Ride Height & Coil Springs

[86Cutlass383SR]

I'm getting ready to install my front coil springs and have a few questions about ride heights. I'm not looking for a *lowered* look, just something close (0" - 1" or less lower than stock at most) but not slammed.

Here's a pic of my Cutlass with the 307 and stock front springs.


I've pulled the 307/auto out and I'm replacing it with a SBC/T56. The SBC will have alum heads and I'm fairly positive the T56 weighs more than the auto trans that it's replacing. I can't remember if the SBC weighs more or less than the 307.

I have 2 sets of springs. The stock springs that came out of the car (original) and a set of Moog 5662's. I don't even know the part number of the stock springs but I don't think this car had the F41 package with it being a Supreme Brougham. The 5662 springs are rated at 706"#'s. Here's pics of the 2 springs side by side.



I know the stock springs will compress more than the 5662's under a load but here's my question. Will both springs give approx the same ride height? If so, then I'd rather use the 5662's since I already have them. I'd like not to have to buy new front coils if I can get away with it. I will to get the correct ride height though.

I'd really like for it to sit like rick48195's car. He said his car is using the stock springs. Here's a pic of how his car sits in case you need a referance.



If the 5662's lower it more than about 1", anybody know the Moog number of the stock spring I need?

What should I run in the rear for the same stock ride height? Part numbers? I have no clue how much my coils springs (front or rear) are sagging.

Thanks for any info.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

A Brougham could be had with the F-41 or FE-2 (as it was sometimes called in Oldsmobiles) suspension package. If it has the 1.25 in front sway bar, or any rear bar and a fast ratio steering box, it has one of those two packages. As for what springs to run, that is a dicey issue. It is hard to know just how the car will sit without knowing what options it has, where the battery will be mounted, etc. You may want to post some other info like is the hood steel, aluminum or fiberglass, ditto the bumper, and will it have A/C? My car has a stance similar to what you describe, but it is riding on Eibach Pro Kit springs, which are a bit too stiff for my taste. There may be a good alternative to them, but sadly I have not yet figured that out. Also, I will warn you that lowering the G body front suspension has it's down side too. The caster will almost disappear, and it will make the already bad bump steer geometry worse. The caster can be fixed with offset cross shafts in the upper arms, but I do not yet have a definitive fix for the bump steer geometry. I have a theory, but have yet to be able to test it just yet. I am trying to fix it because I want to do the B body spindles for the improved camber curve, but without the problems it usually causes.

 

[1evilregal]

just because a spring is taller, doesn't always mean it'll sit higher...

case in point:
I've been doing some work on my buddy's 84 caprice, and original rear springs were sagging. I happened to have a set of rear coils from a 95 "bubble" body caprice that I'd snagged with a rear axle. the 95 springs were about 1" shorter and I was a little concerned about the car sitting lower after I was done... turned out the springs were the variable rate type springs, and brought car back to stock/slightly higher ride height(had no reference to original height). the springs just compress at a different rate is all, so the new springs may just take the weight better and compress less...take readings before & after the engine/trans install with the original springs, then put new springs in and compare... may be more work than necessary, but best way to gauge how happy you'll be...

just my opinion.....HTH

 

[Regal Beagle]

I just went through what you are going through and with much trial and error was able to determine that, at least on my setup, that the 5662 increased my ride height by about 1.5 inches above the stock springs.
I ended up going with the Moog 5658's. The ride height is just perfect and the ride is sporty but not harsh. Measurement from ground to bottom of the front fender lip is 26.5 inches which has my car sitting level with the rear.[/img]

 

[86Cutlass383SR]

Regal Beagle I thought about using those springs. Curious, what size front tires you running? I'm wondering if my fronts will be taller or shorter and by how much than yours.

 

[mr evil]

Fwiw...I had 5660's in my other car with the sbc 350 with aluminum top end. With the lighter motor the front came up too high IMO.

I think I have a link that may help...
http://jeffd.50megs.com/Moog_Spring_Page.htm

 

[86Cutlass383SR]

Yeah, I have that link, too. And a few others. I know a chart is just an approximation. That's why I was asking. I hate pulling front coils and I'd kinda wanted to get it right the first time. I had the 5662's in my old 84 and SBC but it had the iron heads with alum intake and carb. These pics are with that setup and 225/60/14 tires.

I'm now going with alum heads and the setup I described above. The 245/45/17 tires will be 1" taller than the ones in the pics but only .5" closer to the top of the fenderwell. Those pics I also had the CC635 f-body Cargo Coils, too. Sits too low for my likes.

 

[Regal Beagle]

I am running 255 45 17's front and back without issue. With those S10 springs my car sits perfectly level and rides very nice. Corners well and does not have a harsh feel even on rough roads.

 

[86Cutlass383SR]

Regal Beagle that looks good. I like your setup and you have approx the same engine weight as I do. I had to throw my springs back in to get the car movable again so I went with the 5662's. I may, and probably will, change my springs in the future after I get my engine in and running. Future plans call for a suspension upgrade next year (if I get it running THIS year ).

Regal Beagle what springs you using out back?