. (This requires that the u joints are "clocked" correctly, but every driveshaft shop knows to do this, as does the OEM)

So in short, make sure that your pinion axis of rotation is parallel with your slip yoke axis of rotation, and you'll be good. Drag racers put the pinion a degree or two down in relation to the yoke, because the pinion tends to "climb" upward under hard acceleration. This causes the pinion to be parallel with the yoke under hard acceleration, and gives the smoothest power transfer to the ground.

Personally, I have 4:10 gears and a 26" tire, so my driveshaft spins pretty quickly. I was unable to dial in any pinion down "pre-load" if you will, as even 1 degree caused vibrations at highway speeds. They are parallel, and smooth as butter now.

The 1st gen Monte is basically an A body. Thanks for the reply - will have to do some checking with the angle finder. GM made more than one upper arm for the rear axle with degree footnotes so you could dial in the pinion angle; what you're saying makes perfect sense. Now to find a flat surface on the trans tailshaft...

I had to go to a jiffy lube and request to use their pit for a few minutes to get an accurate figure with the rear suspension at ride height. Just an idea.

Got it covered, alignment rack in our shop.

which year corvette, what size is the rear end???

[quote=SickSpeedMonte]http://www.classicperform.com/chevelle.htm

RCS60342 will lower the G body 3". That's what is in my car in this pic (and currently)

[img]http://www.sickspeedmonte.com/ProShot.bmp[/img]



do you have any problems with your car being lowered 3"??? speed bumps and such.

What did you use for the front?

Not after having my exhaust tucked away by a fabricator friend of mine, rolling the rear fenders, relocating the front fenders, and changing my worn out shocks to gas charged tokikos



F41 springs minus 1 coil and 2" belltech drop spindles.

Ordered the RCS60342's today!!

I'm the new guy , so it was great to read all the back and forth on this topic , very well written , I learned something new here that I will need in the near future.....Thanks to all

Two questions. Silver, did you get those springs installed and if so can I see a pic? also with these 3" springs, can you let the diff hang free without them falling out? I've tried different springs and I haven't come up with anything that's really workable for a reasonable price.

Notice how the rear axle is too far back. That's from the LCA relocation brackets and the adjustable upper arms (set to the correct pinion angle)

I need to fabricate some adjustable lower arms to bring the axle back to where it should be, and then I'll still have the roll steer issue.

I would imagine you would have to back half the car and put something like a double wishbone rear in it to fix that issue. I'm not going that far. Just a lowered DD.

Or just move the frame side mounts of the UCA's up a couple inches.

Sorry not yet. They're sitting in the garage. Been doing a lot of work on my buddy's Mustang for him. Right now I've got 275/50/15 DR's on the back on 8 1/2' wheels and I'm pretty sure if I run those they're going to hit the fender- even though I already rolled them. They stick out a lot more than I thought they would. I've gotta get the vette wheels back on it and do some measuring. The springs would be fine with stock wheels. Hopefully won't be long!

This method is a little unorthodoxed, but it works. I'm using a set of cargo springs for a 76 Vega with the stock snubber assembly. The 76,77 Vega rear srings are not pigtailed and have a snubber assembly that fits inside the spring. What I did was weld a circular steel plate with a 2.5" center hole to the top of the snubber assembly. With this installed the car pretty much sits at stock ride height. With this method, it allows you to cut whatever off the spring you want to get the desired drop you want. I have pix but it seems you can't attached pix on this site with your reply.

I got rear springs from a third generation Camaro at the boneyard. I also use the Camaro spring isolators. My wheel lip is about even with the top of the tire. No handling problem, and more room for tailpipes.

Not sure if its covered yet. But I made a u shaped bracket that could be bolted to stock upper mount, Then installed adjustable coilovers. QA1s can be leaned so they fit factory location, spring clears top and bottom, I can adjust shock bound and rebound, ride height and even swap springs with relative ease. I installed in the front alo just for the adjustabililty on the auto-x.

Sickspeed- your PM box is full! I got the 6034's in and I'm starting to wonder if they sent me the right springs. On the box it says RCS603-4 as the number and under it it says RR Coil Springs 4' drop. These springs were a LOT shorter than the 1 1/2' drop springs I already had on it and only lowered the rear of the car another 1/2'. Here's a few pics. The tires are 275/50/15's- about 26' tall. Did they send me the wrong springs?

Silver,

If I might offer my opinion. That looks like a really good height!

