Just wondering what some of you think about this. Based on original factory pics I've seen in brochures and ads and whatnot, the '68 and '69 442s and Cutlasses (and to some extent, 70-72 as well, but much less so) have a rather low stance. In fact, the top of the wheel well seems to go about half way down the tire wall, covering some of the redwall.

However, almost EVERY one I see now seems to sit much higher than these photos.

Can I assume that most of these cars have had improper sized springs installed at some point in time, or can springs last a very long time? I was under the impression that many of what I've seen would be the original springs, but I could be off on this. Or, is it improper shocks causing the stance to be too high.

I guess I'm asking because I think the stance of mine is too high. I know the wheel well moldings will add a bit of a lowering 'effect", it's still doesn't look right. I just need to determine whether I need to buy new springs, or I can rememdy the problem with the proper spiral shocks. In either case, it isn't going to be cheap.

f5f1_1.jpg

 

Ride height is set by measuring from the bottom of the rocker panel to the ground. The reason why most 442s and Cutlii look too high today is because the owners have installed lower profile tires that are smaller in diameter than stock. The original tires were around 27" in diameter, but most people run 60 series tires in the 25-26" range.

 

Well, I'm going with F70 x14 Redline Wide Ovals. What should the measurement be from the rocker?

 

Does anyone know the proper factory distance from the rocker panel to the ground?

 

It's listed in the Chassis Service Manual - but I don't have my 68 CSM handy at the moment.

 

Hmm. I think I might have one stached in my car.

 

Tom,
I am not anywhere near mine but if you look in the front it is listed somewhere in the first few pages. It will give you frame dimensions and ride height measurements at the factory specified locations. If you can't locate yours I will be back home tomorrow night and can get you the info. Let us know how you make out.

Fred

 

Look closely. They are not photographs, they are paintings.

Camera angles can make anything look better, but a Graphic Artist can make it look exactly like the Ad Agency (and its client) wants it to look.

A little lower, made it more appealing. Smaller wheels/tires, and people, made it look bigger. Lots of money was spent researching the best color to use.

Took a lot of years for them to settle to the right height.

Norm

 

Ok Tom...Here you go. Specs are on page 3-20 of the '68 Chassis Service Manual

Front Carrying height:
Measuring 1" from the front door gap toward the rear just to where the body break begins. Mark location on your lower part of the door. Then measure from the ground to where the body begins outboard of the pinchwelded area correlating below where you marked. That measurement should be 9 1/2".

Rear Carrying height:
Measure approximately 1" forward from the front of the rear wheel opening at the lower rocker. Mark your spot. Then measure from ground to lower body outboard of the pinchwelded area. That measurement should be 9 11/32".

Things to remember when measuring. Car must have a full tank of fuel, front seats must be rearward. (as far as they go) Car must be on level ground and have tire pressures to spec. Carrying ride height can be within +1/2" to -1".

Fred

 

Thanks Fred.

 

Along this question, I have a 69 Cutlass S convertible that I went frame off. I just got the body, fenders and hood back on and stepped back and looked and it looks to be very high. I measured and got around 13 inches where it should be in the 9+ range. Now, the transmission and radiator fluids have not been added yet, the fuel tank is not full, the top or frame has not been reinstalled and none of the interior or glass has been reinstalled yet. Is it too soon to tell if this is a problem, or will the addition of the rest really drop the height 3 inches?

Thanks for any thoughts.
Ken

 

I'm no expert but the items you listed ad up to a significant amount of weight. I suspect that it would lower the ride by a couple inches?

My '72 always seemed low, in my opinion, and when I started to refurbish her I bought new springs from OPG. They had 2 more turns on the small end than the originals and the car sits higher in the rear than it did, which I like a lot better.

I always thought that the Olds Cutlass seemed low in the rear. Some people like that. I have a friend that is into street rods and he likes them low....real low!

In my case, the tires are the same size as the originals. The only thing I changed was the springs and they did have a couple more turns than the originals.

 

That does sound like a lot,did you use stock springs?

The front and rear control arm bushings should not be torqued down until the full weight of the assembled car is on the chassis or they can bind and hold the car up.

IMO on A bodies the rocker panel center be about in line with the center of the wheels or a little higher, lower in front for a slight rake. Somewhere in that general area or they look like a guy with his pants pulled up too high.
The tire, wheel size, and curb height have nothing to do with it. If you have taller than stock wheels and tires it will sit higher off the ground than stock but still look right.
My goat sits about 10 inches in the rear and 9-1/2 inches in front but that is with slightly lower profile stock 14" size tires, new stock springs 14 years ago.
I did my Vista with stock springs 2 years ago and it is within an inch of stock curb height now, settled about an inch.
IMO A-bodies seem way lower than a few 1/16th's in the rear because the front wheel track is about an inch wider than the rear. Not a lot but does make a difference, especially when the tastes are now for wider and higher tires and wheels back there.

Allan