Thread: Question on lowering

Tweet

Articles keep popping up on how to lower a car/truck...The latest in a popular car mag has an article on how to LOWER THE RIGHT WAY...by cutting the coil springs for the height you want...I guess you can take care of all the negative camber that occurs and toe end that will be changed and centering the steering wheel but I just can not get it thru my thick head that changing the riding height this way is the way to go...The rear I understand but the front...Well....raising the spindle height makes a lot more sense and having a shorter coil for the rear is Ok only if the coil is actually made shorter.Not by cutting ..???...The mag shows a 65 Impala they did with mass neg camber after the coils were cut...They have a cam on the lower control arm that could adjust out the neg camber..But an A-arm type that requires shims..I mean after taking out enough coil to get one inch of drop I would think you would have to add longer mounting bolts to the upper A-arm mount to accept enough shims to bring the wheel back to the correct camber needed.. I understand the cost between spindle kits and coil cutting or replacing but....Well...as usual I've wrote a book..But I thought one of you could tell me of your experiences with lowering a car/truck.....Thanks ..Al....

Well Al, the last car I did with coils in front was my '56 wagon (picture in my gallery). Up front I used a 2" dropped spindle, and a 1" shorter wound coil (not a stock spring cut 1"). I use the shorter wound coil for maintaining spring compliance. There was plenty of adjustment in the stock control arms to compensate for the slight change in camber. No huge stack of shims necessary. Given the unequal length of most upper/lower configurations, 1" shorter in the coil doesn't equate to a big change in camber. If a car ends up with a bunch, there were either some other changes, or a bunch cut out of the spring. The wagon drove great. Steered fine, and no other funny business. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of tri-five chevs with the same combo. I'm sure it would be similarly successful on other vehicles with unequal length control arms.

A number of years ago I did a '72 Chev pickup I had with 1" shorter wound coils, and dropped pockets in the lower control arms. At the time no one was producing dropped spindles that I could find. That setup also worked well.

My daily driver is a '97 Ram. We put in 2" dropped spindles, a 1" shorter wound spring, and reversed the lower boll joint (from pointing down to up) and got a total drop of 4". It too works great.

Thanks Uncle Bob... Could you explain spring compilance again for me ?? A one inch shorter wound spring....Is it really once inch shorter in length.?? I mean when installed ?? .Maybe that is where my computer brain is in a glitch....Cut spring compared to shorter wound spring...LMC truck pushes the spring change only deal without any mention of alignment.I've rebuilt probably hundreds of front ends up to of late and many back to the all leaf days...Hard to get it straight in my head about the lower stance of the frame without a lot of adjusting....thanks again ..AL...

Uncle Bob....Its me again !!...I totally understand moving the spindle up 2" won't change the camber/toe in much..But these guys keep telling me shorting the coil will be Ok...without moving the spindle....If I work at it long enough maybe I'll get out the question I am really trying to ask.....Al....

For the sake of clarity......................the overall heighth of the spring as wound is 1" shorter (as opposed to the total length of the wire that forms the spring). In theory, you could accomplish the same thing by cutting enough of a coil (or more) to shorten the overall heighth of your stock coil by an inch. The difference is, by cutting the stock spring you're removing some of the "spring", conceivably making it softer. But there are also springs out there that are wound to be "progressive" (usually identifiable by some of the coils being wound "tighter" than others on the same spring), and if you remover the "softer" end, you end up with a firmer (overall) spring rate. Getting a spring that is wound 1" shorter allows you to get the lower ride without changing the spring rate, thus maintaining close to the same ride you had before modification. Assuming of course that's what you want. The boy racer types will sometimes want a stiffer spring, as well as lower, assuming that will give better cornering performance. Which it may or may not do, since cornering dynamics are controlled by more factors than just spring rate.

As for the camber, with unequal length control arms you get a different arc at the ball joint end which helps control the amount of camber change. There will still be some, but it should be minimized. However, there are limits, as some of us have seen when some one uses air or hydraulic suspension. The further the arms arc, the more camber is affected.

Uncle Bob....The BALL JOINT.!!!....You don't have to hit me with a hammer to finally get it !!....Of course the ball joints will take up some camber...the difference between cut coils and custom shorter coils all make sense now ...Partly because I spent the last two decades repairing boat engines and repairing cars and trucks just to keep the stock condition in shape I missed a lot of the new stuff that came around.....Like I tell the kid that peddles me the parts I need...I knew I would find the right guy!!!....Thanks again Uncle Bob.....Al......

