Ride height

[swisherred]

So I know my rear springs are pretty much toast and that drastically affects the ride quality and height...I'm going to replace them but before I do id like to know the stock ride height measured at the fender lip so I can judge which springs to get so it handles well but keeps the height I want. I leveled my car today to help with the handling of it till I get new springs...made a big difference but I'm pretty sure it's way below stock. Measured at the center of the spindle the lip is 25" right now.
I have searched through the site/fsm and can only find measurements measured at the LCA...and Im not entirely sure im doing it right either.
1967 newport custom

 

[70bigblockdodge]

They were all done at LCA pivot.
If your rear springs are flat they are right if they are bowing upward they are sagging.
Bowing downward (*** up) any more than just a little is not in the design.

 

[swisherred]

I understand they are measured there. I'd like to know what that translates to at the body lines (front and rear fender lips) so I can determine which set of springs to get...stock, HD, +/- and inch, etc...my car has so much float to it and body roll. I know its a floater to begin with but im trying to alter it to my liking and driving style. Id also like the number for comparison so I know im measuring the LCA correctly. also nothing in the manual refers to the height of the rear of the car...only the front. I have no idea how much my springs have sagged from stock height.

 

[jct]

Wouldn't stiffer shock absorbers help with the float issue?

 

[CBODY67]

Using ANY body part (i.e., fender) can be problematic and NOT yield the desired results. Many dealers, back then, used the wheel opening top-center as their reference point, BUT you have to understand that there are and can be variances in how the structure is welded together PLUS that there can be variances in how the fenders are shimmed/adjusted to match the main body structure, which has it's variances also. These variances might be pretty small, but they can build as long as the cosmetics and body lines line up. Which can yield differences in the side-to-side measurement comparisons, as I recall.

I've tried to do the factory method of measuring from the points on the lower control arm. What I seem to recall that I determined is that the flat part of the lower control arm needs to be parallel with the ground, basically. My '67 is a factory a/c car which specs the "HD" front bars, as a matter of reference. You probably noticed a larger height difference spec for the "HD" suspension, due to its higher spring rates?

The "given" in using the factory LCA pivot as a reference point, on a vehicle with "aged" LCA bushings, is that the rubber bushings can "take a set" as they age and later deteriorate. If that's the main measurement point, it will work well on a newer car, but not on one with 100K miles on it, for example. So the flat section on the LCA might be a better reference, parallel with the ground (as a minimum ride height situation) or with it being a bit higher at the inner portion of the flat spot than at the ball joint (outer) area of the flat spot area (with the HD-spec factory bars). To me, once you see all of these things in real time, then it's easier seen than explained.

The OTHER "shade tree" spec that can be used to get the side-to-side adjustment right is the gap between the top of the LCA bumpers and where they contact the front frame structure. Another easier-to-measure spec, as you can use your fingers as "feeler gauges" of sorts. Having that space the same on both sides is important so that both sides "bottom out" at the same time in the event of a large dip or similar.

These are things I figured out on my own after getting the LCA bushings on my '67 Newport replaced and then trying to get things back to normal on it.

CBODY67

Look at the factory pictures of the cars, as in advertising print ads, from the general time frame when the cars were new. There is a definite relationship between the lower rocker panel "lines" and the wheel cover/wheel centerpoints, as the rocker panel is parallel to the ground. Once you see those relationships, it's easy to tell what's too low, from what I've observed. Similar relationships with non-Chrysler cars of that period too!

Below are some images I've harvested from various places, including the '68 300 print ad (which I consider to be one of the most beautiful shots Chrysler ever did), which to my practiced calibrated eyeballs, represent "factory ride height" also indicating the relationship of the rocker panel line extensions through the wheels/wheel covers on the car. Plus the "parallel to the ground" orientation of the rocker panels.

 

[swisherred]

I totally understand the problems that can arise from using body panels to measure from....saying the rocker should be level makes a big difference to me...then it doesn't matter what the fender height is as long as the lca is adjusted correctly...that gives me a reference point I can use to compare spring height.
Yes shocks and bushings are in order...but socks don't support the car much at all...thank you

 

[CBODY67]

Not sure what your driving style might be, but "float" was not what Chryslers did back then. GM (especially OEM Buicks) cars did that, but NOT Chryslers. NO "boat" references, either!

