|
![]() |
#1 |
![]() Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 3,738
|
![]()
Well, let's see how it goes.
I need to find out shock difference. Having stiffer springs front and back (and I know where to find a matching rear) may reduce scraping my front airdams. On the other hand, if the early cars had stiffer shocks then I would have to revalve my shocks to work with stiffer springs. Need to think this thru... If I stay with later springs, you have the first dib on 91 front. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
![]() Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Posts: 1,454
|
![]() Quote:
Rich
__________________
1990 Bright Red Coupe #608 380 Stroker, Ported Heads/Intake/Housings/TB Haibeck Secondary Delete Chip / Pete's Cams George Braml Intake / FIC Injectors Coated SW Headers / Corsa Bill Boudreau B/B ZF6 / Viper 4.10 gears Ron Davis Radiator Pioneer AVIC-Z140BH NAV Fikse FM5's 285 / 335 / C6 Brakes WAZOO Member Last edited by Scrrem; 02-24-2014 at 12:59 PM. Reason: mispelling |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
![]() Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 3,738
|
![]()
In summary, 90-91 had stiffer springs but softer shocks. 92-95s had softer springs with stiffer/faster shocks.
For those who are interested, article w/ link below is very interesting read: http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/...fx3/index.html Site Administrator - If I am breaking the forum rule by the above link, please edit. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,884
|
![]() Quote:
It still doesn't negate the possible + to the increased spring rate. Halverson's #'s for his suspension parts are numbers he was supplied with from production specifications, you don't think there were manufacturing tolerances? A '91 spring is 23 or 24 years old and your ''94 spring is just a couple years younger maybe. If you want to know what the '91 spring actually is "NOW" get it checked! Answers maybe all of your questions. I believe it's being way "over thought" - had the later spring not had the pedestal type cushion at the control arms you would have had the job "done" and been telling us about the things you really enjoyed about the change. Last edited by WVZR-1; 02-24-2014 at 04:01 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | ||
![]() Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: CenCoast California
Posts: 898
|
![]() Quote:
"WVZR-1", if you're aware of any incorrect information in that article, so I can correct any mistakes, please post the errors and your documentation to support them. But even if I was paid for it–let me ask you "WVZR-1"–in your opinion, how would that impact the credibility of the content? Quote:
The spring suppliers were required to categorize each spring which met the initial specifications into three groups. Some were right at the specified spring rate, some were a bit below and some were a tiny bit above. The spring group determined the number of shims (ft.) or the location of the shims (rr). This system allowed the assembly plant to have all the cars much closer in trim height and was used for the rest of the C4 production. Obviously, in the front, the ideal sitch is a car with 2 shims because pulling the shims out lowers the car by about 1/2-in.. In the rear a car with 2 shims above the rear spring is desireable because if you move the shims to below the spring you lower it in the rear by about 1/2-in. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
![]() Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wichita Falls,Tx
Posts: 594
|
![]()
VB&P told me they manufacture at least five springs at a time and that every one will have a different rate.
If removing both front shims only drops the front ride height 1/2" and will also lower the spring rate of an already soft spring,I probably should look at other lowering options for our 94. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
![]() Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Marcos CA
Posts: 1,786
|
![]() Quote:
I think you get the idea from the way you replied, but I would offer that the shock stiffness on the front end of a c4 seems more critical to me than the spring- even on the ZR-1. There seems to be only 5 options on transverse springs (for the front): 1) stock 2) stock bushing with shim(s) removed (less drop) 3) lowering wedge with shims 4) lowering wedge with no shims (slammed -->don't do it- cars is dangerously low and close to bumpstops. Also a gap between spring and frame when car is jacked up). 5) VB&P adjustable spring; this is much lower and even the taller setting is probably well into lowered ride height territory. Advantage is high spring rate for heavy LT5 and you don't need the special GM spring tool or have to remove an A-arm to install because it sits flat at rest (quick and easy install). Last edited by mike100; 04-21-2014 at 12:33 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: CenCoast California
Posts: 898
|
![]() Quote:
All I know if my 95 came with blue dot springs on both ends so I took all the shims out of the front and, and in the rear, moved all the shims to the bottom and got the car lower but not so low that I lack ride travel. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|