Thanks to everyone for the information
-
-
Re: 63 Front Springs
DITTO! Timely info, I was just wondering about that today, as I will be removing my springs tomorrow. My last bit of disassembly (susp & brakes) before I start clean up. -
Re: 63 Front Springs
Carl and Michael,
I wanted to pass along my experence about changing the springs in my 63 vette. After talking with some 63 owners I too purchased springs from Long Island Corvette for my stock suspension 63. The springs are the .552 wire diameter and the only difference I can see is that the spring is wound about 3/4 of a turn more than the original spring. I was told this is done because the original spring is a bad design and there were problems with low ride height and spring fatigue. The 63 now sits about 1/2" higher than before at about 25 3/4" for the passenger side and 26" for the drivers side. If I measure the difference in the lower steering knuckle boss and lower control arm pivit bolt to floor as outlined in the assembly manual there is a difference of 2 1/8" to 2 3/8" and this measurment is within spec. What is interesting is that the 1963 shop manual calls out a different spec for this measurment at 3 5/8" + - 1/2" and this will make the car sit higher, I think that is why GM changed the spring in 1964.
I saved the original springs in my car because I learned to save everything when restoring a vette and I advise you to do the same. There is also a set of 63 springs in the driveline magazine if you decide to install original springs but I don't think you will be happy with the ride height. I wish mine sat about 1/2" higher than it is now but I have to say according to the assembly manual it is clearly within spec. Good luck, Timothy BarbieriComment
-
Re: 63 Front Springs
Timothy I believe that 64 was the first year that the Corvette had progressive type springs, may have read this in my 64 service manual or somewhere else.Comment
-
Re: 63 Front Springs
The change to progressive rate springs for '64 was just part of the NVH engineering job that Chevrolet embarked on after the '63 design was completed, and it included the rubber body cushions.
First I have ever heard that the "original spring is a bad design and there were problems with low ride height and spring fatigue". I still have the originals in my SWC. The thing that destroys springs is corrosion. Spring rate is a function of wire diameter to the fourth power, so it doesn't take too much material loss to loose rate. Also, localized corrosion will often create a notch, which will cause local high stress and the possibility that the material will fail at the notch.
DukeComment
-
Re: 63 Front Springs
Duke,
Can you tell me the ride height of your car with the original springs? My 63 springs did have some pitting and that is why I decided to change them. Before purchasing the springs, I spoke with Andy Cannizzo and he told me about the spring design problems and also stated that Long Island Corvette Supply made there 63 springs at .552 wire diameter and about 3/4 of a loop longer to assure good ride height. On my car I only picked up about 1/2" in height and I was hoping it might sit just a little higher. Might be that my old springs really are not wore out but I like the extra 1/2" in ride height.
I am sure there are others that have original springs and can post ride height but my car looked like it sat low in the front. Timothy BarbieriComment
-
Re: 63 Front Springs
My car is not completely assembled so it is sitting high. I don't recall ever actually measuring the front ride height, but I don't think it was low.
Given the conflict in ride height Z dimension between the AIM and Shop Manual, I would go with the AIM dimensions. That was an engineering document that was maintained. I note that the sheet was completed on 2-15-62 and there were no subseqent revisions. I suspect the shop manual dimension is a typo.
DukeComment
-
Re: 63 Front Springs
I didn't measure ride height before disassembly, and I havn't actually taken the front apart yet, (tomorrow or Monday). However, I do think that my ride height is a little low in the front. I have no reason to believe the springs have been changed either. They look to be in good shape as well.
I had 8" wheels with radial tires, and 18 years ago my tire did catch the lip of the right front fender while doing a hard right turn. Broke the lip and into the fender.
I immediately changed to 6" wheels and new radials to fit. I gained about 1/2" clearence. In addition I put snubbers between the coils to give me a little more rigidity. Now I'm looking to restore everything and I do want that extra ride height.
Thanks for all the research guys. Mike S.Comment
-
When checking height
remember to compare to pictures of original cars from the era, like publicity photos, old magazines, old books, brochures, etc, and not cars at current shows.
Many cars sit higher today than they did when new and we tend to view them as correct, and an old original as "sagging".Comment
Comment