When new, when you turned the steering wheel on a C-body Chrysler, Plymouth, or Dodge, the car turned and didn't lean that much. As if the suspension was actively resisting the lean that other cars did back then. The Furys without the factory front sway bars on the 318s and S-6 cars would be less so that the B/RB engine cars, in this respect.

The OEM shock valving and spring rates were allegedly softened a bit by '65 to get more of the GM-type "boulevard ride", rather than the Chrysler version. By observation, IF you filter out the impact harshness and road noise of the Chrysler UniBody, there was not that much difference to start with, even with the Chrysler's firmer basic shock valving calibrations.

The "GM Boulevard Ride" was more oriented toward (as I suspect) as 35mph cruise down city streets (which could allegedly be quite rough in some areas of the country, due to cold-weather road damage issues). But the GM's usually felt the same on a 75mph freeway, too. Whereas the Chrysler firmer calibrations actually made the higher speed (above posted speeds, possibly) much more fun to drive as the cars just liked doing that. My observation was that our '66 Newport liked 75-90mph cruise on the Interstates. "Bored" at 70, but "having more fun" at 75. The various tuning points (shocks, spring rates, engine at the median point in the torque peak) added to a more enjoyable trip, to me. Plus the added confidence of knowing that the car could execute an evasive maneuver if needed too! As many law enforcement operatives had repeatedly noted back then.

"Float" might have a different refence point now than in earlier times. If the modern cars "float", it's more "bounce" from worn-out suspension dampers than by design.

Better damper modulation specs/strategies can result in a generally flatter ride without being harsher. The basic landscape of shock absorbers has changed a LOT since the 1960s. Used to be that Monroe Super 500s or the old Gabriel Striders were the best choices. Both with 1 3/8" piston bores on the back (the front shocks are usually limited to 1" pistons, but use a tighter valving package to make up for the smaller pistons). Stock shocks were all 1" pistons, back then.

Some have claimed that the current C-body shocks really have a more generic B-body valving in them, which allegedly makes them a bit weaker than they should be. Not sure about any of that. Some like the KYBs. Not sure how the current Monroe valving compares to the orig Super 500s (Chrysler factory HD shocks), either.

So, to me, "firm" is best on the C-body suspensions with something near the factory spring rates.

The stiffer springs can put higher acceleration rates on the existing shocks, which can put them into their "firm" mode sooner, to control bounce better. Stiffer sidewall tires help with that firm feel/response too. More variables than it seemed we used to have!

Hope this all makes sense to y'all.

CBODY 67

 

[CBODY67]

As mentioned, the rear springs should have a very slight upward arc behind the rear axle mounting point. The shorter front section basically carries the weight, as the rear section continues the lateral axle placement, with that long supple rear section smoothing the ride in the process.

Back in the later '60s with the "rear-up" look was fashionable in order to fit wider tires on the rear, extended rear shackles worked fine on GM and Ford cars, but NOT on Chrysler products. It would take a shackle that would almost hit the ground in order to get the rear end of a Chrysler product to the desired higher level. Why? The longer rear spring section deflected much more than the other brand cars' rear leaf springs did. Which is why air shocks worked much better (knowing that some people don't agree with that approach, for one reason or another). So, sagged rear leafs on a Chrysler product would have a reverse arch in that rear section, by observation.

CBODY67

 

[Big_John]

So I know my rear springs are pretty much toast and that drastically affects the ride quality and height...I'm going to replace them but before I do id like to know the stock ride height measured at the fender lip so I can judge which springs to get so it handles well but keeps the height I want. I leveled my car today to help with the handling of it till I get new springs...made a big difference but I'm pretty sure it's way below stock. Measured at the center of the spindle the lip is 25" right now.
I have searched through the site/fsm and can only find measurements measured at the LCA...and Im not entirely sure im doing it right either.
1967 newport custom

I understand they are measured there. I'd like to know what that translates to at the body lines (front and rear fender lips) so I can determine which set of springs to get...stock, HD, +/- and inch, etc...my car has so much float to it and body roll. I know its a floater to begin with but im trying to alter it to my liking and driving style. Id also like the number for comparison so I know im measuring the LCA correctly. also nothing in the manual refers to the height of the rear of the car...only the front. I have no idea how much my springs have sagged from stock height.

Don't overthink this.

