I installed the moroso 47200 front trick springs, I figured since the car weighed 3900 pounds with me and guessing 52-54% front end weight ratio put it between 2028 and 2106 pounds and the 47200 are rated for 1750-1810 pounds. I figured it would be a little low on the front but figured I would still try it. To my surprise the front end ended up .25" higher then with my Hotchkis springs. I figure it will settle a bit, we'll see.

I also installed the 47500 rear springs, again with a 54/46 ratio I figured 1794 to 1872 pounds. The 47500 are rated at 1450-1510 pounds so I thought I might have to use my air bags to raise the car if needed but again the car sat higher in the rear! About 2" higher over the factory rear springs, I sure hope they settle some because I'm not a real fan of jacked up rears!

Anyways, I will take it to the track Friday to see if any of this helped. I will say that with the front shocks off I could easily lift the car until the upper arms hit the frame, I could not do this with the hotchkis springs.

Lee

Guess what, it won't!

You'll have to cut at least 1 full coil from the front springs and maybe 1 1/4.

The rear's will have to go on ebay, they'll never settle 2" and can't be cut.

Sorry,

They may settle a touch, but not that much especially in the rear. Do not cut the fronts to get it setting as low as the lowering springs. The idea is to keep as much stores energy in the front springs as possible. One thing I have done to my Chevelle is added 140 lbs. of ballast to the trunk. 40lbs is in front of the fuel cell and the remaining 100 is behind the fuel cell. This cured a lot of my inconsistant 60's on hot slick tracks. The car is actually as fast with the ballast as it is without it since the car dead hooks with it. If you were to add any ballast that would settle the rear more. When I used the moroso springs and ran the ballast my car would sit about 2-3" lower. I never did like the moroso rear springs though. I run a stock convertible spring now. It is a bit stiffer rate than the stock coupe spring, so it holds the ballast better.

Back from the track and NO Difference in 60's! That sucks, I'm going to get a camaro, they hook with little effort! The best I could muster was 1.74. In fact it felt more 'loose' then it did previously. Maybe I need a softer hitting converter? On the dyno it was spiking to 730 pounds of torque on the initial hit.

I'm going to put a couple hundred pounds in the trunk next time. Any suggestions on how to do this and meet NHR requirements?

Lee

Raising the rear changed the weight Bias to the front of the car, which i dont have to tell you, is not a good thing.

More importantly, which shocks do you have on this car?

First both the rear and front have settled, the car is now sitting level and the rear is no longer jacked up!

The shocks are rancho 9 way adjustable. I have tried it on 1-6-9 and 1's all the way around gave me the best results.

I remembered that someone mentioned putting the SSM bars back to the stock location and I think I will.

I noticed last night in the videos when I was doing a burnout the smoke was coming from the front of the rear tires. I looked at videos of other cars and the smoke was coming from the rear of the tires. Now I don't know if that has any cosmic significance but none the less it's there. My thinking is the SSM bars are trying to rotate the axle down and forward which maybe putting the contact patch forward of the centerline. Putting the bar back to the stock location seems it will put more downward motion instead of forward motion.

Also, I get very little front end rise on the launch, even after the new springs. The SSM bars back in the stock location should move the IC more forward which would aid in raising the front end for better weight transfer.

I'll try this before the adding weight next weekend.

Lee

You can give up if you like, but plenty of good advice was given in part I to help you out. With little to no front end rise there is either something binding in the front or rear suspension (like the control arm bushings), poor shock setting/selection, or improper setup/selection of rear control arm geometry.

I've run 1.5x's 60' times, and I expect to bring it into the 1.4x's in the next year - I think you can do the same.

Thinking further about it, I wonder if it just isn't your torque converter. Despite the flash to 730 lbs tq, maybe where it hits and how long it hits just doesn't suit your car.

Thomas

Thomas - There is no binding front or rear. With the new springs and the shocks off I can easlily raise the front end by hand.

I just put the SSM bars back to the stock location, while I was at it I put 3.70 gears back in. With the weight off the rear I was able to lift the rear up and down with no bind.

I'm convinced that the SSM lower bar position has a lot to do with the front end not lifting. I think the IC is just too far back. Since the car hooks good the first 10 feet then unloads indicates too aggressive hit.

