Tweet
Starting to put the front suspension back together. Should the coil springs be replaced? They look in good conditon, but need to be cleaned and what a hassle that will be. Am going to install A/C, if I order new ones, which ones, heavy duty - standard - w/A/C, I have seen many different ones in the order books. Stabalizer bar, it is the original, is it 3/4" - standard? Engine mounts are they locking or non-locking? And finally the rear end gear ratio is 3:16? If I build my 327 to 300 hp, would the rear end need to be changed? The car will be a driver. Thanks
-
-
Re: 64 coupe questions
robert------
Later 1964 Corvettes without F-40 used the same spring whether or not the car was equipped with A/C. That spring was GM #3851100. Unfortunately, that spring has been discontinued. If your springs are currently of a free length which is near the original spec (which I don't have available at the moment), then I'd say go ahead and reuse them after clean-up.
The 327 without F-40 stabilizer bar for 1964 was of 3/4" OD. Original engine mounts were of the non-locking variety for all 63-69.
There was no rear axle ratio of 3.16:1 used for 1964 (or any other year, for that matter). If your car is a base (250 hp) with manual trans or Powerglide, then your car was likely originally equipped with a 3.36:1 ratio. If a manual trans, it could have been optionally equipped with a 3.08:1 ratio. Check the axle code stamped on the bottom of the housing to identify what gear ratio originally (and may still) resided within. Your existing differential unit will be more than capable of handling a build-up to 300 hp. For 1964, all powertrains basically used the same rear differential unit, except for ratios. The difference may be that as a base engine car, yours may be a non-posi. The axle code will tell the tale on this one.
non-posi 3.08= CZ
non-posi 3.36= CA
posi 3.08= CJ
posi 3.36= CB
Positraction is desirable from a high performance standpoint, but the posi and non-posi are, for all practical purposes, equally strong.In Appreciation of John Hinckley
Comment