If anyone has read any of my previous posts, I mentioned I was replacing the rear springs on my 67. I have new Eaton 5 leaf springs in the rear with brand new gas shocks. My problem is the car sits really low. I only have 2" of clearance from the tire to the wheel well. When I make a turn or go over a light bump, the tire hits the wheel well. How can this be? I just understand why the rear is sitting so low.

Do you have a picture or tire size? If the tire is inside the wheel well it wouldn't hit.

I could send photos to anyone if they provide me with an email address. I'm running 275/60/15 in the rear. From ground to bottom of the bumper it's 20" and from ground to wheel well it's 28". The tread is parallel with the outside of the wheel well and the rest of the tire sticks out just slightly. The funny thing is I never hit before with the 30 year old springs that where on before even with the broken bushing end.

You should measure ride height by the Pontiac documentation.



It it's way off from this, give Eaton a call. Their tech guy is pretty helpful.

That's probably the problem.... The 67 or 68 is less forgiving for tire clearances than the '69. Wheel offset gets very important with wider tires too.

https://firstgenfirebird.org/FAQ/wheel_brake_axle/tires.html

This is simple. You have stock springs. You can't expect to run 275's.

I run 255/60/15 and have had problems with fenderwell damage when the axle bumper broke off and axle tube bottomed out.


Remember these cars came with 70x14 tires. One can not expect problem free suspension results when the tire size increases 34% width and height.

Yeah, but if he's been running the same wheels before the spring change (correct?) it blows the comments out of the water.

Make note of my recent post at the other eaton thread. I wouldn't expect anything else from this pathetic company because they go whatever way to passify special interest sectors of the born-disavanted folks in the population. Must be a branch from Firestone.

Merv, I take offense to the tone of your message. If you've dealt personally with the people at Eaton Spring (family owned and operated for nearly a century, how many businesses can say that?) you would know your comments are vulgar and off-base. If not, they are still vulgar and off-base.

Eaton Spring is one of the rare suppliers who believe in exceptional product and service. Yes, there are other spring manufacturers who make good product. But I like to buy quality American products from a good supplier, and Eaton fills the bill.

I believe the core of the issue is that there are unknown factors, mods, "gerry rigged" matters this person is dealing with. Until he CONFIRMS the proper axle, frame and suspension geometry as within tolerance and specifications, can one make a true and factual asseretation that the springs are incorrect.

From what I read, he has a 67 Firebird, non staggered shocks. Now he has 5 leaf springs.

67 was mono springs with non staggered shocks and pinion snubbers.

I am certain that if a competent, knowedgable tech was to assess the issue, that there will be significant misapplications of a 5 leaf system without the proper perches, pads, hardware. Just a guess, but without seeing the parts list, axle, perches, shoch setup, all one can do is shoot a shot glass in the dark.

That is whay there are service manuals and such.

banshee, why are you so harsh? I just read this and another post about rear leaf height issues and you called the installers incompetent and novice

And I am pretty sure that you guys really like Eaton, because even though Amervo most likely is talking about a different Eaton company, you still defend them very strongly. A company that can get people to instantly do that must be amazing, so I guess I will start recommending them

Here's a run down on the list of parts. I purchased new 5 leaf springs from Eaton with the factory styles rolled tapperd ends. The front eyes came with bushing already in and on the back I have new bushings (top and bottom) as well. All new hardware. New spring pads top and bottom. New gas shocks. Everything on the axle is new. The axle is what came on the car.

Now before I replaced everything, the car did not have mono springs in the rear. I can't recall if they were 4 or 5 leaf. The driver side spring was broken at the eye connecting to the body not the frame. The car had air shocks that the lines weren't even connected. That's how it was when I purchased it 3 years ago. The previous owner had installed the 275/60/15 tires. I did not. With all that being said, the tires did not rub before with all the old parts.

Eaton offers a dropped ht spring I believe, are you sure they didn't send you those?
Although without air shocks or extended shakles I find it hard to believe those 275's didn't rub before, that's a lot of rubber. What width rim and offset?

Is this the same Eaton that you guys are speaking of? Just wondering, I used to do work for their supercharger division in the past.

Maybe the old springs were arched? Also, there are tons of springs that have been sold over the years that make the car higher than stock.
My experience with Eaton (springs) is if they say they are selling stock height leaf springs the car will sit at stock height. A first gen at stock height will not accomodate 275 tires.
If you want to run 275's then my advice to you is to take your leaf springs to a business that knows how to arch them. They will warn you that it may shorten the spring life and lead to broken springs. Sound familiar? Maybe that's why the springs you had that would accomodate the huge tires were broken.

http://www.eatonsprings.com/

Brad, this is Eaton Spring. No relationship to the huge corporate conglomerate.

Yeah Vikki that's kinda what I thought. Eaton Detroit Spring did a nice job with the springs on your 69. I think it has the perfect stance.

I said in another post that Jon is referring to..

"The problem lies with a novice installer who can not install a leaf spring the right way (f/r) or preload them properly. I am sure if there are problems, take the same car, springs and hardware into them and watch them CORRECTLY install their products in front of you".

For those of you who have tried and failed in anything that you can not figure out, the statement is true. Had it done to me after I couldn't get a trans to line up.

