gn front springs

[chasmat2316]

what front springs to run on a car lightened up glass hood , batt in trunk, no A/C, ? alum heads.
has steel bumpers with alum supports & removed bumper shocks.

 

[charlief1]

Scale the car to see where the weight sits and what are you planning on doing with it. Drag, street, road course, or what?

 

[chasmat2316]

Yes drag/street car with a 26" skinny ft tire what about a moog#5598 ft spring?

 

[murphster]

Those seem similar to a pair I mocked up, Moog 8306, but a little stiffer. I was running SPC lowering springs with the Howe tall ball joints from Savitsky Classic & Custom. They worked quite well before I switched to a full out drag setup. I'm now running TRZ control arms with Santhuff 200lb springs. Seems like a lot of people cut coils or use lowering springs on the lighter front ends. I went to the Santhuff drag spring that keeps a lot of stored energy (similar to the Moroso ones but Santhuff supposed to be better quality). A coilover setup would also let you dial in the ride height pretty easy.

In case you may be interested, I never sold my old stuff, see thread here:
http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/th...o-drs-front-lowering-springs-and-arms.398613/

I was running my old setup with no AC, Alum heads, Battery in trunk. Ride height was great. I've since added fiberglass bumper with Al supports, fiberglass hood, manual steering, Strange brakes, lightened rad support so its pretty light up front. With the low rate Santhuff springs I had to put spring spacers so that the inner fenderwells wouldn't hit the tires on hard braking. The spacers didn't affect the ride height much. The next highest spring rate was way too high.

 

[charlief1]

5608, 5658, 5660 are all good choices and will let the front of the car sit 1" lower than stock as a rule. I listed them from lightest to heaviest and since your car is a little light in the front then the 5608 springs should work fine.

 

[garrett]

If you want to spend almost no $, you could just run stock regal springs which are softer and will allow your car to sit at least an inch lower than the GN springs. The red car in my signature had them . I just changed to Ridetech coilovers.

 

[TexasT]

Does your setup let the front end "settle" down for aerodynamics or does it keep the nose up the whole run? What shocks are you running?

Posted from the TurboBuick.Com mobile app

 

[garrett]

Does your setup let the front end "settle" down for aerodynamics or does it keep the nose up the whole run? What shocks are you running?

Posted from the TurboBuick.Com mobile app

The nose settled fine. The car launches well. I was running the Edelbrock IAS shocks front and rear.

 

[we4Mateo]

5608, 5658, 5660 are all good choices and will let the front of the car sit 1" lower than stock as a rule. I listed them from lightest to heaviest and since your car is a little light in the front then the 5608 springs should work fine.

I was thinking of getting stock replacements, but the stock springs have probably settled a lot by now thus these choices will probably at least keep my car looking the same. Which of these would be the best choice for a stock, heavy car like mine? Iron heads, a/c, battery up front, etc. Road use more than anything and I don't care about what it does to my launching or energy soaking at launch, etc.

 

[charlief1]

I was thinking of getting stock replacements, but the stock springs have probably settled a lot by now thus these choices will probably at least keep my car looking the same. Which of these would be the best choice for a stock, heavy car like mine? Iron heads, a/c, battery up front, etc. Road use more than anything and I don't care about what it does to my launching or energy soaking at launch, etc.

Since you're not planning on thrashing it on the track then I think you're going to be happiest with spring combo part numbers 5658 front and 6377 rear. This will drop it about 1" overall and if you want to give it some rake then go with a 1/2" taller ball join on the lowers. Should also give you a decent ride that will be firm but not harsh.

 

[we4Mateo]

Since you're not planning on thrashing it on the track then I think you're going to be happiest with spring combo part numbers 5658 front and 6377 rear. This will drop it about 1" overall and if you want to give it some rake then go with a 1/2" taller ball join on the lowers. Should also give you a decent ride that will be firm but not harsh.

I was going to leave the rear springs alone as it's a little firm now with the rear swaybar. I was also going to go 1/2" taller on top balljoint and run stock lower balljoints with the two left speedway upper control arms, the 8.5" ones. I have a deep tranny pan and a CAS V4 scoop and I don't want to make the car more prone to hitting things in the road and curbs. The setup you mentioned, this would most likely lower my front more than my old shot springs now even? If so, I think I need to just use stock replacements, but I can't find a part number. Maybe I'll just do the upper control arms with 1/2" taller balljoint and leave the springs and lowers in. I can do bushings on the lowers when I do decide on springs. Thoughts?

 

[charlief1]

Changing the uppers won't change the ride height and you need to check the ride height now. Ride height should be 9 & 1/8" to 10 & 5/8" front and rear at the rocker panel. Measure 24.5" from the center of the front wheel back to the rocker panel and 21" from the center of the rear wheel to the rocker panel and get the measurements. I'd bet you're sitting low.