I was looking into a rear coil over conversion for the Chevelle. I want to keep the upper and lower control arms ( but upgrad to Currie arms) and rear swaybar mounts... but eliminate the stock coils and shocks. I dont want to tub the car or use a Furd 9".... I may upgrade my open 10 bot for an all new Moser 12bolt with posi..... I like the idea of adjustable ride height and a million spring choices.... I already have the AFX spindles w/ C6 brakes up front and will be doing a coil over conversion with Global West LCAs ... I will have Tyler from ATS here in Vegas help will the suspension mods....

Any thoughts or has someone done this alreay? Looking for suggestions on mounting points for the coilovers. I dont think I can use the stock mounting points.... I need to crawl under the car and look to see if there is room for a seperate crossmember for coilovers.... Or any clearance issues... gas tank or anything like that....

Im thinking of doing this as well, and would be very interested in someones past experiance with rear coil overs.

Thanks - Ron

You mean like this? I had rear Koni coilovers installed in the '70 last winter.

I installed a 9 inch.... but I do have coil overs and ladder bars.

Here are some pics

http://home.comcast.net/~larry.macdonald/frame.html

You mean like this? I had rear Koni coilovers installed in the '70 last winter.

Thats exactly what I meant... I see that part of the frame was cut behind the top coil pearch. What other mods to the top? Do you have a crossmember from one side to the other? How about some more pics of the top and how it mounts. Are the bottom mounts welded on? It looks like the tank is not installed in this pic. Were there any clearance issues?

More pics PLEASE!!!:hurray:

There are no pictures here... but a commercial offerring that I ran into awhile back when looking into this for other reasons:

http://www.dickmillerracing.com/4-Link_page.htm

One feature I would want is to use the stock lower shock mounts for the coil over. This would be advantageous in that it would add lateral roll stiffness without increasing suspension stiffness.

Thats exactly what I meant... I see that part of the frame was cut behind the top coil pearch. What other mods to the top? Do you have a crossmember from one side to the other? How about some more pics of the top and how it mounts. Are the bottom mounts welded on? It looks like the tank is not installed in this pic. Were there any clearance issues?More pics PLEASE!!!:hurray:

Nothing on the frame was cut...just the rear portion of the upper spring pocket (which I've kept to reverse later on).
Uppper shocks are mounted to a moly crossmember that runs from each side of the frame rails.
Lower shock mounts were welded to the axle tube.
Fuel cell is mounted in the trunk with a sump that extends thru the floor.
No clearance issues...using double adjustable Koni's with 130 lb springs.

Another pic found here......
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3209&d=1153836056

One feature I would want is to use the stock lower shock mounts for the coil over. This would be advantageous in that it would add lateral roll stiffness without increasing suspension stiffness.From the looks of Bill's setup, the coilover is not mounted any further outboard than the stock spring location, so the lateral motion ratio would not be helped at all. To take advantage of that feature, I think you'd have to fab up your own mounts, as I haven't seen any coil-over kits that move it outboard to the area where the stock shocks mount.

It`s a pretty easy swap if you use a good kit and can handle some real light fab/welding work. We have an Alston/Varishocks rear coilover conversion kit with a tubular upper crossmember and weld on adj. axle mounts. The lower mounts have 6" of vertical ride height adj. so you set them up in the range where you want them then trim the excess off if you like. The round tube crossmember is really easy to install,just locate where you want it and use a holesaw to make the holes in the frame. Insert the crossmember and trim so about 1/8" sticks out each side and weld in place. That way you`re not depending on just the welds to hold the back of the car up. The lower mount is a nice beefy double shear mount. The OE single shear stud was designed to take only dampening loads,not to hold the whole back of the car up. You can duplicate the stock spring`s motion ratios and the adj. coilovers allow you to tune in more roll rate to make up for what`s lost in shock motion ratio. We have a number of customers running this setup with good results. It`s pretty cheap too. :) Mark SC&C

I was looking into a rear coil over conversion for the Chevelle. I want to keep the upper and lower control arms ( but upgrad to Currie arms) and rear swaybar mounts... but eliminate the stock coils and shocks. I dont want to tub the car or use a Furd 9".... I may upgrade my open 10 bot for an all new Moser 12bolt with posi..... I like the idea of adjustable ride height and a million spring choices.... I already have the AFX spindles w/ C6 brakes up front and will be doing a coil over conversion with Global West LCAs ... I will have Tyler from ATS here in Vegas help will the suspension mods....

