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

    Login / Register



    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
    Results 1 to 20 of 22
    1. #1
      Join Date
      Nov 2013
      Posts
      25
      Country Flag: Canada

      Bump Stops for SPC LCA's

      I have a 71 Nova which I added SC&C Stage 2 plus suspension package 7 years ago. I have the SPC LCA and UCA, Varishock double adjustable shocks, SPC 94393 1.3" drop springs. I have the SPC 95339 bump stops. The issue is that since I installed the package, the frame sits on the bump stops even at rest. There is zero gap at ride height. When I installed it, I measured that there was sufficient compression travel in the shock to fully compress the bump stop it's entire height (which cannot happen). Is there a different bump stop I could put on, to have un restricted suspension movement? Or is that not a good idea?



    2. #2
      Join Date
      Oct 2004
      Posts
      2,544
      Country Flag: United States
      I guess my first question is, without the bump stops, do you have enough suspension travel before coil bind? And then you'll want to have something that prevents fully compressing the coil, but give you some movement before it engages (otherwise it'll change your effective spring rate). Energy suspensions sell plenty of different bump stops, you just have to make sure the thread is compatible. For example 9.9118G is pretty low profile.
      Red Forman: "The Mustang's front end is problematic; get yourself a Firebird."

    3. #3
      Join Date
      Nov 2013
      Posts
      25
      Country Flag: Canada
      Quote Originally Posted by 68Formula View Post
      I guess my first question is, without the bump stops, do you have enough suspension travel before coil bind? And then you'll want to have something that prevents fully compressing the coil, but give you some movement before it engages (otherwise it'll change your effective spring rate). Energy suspensions sell plenty of different bump stops, you just have to make sure the thread is compatible. For example 9.9118G is pretty low profile.
      I don't have coilovers. I am sure there is no issue with coil bind, but can confirm. I have now seen the shorter progressive ones from BellTech 4922 at 1.26" tall.

    4. #4
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      I’m guessing you got the early lower arms where the spring pocket is too deep. You need to add some coil spring spacers and get the control arms off the frame and bumpstops. I had the same problem.

      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 2013
      Posts
      25
      Country Flag: Canada
      Quote Originally Posted by dhutton View Post
      I’m guessing you got the early lower arms where the spring pocket is too deep. You need to add some coil spring spacers and get the control arms off the frame and bumpstops. I had the same problem.

      Don
      I thought of that, but my ride height is correct. It does not sit too low, its 1.5" lower than factory for the ground to rocker panel. And sits higher than it did when it had stock control arms and 6 cyl springs with this big block in it.

      The control arm to frame measures 2 1/2" where the bump stop on the control arm is. Do you have a 69 Camaro? If so what does yours measure there for comparison sake.

    6. #6
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      Ok I misunderstood that the control arm was touching the frame. Sorry about that.

      Are you using the white S10 progressive rate bump stop? They look like this:

      https://www.ebay.com/itm/31077766514...YAAOSwl29gSNPJ

      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

    7. #7
      Join Date
      Nov 2013
      Posts
      25
      Country Flag: Canada
      Quote Originally Posted by dhutton View Post
      Ok I misunderstood that the control arm was touching the frame. Sorry about that.

      Are you using the white S10 progressive rate bump stop? They look like this:

      https://www.ebay.com/itm/31077766514...YAAOSwl29gSNPJ

      Don
      Yes, and the frame rests on them, compressed just slightly. If I push on the core support of the car, it doesn't move, if I try to bounce it by pushing, the only movement is the tires.

    8. #8
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by hipockets View Post
      Yes, and the frame rests on them, compressed just slightly. If I push on the core support of the car, it doesn't move, if I try to bounce it by pushing, the only movement is the tires.
      Something is just not right. You shouldn’t be on the bumpstops at ride height. Maybe post up some pics of your ride height etc.

      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

    9. #9
      Join Date
      Nov 2013
      Posts
      25
      Country Flag: Canada
      Quote Originally Posted by dhutton View Post
      Something is just not right. You shouldn’t be on the bumpstops at ride height. Maybe post up some pics of your ride height etc.

      Don
      I will do that. Keep in mind the SPC bump stops are 2 1/2" tall overall, compared to say Energy Suspension factory replacement 9.9154G at 1.688". And I know for example the stops Hotchkiss and other use on their LCA are the 9.9118G .875" tall. Then there are the stops Hotchkis sends with their lowering springs 9.9103G at 1.56" tall.

    10. #10
      Join Date
      Nov 2013
      Posts
      25
      Country Flag: Canada
      Here are some pics. 25" floor to fender lip. 13 3/8" from center of hub to wheel lip. 71 Nova.



