<VV> Springs

[NicolCS@aol.com]

Roger, obviously, your car has setteled some, but it also has tires that  are 
smaller than the original diameter so the factory specs won't match-up.  
Also, I'm not sure the factory spec calls for a full tank.  At any  rate,  I 
measured two of my cars, that both have tires that are closer in  diameter to 
stock, and here's what I found. (both have original springs)
'67 sedan 24.5" tires, 24.5" F clearance, 24.5" rear clearance
'65 'vert  24.75" tires, 26" F clearance, 25" rear clearance
 
In general driving, I feel the '67 has settled from stock - the front-end  
bottoms the shocks easily with two adults in the car.  The '65 feels normal  but 
admittedly looks like the body is high when viewed from a distance.  I  think 
25"-25.25 would be ideal for my cars and tire diameters. Others will  know 
exactly how the body height will respond after cutting a full coil from a  new 
spring but my guess is "too much".  Have you considered rubber spring  spacers 
placed under the low-side coil springs?  I have used these to  correct 
ride-height for years will good, predictable results.  These are  the full-circle 
donuts that go under or atop the springs and have a molded  pocket that accepts 
the spring. They are available in 1/4" or so increments up  to 1".
Craig Nicol

<snip>The problem I have is that the ride height is much lower  than the 
manual
states.  My '65 manual says 26.2" +/- 0.5" measured at  the top of the wheel
wells.  With 195/70R13s and a full tank, mine  measures 22.4" and 23.6" in
front and 22.9" and 24.1" in back.

I  like it at the current ride height ( either one ;-) ) and certainly  don't
want it 3" higher.  Also, I like the nice soft standard springs  and don't 
want
to go HD.  Yes, it does run out of suspension travel  occasionally, but not 
all
that often.

First, even though I used to  have a '66 coupe that looked like it was on
stilts, I have a hard time  believing my car is 3" or so lower than stock.  Is
the manual  correct? <unsnip>