Thanks for clarifying, Bob. Some of the lowering jobs around are just down right scary !!! I am doing my Ranchero with new crossmember and A-Arms, dropped spindles, and the rear is on coilovers mounted to the new frame. The geometry will be correct and therefore able to handle, turn, and stop correctly. Granted, it is a lot more expensive and a lot more time consuming but I don't know what else I would waste my time and money on except a neat ride !!! I have done the cut springs deal, but the sacrifices in ride quality and handling outweigh the savings.

Since I deal in 64-72 Chev trucks that have the twin trailing arms on the rear.... I just learned about lowering blocks that you install between the arm and axle housing to get the drop you want while using the stock spring... Theres no geometry change to speak of so the computer in my brain accepts that idea...The coil over idea sounds like a good idea too...But..cutting the coils won't compute...Thanks to Uncle Bob the shorter wound spring idea is more clear.You don't sacrifice the ride so much this way.....AHUH.!!!....Al ......

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a pic of a '72 Chev chassis set up with air bags I just found. You can see the bags are deflated, and the stock control arms are at nearly the top of their arc. There appears to only be a small amount of negative camber. This picture also does a good job of showing the difference in pivot points for the upper and lower control arms.

Thanks for the pic Uncle Bob......Now that the fishing season has slowed the rice burners are plugging up the place..If I ever get them outta the way maybe I can tear down a Chev truck to this stage...Hey!! Rice burners pay the bills..I don't let em stay very long..Contamination you know....I don't know.......That yellow frame......Its like if you ever wanted to torture me just paint the engine room AND the engine the same color as the body!!! And make me look at it while tied to an engine lift or something... But Yellow frame huh???....I'm thinking......Better stop..pain is taking over......Thanks again.....Al....

Bob, sorry to jump in , but you speak of what i need to learn.
I am planning a job to a chevy s-10.maybe mid to late eighties.I have a 350 with a 2 speed glide .I want to lower the truck safely but it must still be able to support the heavy motor. I'm looking at maybe lowering it all the way around ,fill in that ugly curve halfway down , maybe some ground effects or the like.
If I understand correctly when the car is on the ground the top top and bottom ball joint should be perpendicular with the spring installed?
would a 1"shorter spring drop this set up 4 inches??or would the motor do that??would i need a proportionately shorter shock ?
this vehicle would be a sunday driver, but with a hundred mph. first gear, i want it driveable.
any information you can provide, or even a link related to this topic , would be greatly appreciated. mike

Mike....Might check out "Classic Performance Products "(CPP).. if you haven't already...I don't see anything about S-10s but learned a lot about my full size Chev trucks on lowering from the tech sites....AL....

Mike, no apology necessary, that's what these discussions are all about.

In addition to Al's lead I'll post a link that talks intelligently about a real world swap. I don't have first hand experience with the S10 swap, but from what I've read you should expect front axle weight to increase by 190#, rear somewhat less. The link says they experienced a 1" drop front and rear from the additional 350# total weight gain. Otherwise, they claim the truck rode better (probably mean softer, but no comment about cornering). If I were doing your project without any prior experience, or anyone I trusted who has had it, I'd do the swap first and know what my baseline heighth is. Then make the decision whether a 1" spring drop, or a 2" spindle drop, or both would be the most appropriate. Couple that with what you decide on ground effects before the suspension choices too.

For your other questions. A one inch shorter spring will only drop you about 1". I got 4" from the three part combination. As for the shocks, they could probably stand 1", but you should verify that after the engine install. The main thing you want to avoid is the shock bottoming out. Not good for the shock and jars your teeth (unless you keep them in a jar.................sorry, couldn't resist ). As for the cornering comment above, good quality gas shocks, and a stouter anti-sway bar would probably make up the difference. There are probably a number of companies that supply good pieces to drop the suspension. I've always been partial to Beltech kits as they have always worked well for me, lasted, have very good quality, and are fully engineered to work right. They may not be cheapest in the beginning, but they don't come with unexpected costs later.

http://www.jagsthatrun.com/Pages/Che..._S-10_V-8.html