F body springs on g body
- Thread starter jhjohnson
- Start date
- Status
They should raise it, not lower it, depending on what gen F spring are used. . The installed space is about 1" shorter on a G-body. I used 1979 Firebird Formula 301 springs. I have a 301 in my Bonnewagon. It sits about two or three inches taller than stock. These are big tires too [225-75-15] so take that into consideration.
Last edited:
No, I only have 1st and 2nd gen stuff. They use leafs in the rear. Out back I used some ancient JCWhitney 'High Jackers' 'guaranteed' to raise the rear 3". That they did. Many moons go I put 1977 Trans Am 400 springs in a 1981 Malibu wagon. The front end pointed up at the trees. I had to cut 3/4 of a coil 1/4 coil at a time to get the front down to get 'only' 3 or 4" higher than stock. And I had a heavy Pontiac 400 under the hood.
Moog 5662 and 5664 which are popular aftermarket changeover springs on the front are from 88-92 z28 3rd gens. However they will likely raise your front ride height.
The Moog 5409 and 5413 rear springs usually lower or at least keep the same height as a sagged out OEM g body spring and and are from 64-72 A bodies.
The Moog 5409 and 5413 rear springs usually lower or at least keep the same height as a sagged out OEM g body spring and and are from 64-72 A bodies.
Alright because I was thinking of buying f body rear spring isolators for the top of the springs because they’re not pig tailed at the top like the g body springs and isolators will keep them in. And the reason I want to go with the f body springs in the rear is because I can cut them to any height I want.
I tried the F-Body springs and isolators, I wasn’t a fan. Cutting the spring doesn’t leave a good end to seat in the isolator. It put a lot of pressure on the end. I ended up removing them and going with 5413’s.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Sticky
