C2 396 Rear End Height Problems

[Matt Ricketts]

My 1965 396 appears to sit around 2-3 inches too high in the rear(even with tire carrier and soft top installed). It had an original (at least it appears to be) 9 leaf spring that I removed and tried a reproduction 9 leaf, but both resulted in the same ride height (not broken in yet though ?). I was wondering if this car should have had a 7 leaf HD spring that might have made it sit differently. I always thought the HD springs would be worse, but I really do not know.

In order to correct I was thinking of getting some longer bolts (8"), but maybe there is something else that is possible or that is wrong that I should be looking for.

Any commments or suggestions would be of great help.

Thanks,
Matt

[Joe L.]

Re: C2 396 Rear End Height Problems

Matt-----

It's possible that the car originally was equipped with F-40 suspension, including the 7 leaf rear spring, but there was no reason that it had to have been so-equipped. The difference in ride height between the 9 leaf and 7 leaf springs is really very small and probably wouldn't be discerned, at all.

Chances are that the spring you used is the culprit. Of course, I'm assuming that you know that the suspension has to be normalized after replacing the spring and lowering the car to the ground. That means you have to move the car on the suspension for some distance. If you've done that, then look at the spring as the car sits on the ground with NORMALIZED suspension. This is much easier to do if the spare tire carrier is out of the car. Look to see if the spring appears nearly "flat" or with just a VERY slight, almost imperceptible "rise" at the center. This is how it's SUPPOSED to look. If there's an obvious "arch", the spring is the problem.