BelvedereII
Member
I've been running my '67 Belvedere II with S/S springs and the original 318 T-bars although it's supporting a 440 up front now. The car's original springs seemed pretty weak, so I bought the XHD set from MP. No change in ride height, although it did stiffen things up. Next up was the S/S springs and even mounting them via the lower of the 2 holes on the front hanger adaptors the height raised maybe 1" over stock.
Turned out, the T-bars had been adjusted down pretty far-nearly to resting on the rubber buffers, the 440 made things worse, so I cranked them up a little. Still, the headlights don't project very far downrange and I've hesitated to bring the front end up more with the understanding the suspension should be free to move under launch. I don't think my car's lifting the wheels, but still believe it should have a good range to work with. Maybe that's not quite correct?
Not a big deal, the car works fine, but in looking back at images of the stock racers from '66 and '67 those cars' trunks sat overall higher and the front bumpers looked to sit higher as well. The Silver Bullet looks up on its toes, still with a downward rake (MP Chassis book recommends something like a 2" drop, back to front, and I don't recall what mine measures), and at that the front bumper looks over knee high while mine is below knee height.
The nag in the back of my head is wondering why the race cars doing all the winning back in the day (Stiles, Sox, etc) sat so high. Although they were 1.5 sec or more quicker than my car (7.6 in 1/8th mile so far) and the Bullet ran 10.3 up on its toes, I would think their setups would benefit lesser running cars like mine.
I'll be measuring my car's current height and rake, then raising the nose up closer to level to see if there is any change from that small adjustment. Typical 60' times are around 1.72 lately, best this past spring with really good air was a 1.66. Trap speed is 88mph.
Meantime, how are your '66 and '67 cars set up?
Kirk
Turned out, the T-bars had been adjusted down pretty far-nearly to resting on the rubber buffers, the 440 made things worse, so I cranked them up a little. Still, the headlights don't project very far downrange and I've hesitated to bring the front end up more with the understanding the suspension should be free to move under launch. I don't think my car's lifting the wheels, but still believe it should have a good range to work with. Maybe that's not quite correct?
Not a big deal, the car works fine, but in looking back at images of the stock racers from '66 and '67 those cars' trunks sat overall higher and the front bumpers looked to sit higher as well. The Silver Bullet looks up on its toes, still with a downward rake (MP Chassis book recommends something like a 2" drop, back to front, and I don't recall what mine measures), and at that the front bumper looks over knee high while mine is below knee height.
The nag in the back of my head is wondering why the race cars doing all the winning back in the day (Stiles, Sox, etc) sat so high. Although they were 1.5 sec or more quicker than my car (7.6 in 1/8th mile so far) and the Bullet ran 10.3 up on its toes, I would think their setups would benefit lesser running cars like mine.
I'll be measuring my car's current height and rake, then raising the nose up closer to level to see if there is any change from that small adjustment. Typical 60' times are around 1.72 lately, best this past spring with really good air was a 1.66. Trap speed is 88mph.
Meantime, how are your '66 and '67 cars set up?
Kirk