While at the dyno there were a few guys indicating that I could use a bigger cam to reduce the low end torque and soften the hit while picking up more top end power. It would be cheaper to replace the cam then the converter, these converters are $800!

BTW, it was mentioned that converters that have a high STR suffers on the top with slippage. I fender raced and was off and on the throttle until the end and nailed it, the speed was 108 and the RPM was 5600 per my data logs so with a 29.3" tire, 4.30 gears and 1:1 trans ratio should be ~5350@108 so I had 250 RPM more which is about 4.5% slippage.

Lee

I get front end lift with SSM liftbars,fully extended and it holds it up pretty good all the way thru :confused: I even turned the wheel about 1" inside the left rear drag radial yesterday,running 18 psi.

Originally posted by Rapid Robert:
I get front end lift with SSM liftbars,fully extended and it holds it up pretty good all the way thru :confused: I even turned the wheel about 1" inside the left rear drag radial yesterday,running 18 psi. It must have something to do with the 9" rear end, I guess the upper ear placement maybe be too much with the SSM bars.

Lee

Just curious what type of tires are you running? Are you running adjustable upper's in the rear. Have you played with pinion angle yet?

Originally posted by sobever066:
Just curious what type of tires are you running? Are you running adjustable upper's in the rear. Have you played with pinion angle yet? I have hoosier QTP 29x11.50x15. I have the hotchkis adjustable uppers. I have changed the pinion from 5 down, 3 down to 1 down, 5 down shook in the burnout! I'm now at 2.5 down.

Lee

like you havent never seen a chevelle hook up and pull the wheels. called 2 tons of fun graemlins/waving.gif

Originally posted by michael n mississippi:
like you havent never seen a chevelle hook up and pull the wheels. called 2 tons of fun graemlins/waving.gif Darn right I've seen it and now it's my turn! Well just a decent 60' would suffice...

This may be stupid but the only reason I want to 60' better is to give me a thrill, right now it's boring(1.74 avg) graemlins/boring.gif My wife's camaro with 1.48 60's thrill the hell out of me!

Lee

if it has a front stabilizer bar remove it .you should feel a difference then for sure!

Originally posted by michael n mississippi:
if it has a front stabilizer bar remove it .you should feel a difference then for sure! Took that off a couple of years ago!

How old and how many runs on those tires?

Thomas

Originally posted by Bomber '67:
How old and how many runs on those tires?

Thomas First of the year and maybe 15 runs. I used up the drag radials the first of the year and didnt start using these until a month or so ago.

Lee

Hi Lee, It sounds like you have tried just about everything so this may not apply to your car but does your Chevelle have a rear sway bar? My son has a '70 Chevelle that has seen several different engines and he has tried adding a rear sway bar but it flat didn't work. It was set up like yours at the time only used a High Compression 482 for power. If you have a rear G.M. factory sway bar take it off. My son finally added a Dick Miller anti-roll bar which works a lot better and lets the suspension do its job. The old 482 went 9.98 before it was replaced with a 540. Just grasping at straws here trying to isolate your no lift problem. P.S. The 482 still has the best 60' time - 1.38.

Harold - Yes I do have a hotchkis bar, I've been debating all weekend whether to take it off or not. I've tried to picture in my mind what effects it has on the launch and I came up with it has no effect, so why have it. Also, it's in there VERY tight, I have to use a rubber mallet to get it in. Since it's so tight it's putting a great deal of outward force on the lower bars which could tighten or bind the bars. It looks like I'll be taking it out!

Thanks,

Lee

I think bars help. As the right side wheel tries to lift, it is tied to the left side and is held down by the bar. I had to grind on my bar to get it to fit. I think the holes in the SSM bars are a bit farther forward then stock. Others have had the same problem. The outward pressure on the bars could cause some binding.

Originally posted by Pat Kelley:
I think bars help. As the right side wheel tries to lift, it is tied to the left side and is held down by the bar. I had to grind on my bar to get it to fit. I think the holes in the SSM bars are a bit farther forward then stock. Others have had the same problem. The outward pressure on the bars could cause some binding. Good to know it's not just me.

Also, doesnt air bags or the trick springs I put in with a stiffer right spring do the same thing? The goal is to put more force on the RR tire.

