Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Results 1 to 8 of 8
    1. #1
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Orange County, CA
      Posts
      665

      Question about AME chassis rear coilover modification

      I have an AME chassis for my 55 Chevy. It has 2” drop spindles up front. From all of the cars and pictures I’ve seen, many have just a little more rake than I’d prefer. I’m thinking about relocating the rear upper coilover mounts up a little bit to lower the rear and level out the stance. I have a modified trunk pan and mini tubs so I think I have plenty of clearance. I don’t want to modify the lower mount, as they hang pretty low as it is. So my questions are

      1. At ride height, with a full weight car, how much clearance is there between the axle tubes and frame rails? I’d like to know if lowering the car an additional 1-2” in the rear would cause it to bottom out. My car is still in the build stages and completely gutted so I have no way to check this.

      2. Could I remove the stock upper coilover mounting tabs from the frame, drill a hole through the curved tube that is attached to the cross brace, reinforce that hole with a sleeve, then reinstall the mounting tabs (or new modified tabs) in the new position. This almost seems too simple. Am I missing something here, or would this be an easy mod to do?

      3. How do you determine the angle that the coilovers are mounted at? Would I just try to use the same angle as the coilovers were originally mounted? I don’t want to cause any changes to spring rates or cause binding.

      Any suggestions or input would be appreciated. Thanks.
      Attached Images Attached Images  

    2. #2
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      There is another thread about this where it was determined that the lower bars need to be level at ride height. I think you would be deviating quite far from this if you lower it by two inches.

      Don
      1969 Camaro - LSA 6L90E AME sub/IRS
      1957 Buick Estate Wagon
      1959 El Camino - Ironworks frame
      1956 Cameo - full C5 suspension/drivetrain
      1959 Apache Fleetside

    3. #3
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Orange County, CA
      Posts
      665
      Quote Originally Posted by dhutton View Post
      There is another thread about this where it was determined that the lower bars need to be level at ride height. I think you would be deviating quite far from this if you lower it by two inches.

      Don
      The front mounting points for the lower bars have 2 holes, but it came from Morrison with the bars already in the upper holes.. You make a good point about the bars needing to be parallel to the ground. I wonder how much it would effect performance if the lower bars were a few degrees from parallel to the ground? I’ll try a search for the thread you mentioned. Thank you.

    4. #4
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      Why don’t you replace the coilovers with some tube cut to the ride height length of the coilover shocks and see how much rake you have. I find it a little hard to believe an AME frame would be designed to have much rake, if any.

      Don
      1969 Camaro - LSA 6L90E AME sub/IRS
      1957 Buick Estate Wagon
      1959 El Camino - Ironworks frame
      1956 Cameo - full C5 suspension/drivetrain
      1959 Apache Fleetside

    5. #5
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      From the AME website. I think a lot of trifive guys are old school and adjust the coilovers to get the rake.

      Don
      Attached Images Attached Images  
      1969 Camaro - LSA 6L90E AME sub/IRS
      1957 Buick Estate Wagon
      1959 El Camino - Ironworks frame
      1956 Cameo - full C5 suspension/drivetrain
      1959 Apache Fleetside

    6. #6
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Orange County, CA
      Posts
      665
      Art’s GT55 stance is killer, I’d be happy with that. Maybe you’re right Don, and some owners prefer the raked look. But on the other hand I’ve seen some cars that have the coilovers wound down towards the bottom which would also be less than optimal, and they still have a rake. For example, and don’t get me wrong, I love this car but this is more of the stance I see regularly. Look at the rocker compared to the ground. I just prefer a more level stance.
      Attached Images Attached Images  

    7. #7
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      Front is too low on that car imho.

      Don
      1969 Camaro - LSA 6L90E AME sub/IRS
      1957 Buick Estate Wagon
      1959 El Camino - Ironworks frame
      1956 Cameo - full C5 suspension/drivetrain
      1959 Apache Fleetside

    8. #8
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      Coilovers wound down to the bottom is irrelevant. That varies with spring rate for a given ride height. Key is that the shock is roughly centered in its travel at ride height.

      Don

      1969 Camaro - LSA 6L90E AME sub/IRS
      1957 Buick Estate Wagon
      1959 El Camino - Ironworks frame
      1956 Cameo - full C5 suspension/drivetrain
      1959 Apache Fleetside






    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com