LS65Speed Posted October 13, 2022 Share Posted October 13, 2022 Can someone post a side picture of a stock 72 that will let me get an idea what the ride height is for a STOCK configuration First Gen. If someone has original wheels and original tire size along with original specification rear springs I would greatly appreciate your help. In the alternative or along with pics can anyone provide a measurement I can use to gauge where my ride height is compared to stock. I think the car is a little high in the rear and am considering lowering springs or replacing my current springs (specification unknown) with stock spec rear springs. The height I have leaves the rear slightly elevated, nothing outlandish but I would like it as close to level from front to rear as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Peters Posted October 14, 2022 Share Posted October 14, 2022 here is a picture from an original Ad of a 71 which may show you the rear height... you may be able to judge the height by where the wheel well crosses the wheel and tire. rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jft69z Posted October 14, 2022 Share Posted October 14, 2022 These pages are from the 1972 Factory Assembly manual. In the picture, 13857 corresponds to a Monte. trim height.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 14, 2022 Author Share Posted October 14, 2022 There it is, cold hard numbers. THANKS ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 14, 2022 Author Share Posted October 14, 2022 1 hour ago, Rob Peters said: here is a picture from an original Ad of a 71 which may show you the rear height... you may be able to judge the height by where the wheel well crosses the wheel and tire. rob Looks like there might be a typo in your link? Post after yours looks like it will give me what I need. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jft69z Posted October 14, 2022 Share Posted October 14, 2022 18 minutes ago, LS65Speed said: There it is, cold hard numbers. THANKS ! You're welcome. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 14, 2022 Author Share Posted October 14, 2022 20 hours ago, jft69z said: These pages are from the 1972 Factory Assembly manual. In the picture, 13857 corresponds to a Monte. trim height.pdf 1.76 MB · 19 downloads Joe Thanks to you again!  I do however have another question that needs to be answered in order to use the info you provided. Are the numbers quoted in columns "J and "F" measured from the ground to the frame, to the lower rocker panel, to the top of a piece of trim or the bottom of a piece of trim? Might be I am missing something that is right in front of my face. It wouldn't be the first time I did that. Maybe the assy manual has a footnote that is not on what you supplied to me? Maybe the info is right in front of me as I just said! Can you help out with this question? So far I have concluded that the cars sat approximately level bu looking at the numbers on the chart but I can't yet relate the chart to what is sitting in my garage. Ray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jft69z Posted October 14, 2022 Share Posted October 14, 2022 1 hour ago, LS65Speed said:    Are the numbers quoted in columns "J and "K" measured from the ground to the frame..., Maybe the assy manual has a footnote that is not on what you supplied to me? Maybe the info is right in front of me as I just said!  There are no other pages that relate to this, just what's shown. I'd use the Frame as the reference point, as circled in red. . Obviously, the tires you have on the car will make a difference, as they address with the 2 separate entries for size. Are all 4 of your tires the same size? Notice they give a fairly wide tolerance of +/- .38" too, that could be nearly an inch when comparing front to rear. (C60 means the car has A/C as well) I didn't check the factory service manuals, I'll look later, after dinner.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 14, 2022 Author Share Posted October 14, 2022 53 minutes ago, jft69z said: There are no other pages that relate to this, just what's shown. I'd use the Frame as the reference point, as circled in red. . Obviously, the tires you have on the car will make a difference, as they address with the 2 separate entries for size. Are all 4 of your tires the same size? Notice they give a fairly wide tolerance of +/- .38" too, that could be nearly an inch when comparing front to rear. (C60 means the car has A/C as well) I didn't check the factory service manuals, I'll look later, after dinner.  Looking right at it and missed it! Shame on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jft69z Posted October 14, 2022 Share Posted October 14, 2022 13 minutes ago, LS65Speed said: Looking right at it and missed it! Shame on me. No worries, there's a lot going on in that page. Factory service manual has pretty much the same info & pictures, for the most part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 1 hour ago, LS65Speed said: Looking right at it and missed it! Shame on me. The car is a mongrel so this is a tough task. Its a 454 (LS-6) but it has aluminum heads so that is -70 LBS off the front wheels and an aluminum 3x2 Vette intake (don't know the weight loss but it has to be lighter than the cast iron 4bbl intake. It also has factory A/C but it has an aluminum aftermarket compressor. Laastly it has an aftermarket 5 Speed that I suspect is close to a TH350 trans, maybe slightly less weight. It is running a 9 inch Ford rear that is the same width as the 65 / 66 / 67 Chevelles and has 15x8 Rally rims on the back. It is running 235- 70 15 tires right now. I am not gonna kill myself trying to squeeze the absolute largest tire possible under there. They look good with large tires but I cannot see myself swapping wheels and tires for a minimal extra bit of road contact. My plan is to see where it sits compared to stock using your data and go forward from there. I think the rear is a bit higher than stock and I am guessing the front is possibly a bit lower than factory. I have had the car forever (and I do mean forever). Front springs are HD SBC springs from the days when it was a 350 W/O air but with the weight taken off the front end by the aluminum BBCc parts I am betting it is close to the weight of a stock cast iron SBC. The trick is gonna be determining how much of a drop from the current height will be achieved with a given set of rear springs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jft69z Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 