Another thing, since the sway bar is not attached to the body like the front is, wouldnt raising the RR bar force the LR bar futher into the ground? Since it's not working with rotation forces it appears that it only stiffens the lower bar to resist lifting but at the expense of dropping the opposite side. There may be a little rotational force since the lower bar moves in an arcing motion but not much. Am I thinking this right?

Lee

You guys think the QA1 front end kits are worth anything. The ones that come with the 12 way adjustable coil overs and springs. They aren't cheap but I like knowing its the best. I got a price of $389 instead of $499 so its not as bad as jegs.

I just bought the QA1 "R" series coil over kit to install on my '70. Along with the QA1's and an anti roll bar in the rear, hoping to reduce my ugly 60' times.

Lee, for a moment I'm going to focus on one thing: that you needed a mallet to install the rear sway bar. Trouble for sure, suspension binding a certain outcome. You seem to understand that normally the right rear tire attempts to go up into the wheelwell away from the ground and the left rear goes away from the wheelwell and into the ground. Notice I said normally; but in your case none of that motion is really present - probably because your lower control arms are bound up from the too tight fitting rear sway bar. By the way, just because the rear suspension still moves does NOT mean that there is not too much binding. For effective launches you need to have some parts of your suspension work without interference - that little bit of restriction from binding completely upsets what you are trying to do in the critical split seconds of launching. If the rear sway bar fit more properly then you would get some of the good side to side weight transfer of a rear sway bar that tries to even the weight distribution to both rear tires. Of course a rear anti roll bar is better - but do you know why? Among the reasons is that an anti roll bar cannot cause binding in your rear lower control arms. Another benefit of an anti roll bar is that you can pre load one side vs the other. Air bags are good for restricting movement - they absolutely cannot transfer any weight from side to side.

What size rear sway bar do you have? I had a 1" bar, I now have a 1-3/8" bar that I haven't run at the track yet.

Thomas

I have a new video of the car in the driveway.

What I did was put the SSM bars back to to the stock mounting hole and removed the sway bar. Boy what a difference! In the driveway I get a ton of lift both in the front and the rear. I'm now getting a little body lean to the right even with the trick springs installed. I will have to put air in that bag now... Again This feels really cool having the front end lift...

http://www.1970chevelle.net/chevelle7.mov

Let me know if this looks right.

Lee

cool! when did you start using QT??? I can't shrink a .mov file... :( Congrats on getting the weight shift.

Lee, The anti-roll bar tabs weld onto the top of the axle tubes on both sides and act like a tortion bar to equalize and counteract the rear end housing's trying to roll. This device elimanates the need for an air bag in the right rear but still lets the rear suspension move up and down freely thereby transfering weight like the cars designers intended. Glad you found the binding. I frankly haven't seen any low mount sway device that helps traction but the mounted above the axle anti-roll bar as sold by Miller and several will straighten out the leave without hindering rear end travel thus helping the bite. My son never installed the stiffening devices that tied both sides together when he initially put the adjustable upper control arms on so he never encountered the binding problem.

Originally posted by Purs:
cool! when did you start using QT??? I can't shrink a .mov file... :( Congrats on getting the weight shift. Today!

Harold - I looked into the anti-roll device but my exhaust is in the way and since the car is more street then strip I want to keep them.

Lee

Lee, If you are unable to mount an anti-roll bar either above and ahead of the rear end housing or behind the housing you might also think about going thru the trunk with the axle attaching rods and actually mounting the bar itself in the trunk. There are lot of places to put the bar other than in the way of the exhaust. I've even seen the anti-roll bar attached to the rear downlegs of the cars rollbar if you have one.

YES! That short video shows exactly what you were missing - its gonna be a whole bunch different at the track next time :D

While you are at it you might as well try the shock nut trick at the track. Track only: remove the rubber bushings out of the top of your front shock mounts, use a lock nut installed at the very top of the shock with only a bushing washer. The extra ~ 1" of travel before engaging the shock travel will help you get more front end lift. You may need to trim down the a-arm snubbers to get the full benefit of this.

Thomas

I'm not sure you can tell too much with the brakes on. Let us know how it goes at the strip.