Thanks. I'm pretty happy with it. When I looked at Sickspeed's car it looks a lot lower than mine in the back- and I think our tires are similar in height. It seemed like he had a lot less space between the fender and the tire. I know he said he was having issues with tires rubbing the inside of the fenders- mine aren't even close.

Hey all, I just put mine in this weekend. Its like sickspeed's, so silver try taking the shock mounts at the bottom off. It could be that the shocks are bottoming out and not letting it drop all the way down.

Also the springs will fall out if the rear hangs free. I'm going to use 4wd suspension limiters. I put the Belltech shock on too. They are just a bit to long but shorter then stock by about 2".

Thanks I'll give that a try. I looked at the shocks after I put them in and they aren't fully collapsed but it seems like something must be holding it up higher. What size tires do you have on the rear?

Are you using spring isolators?

Mine were advertised as a 3" drop. Not sure why yours says 4".

Thanks for the heas up on teh PM box, I'll take care of that.

Well I tried disconnecting the shocks and no change- still the same height. The suspension does travel up and down so it's not because it's bottomed out. Any other ideas? BTW my car has a bolt in Strange S-60 rear, and adjustable upper and lower control arms with rod ends on one end and poly bushings on the other. Thanks.

Looking for some clarification, the a-body springs lower the rear an inch more than what they are rated. Is that with or without the isolators? And does anyone sell something with less than 2" rated drop on the a-body. I want to lower the rear of mine about 2" I run a taller tire on the back so I cant lower it as much. If not I will dish out the dough for the OPGI springs to match my fronts I have from them. Also, how much of a drop does just removing the isolators give?

Bernie, I seen you said something about fabricating rear lower arms. They sell adjustable lowers also. I'm not sure what the fully collapsed length is but i'm sure they could be cut down. They run ~$250 for the pair. They even have the holes in them for bolting the sway bar to.

SileverSS, are the axle tubes on that S60 larger in diameter than the stock axle? You could get some lift from that. And remove the isolators if you havent.

I'm pretty sure the axle tubes are larger- the S60 has 35 spline axles. I don't know what stock axle tube diameter is on the 7.5. I'll go measure mine when I get a chance. Isolators are gone.

Hey Bernie, your PM box is full again... all us suspension noobs filling it up

Anyway, I was wondering if you happen to know the P/N for the 2" advertised/3" actual springs from CPP. I've looked all over their site, but the A body springs I'm finding look to be pigtailed on only one end.

Thanks,
Scott

http://www.classicperform.com/chevelle.htm
RCS6034 1967-72 Rear Coil Springs 2" drop, pair

Looks like they bumped the price up now that all us G body guys are buying them.

The picture is just a picture that they use for all of the springs, what comes in the box is pigtailed on both ends.

What I said in my prior post about the advertised drop was wrong, they are 2" advertised drop like I said originally.

15% off

http://www.montecarloss.com/community/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=838525#Post838525

I have read this post alot and some others. I like the idea of useing the Moog springs from a cost perspective. Some have used the 5662 fbody front spring and a 2" drop spindle. They report good results. Has anyone used the fbody convertable spring 5664? I have been looking at the Moog spring table posted here.
What do fbodies upgrade to? Could we use those springs.

http://jeffd.50megs.com/Moog_Spring_Page.htm

I am done with this portion of my project!!! Total suspension overhaul is complete, along with new Centerline Retros mounted with 245/45/17s up front and 275/40/17s in rear. Nice 2/3 drop with a great stance. I utilized SC&C Street-Comp Stage 2 Plus package, SPC lowering springs, SPC tubular front A-arms, and a new set of Bilstein HD shocks. Hugs the road like expected. Also complete is the addition of Hooker long tube headers (2451-1HKR), true duals, and exhaust dumping out at a 45 chrome tips behihd the rear tires...looks, performs sweet, [/img] and sounds just as good.

[/img]

Just ordered a set of these currnet price is 112 shipped. They were 10 days behind?? and said for an extra 10 dollars they can send them out tomorrow. What a bunch of b.s. Me being in a rush paided it.

I have an 85 SS with a GN/ rearend and was wondering if I could use my eibach rear lowering springs to lower the rear? Have belltech in the front..

Yes they will work fine.

Add these BMR springs to the mix. They are 2" drop.

Who wants to try them out first????????

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BMR-Fabrication-Lowering-Springs-Rear-SP015R-/330602447121?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&fits=Model%3AMonte+Carlo&hash=item4cf9710111

^^^^ Note, those are A-body springs. So I guess they would give us a 3" drop???

