what is the best way to STIFFEN a spring without making it taller?
- Thread starter azmusclecar
- Start date
- Status
Im ordering 2 5608s period done.......Gonzo wouldn't steer me wrong..........get it, STEER me wrong.......he 's like Joe Friday......
just the facts..........not opinions..........😆
just the facts..........not opinions..........😆
I've been running 5606's for many years. I believe they were the standard spring for the 442, H/O, Monte SS, etc. You're not going to like them. They'll make your car sit too high. Mine had naturally settled over the years, and they're somewhat tolerable. It's now sitting at stock height.
Im going off the Moog chart..........i dont see much of a difference between 5606 and 5608. Did you see the chart?
That term: STOCK HEIGHT seems to be rather obscure to a lot of people.......is there a document that states the STOCK HEIGHT for
a 1979 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais Hurst Olds with stock tires and rims? What's the baseline? Where do you measure?
I have no actual data on stock ride height but, when these cars were new they did sit pretty high. Higher than most people realize or remember, want proof? Look at old dealer brochures, photos or advertisements ect. Years of wear have left them alot lower than the were originally. I put moog 5610's in my 87 442 because I was afraid that a 5606 or 5608 would sit lower than what I felt would be stock original height with a 307 being heavier than a sbc. I was happy how it turned out and while most will say its too high , I am not a fan of lowered cars and never have been but thats just my preference and to each his own. Here's what it looks like now with 5610's in the front and 5379's in the rear.
Love your 442 no matter how it sits.......I took a pic of my 79 H/O when I got it and I just wanted to add just a touch of rake to it. I am not a fan
of lowered stances. I added 2 inch drop spindles to my H/O and it dropped maybe 1.5 But now my tire is hitting the wheel molding on turns like backing out of the driveway. My intention was to add a stock height spring with more spring tension so the body lifts as well using the extra spring strength.
I hope that makes sense.............I like the look of my H/O just not the tire on body issue. Thumbs up on your 4+4+2 = PERFECTION 10
of lowered stances. I added 2 inch drop spindles to my H/O and it dropped maybe 1.5 But now my tire is hitting the wheel molding on turns like backing out of the driveway. My intention was to add a stock height spring with more spring tension so the body lifts as well using the extra spring strength.
I hope that makes sense.............I like the look of my H/O just not the tire on body issue. Thumbs up on your 4+4+2 = PERFECTION 10
Others have mentioned the 5662 and thats what I would recommend as well for a stock type ride height spring with a higher spring rate. Freestanding height they are shorter than g body springs but are much stiffer so they won't compress as much under load. It also makes them easier to install. While I didnt use actual 5662 springs in my Grand Prix I did use an original used set from an 89 GTA (5662 is what the replacement moog spring would be) that had about 80k on the clock. Much shorter than the sagged non f41 v6 springs that I took out but raised the car up probably close to 2 inches, though the orginals from the GP had over 160k on them and a sbc in it instead of the original v6. It was sagged so bad I don't think I could get a floor jack under the engine crossmember.
Yeah, it's hard to know what you'll end up with putting anything on a 30+ year old car. Never tried the fronts but the 1.5-2" lowering Eibachs I bought for my 87 actually lowered the rear just 1/2" . . . before I had to tear it all back apart for the 2.0 Do it Twice Garth part!
So, they are going on the 67 which will work fine and I went to coilovers for the 87. TBD on how that turns out . . .
So, they are going on the 67 which will work fine and I went to coilovers for the 87. TBD on how that turns out . . .
- Status
Similar threads