Any thoughts or has someone done this alreay? Looking for suggestions on mounting points for the coilovers. I dont think I can use the stock mounting points.... I need to crawl under the car and look to see if there is room for a seperate crossmember for coilovers.... Or any clearance issues... gas tank or anything like that....

RICH;

I'll shoot some pics this week of the '69s rear coil over conversion (Also did front coilovers), which required no welding or cutting whatsoever, however, we did move the bottom mounts in 2" for tire clearance for bigger tires while the rear end was apart (Powdercoated it).

We lived in Vegas from '97-'05, and didn't actually meet many Team Chevelle Members(LVMAXX).

R/J/MAXX2

You mean like this? I had rear Koni coilovers installed in the '70 last winter.
Going slightly off topic... but what kind of anti-roll bar is that in the picture? Looks much more effective than the stocker :thumbsup:

... but what kind of anti-roll bar is that in the picture?

HR Parts anti roll bar...

http://www.hrpartsandstuff.com/products/rearend/swaybar.htm

Nice piece. Looks almost too simple. Now add some extensions to the front with multiple link mounting holes so you have some adjustability... and go road racing :thumbsup:

OK.. I was looking at all kinds of rear coilover pics... I noticed that some are setup straight up and down... mostly drag cars ..
[]-|--O--|-[]

then there were some that had the upper mount stightly inboard of the lower mount...
[]-/--O--\-[]

sorry for the crude diagrams...:( but I hope you get the idea ... tire shock pumpkin shock tire

Is there a reason for the different positions.... better or worse geometry...

The straight up & down have a better fore/aft motion ratio

The angled ones (assuming the upper is in the same place, and the lower is moved outboard) have a better lateral motion ratio for increased roll stiffness. The angled ones are better for handling.

I installedQA1 Coil Overs on my 67 last winter.All the way around.I will say that I probably took more precaution than most would.I had the body off the frame which made it a ton easier since there was nothing in the way.I mounted them on a 9" ,from Danny Miller ,which I had narrowed 1/2 in.on each side from factory specs.The center of the coil-over is exactly 3 1/2 inches from the inside of the frame,and I was told by many to mount them as far to the outside as possible.This helps to stabalize the car.I had to remove the top coil spring perches.My coilovers are plumb,not tilted."One thing to mention here is that if you plan on running the factory type 4 link,you should not need a panhard bar or a track locator.A anti- roll bar may be a good choice however,just depends on the power of the motor."If you plan on Aftermarket ladder bars or 4 link ,the panhard bar is manditory.

Next question is about shock mount design.... is there any reason to use a "bolt thru two plate" design vs. a stud mount?

I would think the bolt thru design would be stronger and have less possibility of failure under load but I have seen the stud mount used as well... and what if space or angles require a stud type mount...

I want to angle the shocks but it puts the lower mount near the back of the lower control arm mount on the rear... I'm going to mock it up on my 10 bolt but will eventually order a new Moser 12 bolt and have to duplicate the lower mount on the new rear....I also have a 12" rear disc brake setup off a 2002 Camaro SS that will be on the new rear with press on bearing to eliminate the C clips... Not sure if that means less clearance at the end of the tube...

A double shear mount is always preferable. Remember this is holding the whole back end of the car up not not just absorbing dampening loads. I`ve seen people do coilover swaps using stock or stock type stud lower mounts. I`ve also repaired/refabbed mounts for several that actually failed on the road. One was street rod with a short pickup bed,when the big Mickey Thompson came up and hit the bottom of the fender it bit in and actually twisted the bed almost totally off the truck. Bizarre. I think there were 2 bolts still barely holding the bed and *fuel tank* on. Talk about an exciting drive! :eek: We had to redo the whole bed and rear suspension. One reason for mounting the shocks vertically is that it makes it much easier to make adj. height double shear mounts and you can adjust the ride height without dramatically changing the motion ratio of the coilover. If they`re angled and you make more than a small change in the mounting locations you need to (okay,really should) swap out the spring for either softer or firmer ones and reset your dampening. Mark SC&C