Any side pictures of how it sits currently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 1 minute ago, jft69z said: Any side pictures of how it sits currently? Lemmie check...stand by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 9 minutes ago, LS65Speed said: Lemmie check...stand by.  12 minutes ago, jft69z said: Any side pictures of how it sits currently? Not the best full side pics but here are a few. The 9 inch Ford install seemed to push the back up a little, I think because the spring pads might be just a bit higher than the factory rears. That said as I look at these pics I find myself wondering if this set of "push ups"related to the springs is necessary. None of the attached have the 9 inch rear installed. I want to get that trim around the wheel opening a bit further down on the siodewall, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 22 minutes ago, LS65Speed said: Lemmie check...stand by. Should add that the first pic is where i want to get it. Maybe even 1/2 inch lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC1of80 Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 Don't know if this helps but here is a pic of Barn Find, my 71 402, th400, a/c, tilt, power windows, power trunk, power bench seat, am/fm stereo, rear defog, bumper guards, wide belt moulding with moog cc501 stock replacement rear springs. Why the long description? To say she's a heavy girl. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 Hello Ray how are you doing. I met you at Summit last year in McDonough talked with you for a bit. This may be a stupid question but I’m gonna ask it anyway. How much gas in the tank now? At roughly 8 pounds per gallon could make a difference. John S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 4 minutes ago, John S said: Hello Ray how are you doing. I met you at Summit last year in McDonough talked with you for a bit. This may be a stupid question but I’m gonna ask it anyway. How much gas in the tank now? At roughly 8 pounds per gallon could make a difference. John S Hello John!!!!!!!!!!!  How are ya doing? Did you ever change that console? What else is going on with the car? Interesting comment on your part. When I loaded the 9 inch in the car had no gas and no spare tire in it. It clearly was WAY up height wise. I even called the supplier of the 9 inch and did some gentle squalking. As I measure it now, against a factory 12 bolt, the perches are pretty close between the 9 inch and the 12 bolt. Maybe 1/2 inch between the two. Right now it is sitting with 18 gallons of gas in cans in the trunk and a 15x8 wheel with a spare tire in the trunk. I think a slightly lower look as in the post next to yours is what I want to get to. Gotta go, my Black Lab is dancing around here asking for his walk. More later, keep in touch. Coffee some day.......? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 16 minutes ago, MC1of80 said: Don't know if this helps but here is a pic of Barn Find, my 71 402, th400, a/c, tilt, power windows, power trunk, power bench seat, am/fm stereo, rear defog, bumper guards, wide belt moulding with moog cc501 stock replacement rear springs. Why the long description? To say she's a heavy girl. Lol. That could work, might be a bit lower than I want but knowing a dimension from your car would help me sort this problem out. Would it be too much to ask you to get a measurement ? Whatever works for you as long as I can easily translate what you measure to the same location on my bucket of bolts. If possible the "J" and "F" dimensions on the chart posted above would be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Peters Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 Here is a link to an original advertising dealer sales pamphalet which shows an original 71 ride height. https://www.firstgenmc.com/forums/index.php?/resources/memorabilia/ rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC1of80 Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 2 hours ago, LS65Speed said: That could work, might be a bit lower than I want but knowing a dimension from your car would help me sort this problem out. Would it be too much to ask you to get a measurement ? Whatever works for you as long as I can easily translate what you measure to the same location on my bucket of bolts. If possible the "J" and "F" dimensions on the chart posted above would be great. Do you mean "J" and "K"? I believe so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jft69z Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 3 hours ago, MC1of80 said: Do you mean "J" and "K"? I believe so. I saw that & figured that's what he meant Tom, and put the 'K' in bold on the reply 🙂. Me personally Ray, I think the car sits just fine as is. I wouldn't want to lower the rear at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cny first gen 71 Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 Personally I like the height of it, maybe put 60s on it instead of the 70s would bring the while thing down just a touch. I have 235-60 on front and 255-60 on the rear 7 inch wheels on front 8 inch on the rear. Of course there aftermarket wheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 First of all I like the hood you are running. The height is just right to my eye. Some of that design aftermarket hoods are a bit too prominent when they are taller than yours. Your car appears more or less where mine is now in the rear as I look at the placement of the fender lip molding relative to sidewall of the tire on your car. The first posted pic of my car up above has a more level look than what I am seeing after the 9 inch rear went in. I think my desire to get a bit lower profile comes from the overall profile of the Monte Carlo with the long hood and short deck. The Chevelle hood / deck dimensions work better for me with a slight elevation of the rear on the Chevelle as opposed to the Monte Carlo front / rear dimensions with a slight rear end elevation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS65Speed Posted October 15, 2022 Author Share Posted October 15, 2022 5 hours ago, jft69z said: I saw that & figured that's what he meant Tom, and put the 'K' in bold on the reply 🙂. Me personally Ray, I think the car sits just fine as is. I wouldn't want to lower the rear at all. I am doing a hell of a job on these replies....first I proved I can't read and then I demonstrated I can't type!!!! LOL!!! Geeze!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.