Someone needs to try and see.

Well I just ordered these:
http://www.performanceonline.com/1978-88-Chevy-Buick-Oldsmobile-GM-A-Body-Rear-Coil-Springs-19791/

The come stock, 2" drop and 3" drop. I got the 2" drop. So we'll see how they work.

10% off until the end of Aug too.. but they are only $99 to begin with.

Tony,

How did those springs work out for you? I know you had the OPG drops and I loved that stance. I'm about to pull the trigger on my Monte's suspension and I was leaning toward the OPG lowering springs. Any reason you're switching it up?

where in the tech section.. as mine has a vib at 60-65 that I've been able to abate somewhat by driving up to 70-75mph drop it in "n" then back into drive and the vib. goes untill you get under 50mph and get back up to 60-65..
it's driving me nuts

I have been reading articles and posts for the last month, My mind feels like mush. I want to lower the rear of my SS with those A-Body springs but the rear end roll has me a little skeptical. The front end I feel I have sorted out and will take some trial and error to dial in. But the dam upper control arm angle in the rear is killing me on paper. I have gone over everything from a Torque arm setup, Mini Bar setup with a panhard bar, Watts link, etc. All I want is a half way decent handling car that I can take to a roadcourse/AutoX and have fun but not kill myself on a 6000$ suspension setup.

Look into relocating the frame mounts up. I can look at my frame tonight and see what it would take, it's still a rolling chassis. I was going to do that, but now I think I am going to go 3 link.

There is no bolt-on solution, so you are someone is going to have to do some fabricating if you want the rear to be 3" or more lower than stock.

I have lowered two different SS cars 3" exactly and I haven't noticed any rear end roll. I also just used the stock upper and lower control arms. I even ran the old '88 SS at the drag strip some. From a 450hp motor in my old '88 to a bone stock motor in my '86, both cars drive and ride great to be lowered as much as they are. No vibrations. Using Belltech 2" drop spindles and Belltech 1" drop springs up front and OPG 3" drop rear springs with Belltech Street Performance shocks on all four corners just seems to work for me. Simple and cost effective.

The car pictured in your signature has stock upper and lower arms and no pinion angle vibrations at 70+ mph? Mine would vibrate so bad people though the the car was going to come apart on deceleration until I put the adjustable upper arms in and now it's about perfect, save for the roll steer which will be fixed while the body is off. The roll steer is not something that is a really "in your face" problem, like vibrations are. It's just a "something doesn't quite feel right" feeling, espeically as you turn in. The car just feels lazy like it won't yaw. I'll get some roll steer measurements the next time I roll the frame out from under the body.

Any chance you could put an angle finder on your rear and on your trans?

I understand your pain with the upper control arms when lowering the rear of the car. It got worse when i put the 9" under the back. The instant center was practically at the rear tires. After some measuring i decided to make some brackets for the upper control arms to relocate them higher. The only drawback if any was the upper control arms were shorter than factory. Here is a partial picture of the brackets.



I still have the issue of a little roll steer, but it is manageable. However in a straight line my 60' times went from an average of 2.0 to an average of 1.65. to me a stick car with that 60' is doing pretty good.

Thats correct. My '86 SS is lowered exactly 3" front and rear. Verified the measurement before and after I lowered the car. It also has the stock upper and lower arms. The car is bone stock other than spindles, springs, and shocks. I have no vibrations what so ever at 70 + mph. Its as smooth as it can be. Trust me if it was bad, I would have already fixed it. But, the only vibrations is a very, very small amount of tire/wheel balance. I also have never felt any roll steer. Been driving this '86 for over a year and a half lowered and couldn't be happier. Thats interstate driving, back roads driving, you name it. I drive it to shows everywhere.

The next time I put it back on the 4 post lift, I will put an angle finder on the rear to see where its at when at ride height. Must be me but, the car is smooth. Anyone thats rides in it has a hard time believing that it is as low as it is. The wife even said I took a good driving car and made it better. I don't know..........

Montec355, I like those brackets, or at least the idea behind them. It's hard to see the execution from the pictures. Is that aluminum?? Putting the control arm there is exactly what my car needs if I was staying with the stock UCA configuration.

Performance, I don't know how that happened, but that's great. I wish I could have been that lucky.

I must be real lucky or something cause this is two different SS cars that I have lowered the same exact way. No issues with either cars lowered 3". Just to give you an idea, there is no more room to go any lower in the rear without C-notching the frame.

