Stock Ride Height Help

[Mopar Muscle]

I have a 1965 Belvedere 2 door post and I'm looking at suspension options. They rate the drop from stock. I bought the car as it sits in the pics lowered in front and I'm pretty sure it has different springs and hangers in the back. I have no reference on what the "stock" stance is.

Can some people with a bone stock stance provide the front and measurement from the ground to the bottom of the spot welded seams as shown in the pictures? The front one is behind the front wheel and the rear one is in front of the rear wheel. Please list your tire size as well as this changes the ride height.

Thank you for any help in advance!!!

 

[Cranky]

IIRC, an FSM will have the stock ride heights listed but measuring from the body seams isn't the place you should measure from. There's some areas on the frame rails that are used according to the FSM. Also, if you do not have the stock tire size on it, then you will have to take what's on the car into account. I like the stance of it as it sits.....

 

[Ron H]

Sure looks sweet the way it sits. I returned my '63 back closer to stock height as I had the front around 1/2" lower. This is after some other modifications, alignment, radial tires, FFII, etc. I may be nuts, but I swear I feel less nice handling, especially at higher speeds, 70-75mph. Get a more floaty feel I don't remember with the front lowered. Doesn't take much to alter the look and stance by just a half-inch, MO.

 

[rickseeman]

I don't think you need any information about ride height. Whatever it is now is just fine.

 

[Cranky]

Sure looks sweet the way it sits. I returned my '63 back closer to stock height as I had the front around 1/2" lower. This is after some other modifications, alignment, radial tires, FFII, etc. I may be nuts, but I swear I feel less nice handling, especially at higher speeds, 70-75mph. Get a more floaty feel I don't remember with the front lowered. Doesn't take much to alter the look and stance by just a half-inch, MO.

When I lowered my 66 Belvedere and aligned it to 'my' specs, it was MUCH better at higher speeds. It was like a different car.

 

[lewtot184]

Some info

 

[lewtot184]

Not a perfect picture but very close to stock height in front. A 2" difference between the bottom of the lower ball joint and bottom of the torsion bar adjuster blade is correct.

 

[Ron H]

When I lowered my 66 Belvedere and aligned it to 'my' specs, it was MUCH better at higher speeds. It was like a different car.

Appreciate some signals that I may not be nuts; but okay, I'll qualify we're not on the PF, lol.

 

[lewtot184]

I took some measurements to check myself. The front end is at the lower tolerance for standard bars. I have .92 bars so I'd need to raise the front up to meet that spec. Ironically it's with in maximum performance specs. Anyhow it's staying where it's at because I like the ride. Car has some rake in it do to bigger tires in back and goofy springs.

 

[66 Sat]

Appreciate some signals that I may not be nuts; but okay, I'll qualify we're not on the PF, lol.

100% agree that a slight rake rear higher than front handles (and looks) better than a front to rear rake.
Not excessive, but the rear being slightly higher makes the car feel more like an arrow, and gets that heavy engine planted into the road.
The factory settings with the front higher than the rear seems to make the front end float.

This is better I reckon:

As opposed to a more "factory" look:

 

[Jeff Peterson]

Can it even be lowered with 31x16.50x15 rear tires out back?

 

[Mopar Muscle]

Guys, I appreciate the replies so far. By far the most interactive group I've found yet!

I'm going to consolidate some questions and answer below. As stated, I bought the car like this. The stance looks very good for thr style, but mechanically it is a basket case. Rear suspension binds up on the pan hard bar on bumps, front suspension has a knocking sound, steering box is CRAZY loose, car can't turn a corner a 15 mph without swaying worse than my '07 3500 at 75 mph.

I'm likely going in the Gerst/QA1 direction to make this a driver. Rear tires will probably be a 390/40R17. Lots of changes to come, bit looking to see how much drop I need in the suspension kit.

 

[lewtot184]

People do some crazy things when building a car that's mostly driven and that may be your case. You can't drive easily on a race suspension and I knew my car was going to be 101% driven. You probably can't re-do the back easily but if the front isn't whacked you can deal with it. The best improvement i made on handling is a big sway bar. Big torsion bars by themselves aren't the solution. I have some crummy Monroe gas shocks on the car and don't recommend them. I use street hemi leaf springs in back and I'm 100% stuck on leafs in back for driving. You can't beat the looks of the 65 Plymouth.

 

[BigFlo]

Some info

View attachment 1733846

View attachment 1733847

I don’t know how many times I’ve read the FSM for adjusting ride height. I still don’t know what it means by ‘height adjusting blades’ - this is the location for the inside measurement below the pivot point. What is the ‘height adjusting blade’? I see nothing below the pivot point except the LCA which is curved.

 

[RemCharger]

The height adjustment blade is just that; it's the blade inside the LCA that adjusts the height. VIA the adjustment bolt .

 

[33 IMP]

Why does it have a panhard bar? Leaf springs gone, and coil overs instead.
I wouldn't bother with a new suspension. I'd either try to tighten the steering,box or replace it, fix the clunk in the front, and put sway bars front and rear. As for ride height, I never could understand the way the service manual says to do it, so I just put the ride heights WERE I WANT THEM!

 

[BigFlo]

The height adjustment blade is just that; it's the blade inside the LCA that adjusts the height. VIA the adjustment bolt .

I get what you’re saying but if I look at the FSM that’s not how I see it being described. The height adjusting blade as you describe it is not directly below the center of the lower control arm inner pivots and that is not where the tape measure is shown. The red line is where the blade is that you are talking about.

 

[RemCharger]

I get what you’re saying but if I look at the FSM that’s not how I see it being described. The height adjusting blade as you describe it is not directly below the center of the lower control arm inner pivots and that is not where the tape measure is shown. The red line is where the blade is that you are talking about.

View attachment 1734253

" directly below the CENTER of the lower control arm INNER PIVOTS"
The blade wraps around the whole pivot. So they want measurement of the bottom of the blade directly under the center of the torsion bar, as it were.
The reason they give this information is so the suspension is set properly within its design limits.
But I agree with 33IMP , set it where you want it.

 

[BigFlo]

Thanks - If that’s the case, then the picture in the FSM is wrong showing the location of the measuring tape.

 

[lewtot184]

The picture is correct. You can't see the pivot point unless you look directly up. I had to think about it too but if you can get your eyes directly under the lower control arm's pivot point you'll understand.