The LCA measurement is a difference between the two points. Measure to the ground at the two points on each side and subtract the large from the small measurement. That sets your front end.

Now look at the line along the rocker panel. Is it parallel with the ground? You can measure front to back if you want, but remember that the surface isn't going to be that good. It's more about how it looks.

If you want the car level, order the stock height springs. If you want the car a little "tail high", order the +1 or +2 springs. Unless you are towing a trailer or hauling stuff, buy the stock springs. You can't go wrong with just ordering what the car had originally. From there, you can tweak how level the car is using the torsion bar adjustment.... BUT! drive it for a couple months first because it might settle.

IMHO, the best things you can do to make the car handle better involves fixing all that's worn. Leaf springs do wear and sag, but most of the issue is usually the spring eye rubber bushings are shot. From there, it's all about the LCA and UCA bushings, ball joints and tie rod ends. Get all that to 100% before you start messing with anything else.

 

[CBODY67]

I totally understand the problems that can arise from using body panels to measure from....saying the rocker should be level makes a big difference to me...then it doesn't matter what the fender height is as long as the lca is adjusted correctly...that gives me a reference point I can use to compare spring height.
Yes shocks and bushings are in order...but socks don't support the car much at all...thank you

In general, all of the cars will have the same general ride height. Which the visuals needing to be correct will allow for. As the cars age, we tend to get used to seeing them lower than they originally came from the factory. Some like that look or with a slight frontal "rake" to them, but that's not as they were originally built. Having the correct spring rates is important, too, as the higher a torsioin bar is adjusted, the stiffer the spring rate becomes. So having the correct front adjustment is important, for that reason. But having it (spring rates, ride height) balanced f/r is important, too.

 

[CBODY67]

The ONE thing to also remember is to bounce the suspension up and down after EACH adjustment. Even driving it around a few days can help too. All to keep whatever internal friction in the suspension pivots from not affecting any measurements. Even if you do the basic adjustments without driving the car afterward, once they are in the ballpark, drive it a few days to let the suspension flex and get comfortable with the new adjustments before the next adjustments are made, if needed.

 

[swisherred]

I jounced it alot and drove it....Im not over thinking this. The idea is to know where its supposed to be....set the front to that and jack up the rear of the car to where it is supposed to sit in relation to the front....LOOK at it and see if I want taller or stock springs to give it the height i want. thats all. I just had no reference to where stock parts would put the car to begin with.

 

[mopar E]

Here's a great original photo of a 68 advert.

 

[mopar E]

One thing that has always bothered me about a lot of C body cars is the owners have the *** sticking up in the air. Kills the whole design element they were going for in the studio.
I remember back in the 60's early 70's the "Airstream caravans" that came to Nova Scotia in the summer. Once the Airstream was unhooked from the big Chryco's the rear was too high from helper springs and air shocks. Very few Cadillac's could haul them big trailers as well as the "C" s could and still handle the road. But to my eye that's where the "look" started.

 

[CBODY67]

The other side of that was that in the later '60s, when the wider tires became available (70-series, 60-series, 50-series), many wouldn't fit too well under the cars, so elevating the rear ends helped get them under the cars they weren't supposed to fit under. Wider tires equated to "more power" under the hood, it seemed. But this was done with a combination of extended shackles and air shocks. All the shackles did was to de-arch the rear spring without raising the rear of the car very much at all, AFTER it all settled down.

CBODY67

 

[78Brougham]

The idea is to know where its supposed to be.

If you want to know where it's supposed to be, get an FSM and follow the procedure. That is, what Big John and others have said and do the measurements from the LCA and the lower ball joint. Easiest on a four post alignment rack.
March into respectable alignment shop, with the manual and show them the procedure. Chances are most of these newer "mechanics" never even heard of your car.
And whatever you do, don't let the snot nosed kid at Monroe tell you any different. The front ride height MUST be adjusted FIRST to the proper spec before adjusting ANTHING else!
As for the rear springs, find out from the parts book what the spring pack was for your vehicle. If you want a higher rear, find out how many leaves were in the "towing package" spring pack for your car. You'll have to do some research on your own for that, as all cars are different.
Last piece of advice... NEVER....EVER GET YOUR REAR SPRINGS "RE-ARCHED" you'll hate yourself cometh the dawn! You might as well send me the money you wasted.