Same here, I had to remove the frame side bump stops. I think I was actually pretty close to resting on the pinion snubber at one point with the cut IROC springs (bad idea...)

I just ordered my RCS60342's from CPP today as everyone has suggested they lower our rides 3 inches...My question is, how long do they take to get here? We all hate the waiting game, and I'm already being impatient. lol

OK, so.I plan to run a 305/45/18 outback (28.5inch ) tire and its going to raise the rear of my car up a bit from where it stands now. Front i have 2 inch drop spindles and 5660 springs. Front lip is 8 inches from the ground with stock wheels and tires.

My question is I want a raked stance so.what would be the best springs to go with lower the rear so it still has a rake. Theoretically, I guess I could go.for a level stance and with the bigger tires it will give a raked stance. Like posted before a lot of reading and all.... plus I do not want to break the bank lol

At what amount of drop would someone need to use the Belltech 2209IH shocks versus using a stock type shock? Looking at dropping the rear 1.5" and exploring my shock options.

Hey guys, I know this is an older post, with a lot of good info. I need some help getting my new SS down a little in stance.




As you can see, it looks like a log truck with stock suspension. I am looking for good ride quality and about a 2/3 drop. The car has 245/45-17's on it and from what I have gathered, I have come up with this plan.

Looking at Moog 5560 or 5562 front springs with 1/2 coil cut and the Classic Performance RCS6034-2 2" drop springs out back. I also aill have poly spring isolators on hand if I need to pick it back up a little bit, and using ZQ8 front bump stops on the rear. Will Monroe Sensa-Tracs, KYB GR-2's or Bilstiens work with this spring setup or will I need to use drop shocks like Nitro 2's? I plan on putting all new bushings and U-joints in the rear to eliminate the G-Body shuffle and hopefully not have any vibration.

Once I get this sorted out, will come the 98> Blazer front Disc swap and rear discs. My goal is to have a good handling road car that sticks and brakes well.

For the front, I would use 5660's and trim them as necessary.

For the rear, good question. I'm still researching that myself.

The way I am reading the spring chart is that the 5660 is very close at compressed height of the stock HDSS spring. But am curious of the ride quality of the 5660 vs 5662. Don't want any roll or leaning...

I guess I want my Monte to handle like an IROC....lol

Your car is going to roll or lean no matter what spring you put under it. Some just less than with others. If you don't want it to roll, you need to go with a stiffer sway bar setup.

I've ran the 5660 before (uncut) and it was very much the same ride as with the stock springs.

I think a better setup for you would be the Detroit Speed 2" drop springs. They are a 575# spring up front and 125# spring out back and lower both the front and the back approx 2".

Here's what my car looked like with them installed.

What size tire are you running Lance? What sway bars are you running? F-Body front bar help?

Well, I've kinda been all over the board with both of those questions... Should I answer as it sits now or as it sat in those pics from 2 years ago?

The 36mm F-body sway bar is a fine upgrade and works well. I raced with one most of this year in fact. I'm now running a much stiffer Ridetech musclebar...and my car still leans a bit too much on the autocross course.

In that pic above I had 245/40/17s up front and 275/40/17s out back. I've always ran a tire around 25.5" tall which is close to a stock height tire.

I ran the DSE springs for a year or so and they work VERY well. Eric (406monte) bought them from me and has them on his car and I'm sure he'll vouch for them as well.

Lance, I really like the pics with the DSE 2" drop, but I think I am going to try to achieve it using the 5562 springs trimmed accordingly and the Classic Perf 2" drop springs. and use the F-Body 36mm sway bar. What is your current setup or the setup shown in the pic at speed in your sig?

I'm running Ridetech triple adjustable coil over shocks now so I can adjust any corner of the car to basically any height I want.

I've actually raised it back up some from the height it was at with the DSE springs in order to get more suspension travel for racing.

Took this last week



Front fender lip is at about 25.75" at the center of the spindle and the rear fender lip is at 26.75" with me sitting in the driver seat.

I'm curious, has anyone else tried the full belltech setup? It seems so much simpler and designed for the actual vehicle than to start piecing together parts from different vehicles.

I understand as a form from when there was n't much aftermarket suspension stuff for the G body, or in a specific racing application that you would fabricate and piece together a system.

Why does it seem most people stay away from the Bell tech gear all around?

Thanks!

- Brandon

People piece together their own kits to get different ride feel and levels of drop.

The Belltech springs might not be stiff enough for someones liking, and etc.