Hi All, So I'm trying to "drop the ride 2 inches". Problem is I cant seem to get a clear direction on what I'm dropping it from? AMA link on this site shows rocker front to ground is 7.0", and rocker rear to ground is 6.2". Attached from GM specs show a front at 8.4" and rear at 8.10"...(whatever .10" is) Anybody know which I should base this on? Maybe I'm being too picky, and the end stance look is what matters, but I'm trying to clear up where I should at least compare this to in the end. I want to be able to proudly say "I dropped it 2.40 in the front and 2.20 in the back!"
Well chances are any radial tire you use is bound to drop ride height from stock anyway and worn springs are going to add some to the drop from factory as well. In the end I would just be more concerned with what I think looks good and doesn't rub anywhere. Hey but that's just me.
0.10" One tenth of an inch. Ten, one-hundredths of an inch. One hundred, thousandths of an inch. Part way between 3/32" (0.094") and 7/64" (0.109"). Or to get very technical, a smidgid of an inch.
Like Bob says, get it to look the way you want it to look. Then measure from the ground to the rockers using your handy engineers scale, which is in one hundredths of an inch, subtract that from the AMA and GM specs and proudly say you've lowered it the resulting number from the AMA specs and the resulting number from the GM specs. Or simply forget about measuring anything and proudly say you lowered it to get the stance you like.
It's just like horsepower numbers folks get from a dyno session, numbers don't mean squat, better to say you have a car that runs great all day long in all temps, with all the power and acceleration you need and your happy with it.
Yup-- I'm probably over thinking as usual. The way web sites throw around "dropping" ride height from stock does make me wonder if they know what they're saying.
BTW: The fact that GM even specified 0.10" in the first place means that engineers were writing the specs. I suppose I should be happy they prob rounded up from 8.0963452" to make it easier.
So I guess if someone asks how far I dropped it, I guess I'll just say, " Enough to make it a harder to climb out of."
'68 400HO Coupe, 4 spd, 259 interior, Windward Blue. My other car's a Johnson 15 outboard on a '61 Starcraft rowboat... Just sayin'.
Specs aside, these cars were very low to the ground when they rolled out of the factory. I've had mine for 50+ years so I remember many daily driver instances of bottoming out and always driving it like it was low. Going over any bump, like a speed bump, I would have to slow waaay down or the frame low point would hit the bump. Any new snow and the bird would clear a new low for the path between the wheel ruts. (Without 68tpls400 snowplow.) Hit a rise or drop fast that would get the car bouncing and the axle bumpers would send a shock through car that would jar your teeth. Put 3-4 passengers in the car and it was much worse. Pity the little animal that thinks staying between the wheels lets the car roll by.
Want to see low with a brand new '68? Watch "Wide- Tracking" with four people in the car.
Mine is raised for a post 67 period look, to each their own but I don't like these cars lowered like some low rider with funky wheels, the stock height is extremely low as it is and bottoms out easily