Jon,

If you have installed five sets of leaf springs, are you a novice or expert? Neither. When it comes to dealing with why I am so harsh, if you have a comment about it, send it to me privately.

And where in this thread am I harsh? If you have not been around long, that is the way I am...direct, to the point.

Been like that since this boards inception in 2000, member number 5, owned, restored and built 14 67-8 Firebirds. Qualified, yes, so if you can not take my direct personality, take a number.

Changing leaf springs is straightforward? Not necessarily so. Even after changing 5 or 6 sets, I became stuck on an issue similar and had to enlist help of competence.

Did I soften this up some?

I run 275's on my 68FB with shackel extensions.
As Jim said there is no way your running 275's on stock gear. Springs may have been arched or non-stock.
http://s19.photobucket.com/albums/b187/cimmer77/?action=view&current=100_0322.jpg

yes you can run 275s in the rear, I know many people who have lowered 67s and 68s and still run 275s, you just have to get the backspacing dead on
But there are not many things you can do wrong when installing springs to make the car lower, lots you can do wrong to make the car higher
So as long as you got the locater pins in the rear end correctly, this would just move the rear front or backwards
I think you need to call Eaton and make sure you got the correct springs


Banshee, sorry about that, but this is the Tech Help forum
I think we should be helping not just saying they are doing it wrong

Joe,

I like the stance your bird has. Can you give me some specs on all 4 wheels and tires and any other suspension mods you have done. Also, do you have a full-on side view on level ground so I can get a little better sense of the stance?

Thank you

David

I know what it is and why it is here. But thanks for the advice.

Part of fixing the PROBLEM is addressing what is wrong. If you have a problem with how I come across, take a number or zip it.

A perfect example..nobody makes a comment regarding what I say except for you. I read 12 PM gripes about a certain "gross troll poster" posting about anything, yet life goes on.

My advice, either deal with it...or deal with it.

Nothing like a "newbie" telling someone who has given away parts, files, countless hours of telephone help, taken measurements in the rain, gone over and worked on their cars how to address a topic in a forum.

Maybe if you had been around for awhile, you would know the "status quo ante".

A legend in his own mind.......LOL Keep up the good work!

I think he dealt with it!

An idea if you want to go with 275's is to skip the 275-60-15's and get some 275-50-15's that way it's same height as stock (or close)..

That is the combination I chose.. (bfgoodrich)

Here's what they look like:




Here you can see that they tuck nicely INSIDE the wheel wells (thanks to proper backspacing, as someone mentioned earlier:

What a pin head!

Ah crap, ZIPPY'S back again
Is it 4:20???

Had 275x60-15's on both stock 67 mono, and 68-5 leaf.
The 68 is now lowered 1" with split mono's and 27x11.5-15 LT's.
No tire rub.
Well, maybe some on the LH shock.
And non of the rears could/can be pushed down an inch

I am interested in knowing what backspace folks used on 275x60 or 275 x 50 fifteen inch rear wheels... that worked out well, with standard ride height (or lowered) and had no rubbing. I was thinking about going with 275x50 on the back and a 60 series on the front of about the same height. I think the '69 model year is more popular, expecially among the Camaro crowd, because it has more room for wider tire choices.

Until you measure ride height per the manual, you can't say Eaton did you wrong. I think Eaton does a good job on springs and probably the best vendor going for springs. Mike at Eaton tech support will give you all the time you need to set things right and make spring selection. And he knows his stuff. He knew what springs were in my car without seeing the car and they had been swapped out by previous owner decades ago. He even described what I would find because the aftermarket swap was fairly generic years ago. Lots of these cars got lifted in the seventies by changing or re-arching springs. Others got the foot tall shackless, lol. My project has aftermarket springs that jacked the rear end way the heck up.

So to say it was fine before you put in the Eaton springs doesn't mean anything, because you don't have F70x14 tires, standard rally rims and the original springs. When you go to Eaton for spec springs for the bird, you get a standard spring that will set you to stock specification ride height unless you ask them for an alteration. I wouldn't raise the bird to fix tire issues. Lowering can improve handling, but I think the '67/68 really calls for the wheel openeing to frame the tire evenly, so I would leave it correct.

For the tire to stick out beyond the quarter means the offset is inadequate for the tire selection. Getting by without scraping before the spring change is likely from the car riding too high. With the car at correct height, the oversize tires are not tucking under the wells.

Anyway, don't trash Eaton without calling for help.

ive read this thread fron to back. i would suggest 3 things to fix your problem if you stay with the springs you have now. 1) change tire size from 60 to 50. this will give you additional room in the wheel well opening as far as height goes! 2) increase the shackle bracket length. you can increase the length by 1" to help wiht the problem. you will no longer be at stock heigth but it will help with rubbing when going over bumps.
3) nchange the rims to a better back spacing. i will argue with anyone here when it comes to having this large of a tire on our birds. i have 245/75/15 on my car now for an example and have a few inches to play with. i know this isnt the 275 size in question but it is close! im sure it will accomidate a MUCH LARGER tire size when i go to it! you can get a better idea of the larger sizes and backspacings used on the camaro forums. im not into modifying metal to make it work sohe backspacing HAS TO BE NAILED for this to work. were talking 1/8" increments here!

you might also try stiffer shocks as a fourth alternative!