      Name:  IMG_4836.JPG
Views: 360
Size:  85.5 KBName:  IMG_4837 (1).JPG
Views: 369
Size:  89.3 KBName:  IMG_4838.JPG
Views: 367
Size:  81.0 KBName:  IMG_4839.JPG
Views: 365
Size:  106.9 KBName:  IMG_4840.JPG
Views: 365
Size:  60.5 KBName:  IMG_4841.JPG
Views: 374
Size:  80.4 KBName:  IMG_4842.JPG
Views: 372
Size:  84.4 KBName:  IMG_4843.JPG
Views: 364
Size:  75.2 KB

    11. #11
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      I would be tempted to cut down the frame stop rather than the bumpstop. That way you gain clearance without losing the progressive rate.

      Have you called SPC?

      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

    12. #12
      Join Date
      Nov 2013
      Posts
      25
      Country Flag: Canada
      Quote Originally Posted by dhutton View Post
      I would be tempted to cut down the frame stop rather than the bumpstop. That way you gain clearance without losing the progressive rate.

      Have you called SPC?

      Don
      I haven't called them. Last night I put some Energy Suspension stops on the 9.9103G 1.56" tall. They have 1" clearance to the frame. The ride height did not change, so the other stops just had the frame resting against them. I'm going to try them and see how the ride is. I can move the front end more and easier just pushing on it, but it's still firm. I also noticed the sway bar has quite an upward angle to the mounting bolts. I am going to cut the spacers between the bushings down to 2" from the 2.75" they are now. Put it in a more neutral position at normal ride height.
      Last edited by hipockets; 07-27-2021 at 09:04 AM. Reason: typo

    13. #13
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      I would rather have an S10 progressive rate bump stop than an Energy Suspension brick. It’s likely going to hit pretty hard.

      At least you have the motion ratio working with you.

      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

    14. #14
      Join Date
      Jun 2012
      Location
      Chicago burbs
      Posts
      247
      Country Flag: United States
      The settings on your varishocks da's may be what are causing you to think the suspension is locked up. They have legit force values that make the car seem very stiff when not moving. Are you using factory spindles? tall lower ball joints? The stance doesn't look unreasonable, quite nice actually, so I do think it's a little weird they contact when static. We're you planning on 2 inches of travel or more around the 4ish mark? You could set the shocks compression lower and see if it has enough travel maybe?

      1969 442 6.0L LQ9 T56
      Fab9 w/ custom 3 Link conversion
      FAYS2 Watts link
      Thanks to Mark at SC&C for his honesty and passion for the sport, and Ron Sutton for the wealth of knowledge that has helped shape so many of the cars on this site.

    15. #15
      Join Date
      Apr 2009
      Location
      Michigan
      Posts
      322
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by dhutton View Post
      I would rather have an S10 progressive rate bump stop than an Energy Suspension brick. It’s likely going to hit pretty hard.

      At least you have the motion ratio working with you.

      Don
      Agreed, poly is about the worst material for bump stops in my opinion. You'd be better off with something like this, they're 1.25" tall: https://www.amazon.com/Belltech-4922...7483801&sr=8-1

      Since they're designed to be mounted on a flat surface, you'd probably have to make a "giant fender washer" to put on the underside of them for support since your arms are tubular.
      - Ryan

    16. #16
      Join Date
      Nov 2013
      Posts
      25
      Country Flag: Canada
      Quote Originally Posted by dhutton View Post
      I would rather have an S10 progressive rate bump stop than an Energy Suspension brick. It’s likely going to hit pretty hard.

      At least you have the motion ratio working with you.

      Don
      I'm going to try it and see how it rides, then maybe look at the Bell Tech stops. They are the only ones I have found that are similar to the S10 ones but shorter.

    17. #17
      Join Date
      Nov 2013
      Posts
      25
      Country Flag: Canada
      Quote Originally Posted by jetmech442 View Post
      The settings on your varishocks da's may be what are causing you to think the suspension is locked up. They have legit force values that make the car seem very stiff when not moving. Are you using factory spindles? tall lower ball joints? The stance doesn't look unreasonable, quite nice actually, so I do think it's a little weird they contact when static. We're you planning on 2 inches of travel or more around the 4ish mark? You could set the shocks compression lower and see if it has enough travel maybe?
      It moves freely, and with the progressive stops removed it moves more with the same force. I think the added rate with the progressive bumper just impedes movement enough to change it. Factory spindles, tall ball joints. I am not sure on the total travel, when I set it up I used spacers under the shock cross bar to allow maximum droop at full extension, but also so that the shock cannot bottom hard at full compression even with the bump stop removed. Keeping the shocks in the middle of their stroke during most conditions.

    18. #18
      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Location
      East Tennessee
      Posts
      163
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by hipockets View Post
      It moves freely, and with the progressive stops removed it moves more with the same force. I think the added rate with the progressive bumper just impedes movement enough to change it. Factory spindles, tall ball joints. I am not sure on the total travel, when I set it up I used spacers under the shock cross bar to allow maximum droop at full extension, but also so that the shock cannot bottom hard at full compression even with the bump stop removed. Keeping the shocks in the middle of their stroke during most conditions.
      Where do you have the shocks set (Rebound and Compression)? As jetmech442 said, the shocks' reaction force can be non-trivial. Those shocks can get really stiff. If you are cruising around on 550lb front springs with a BBC, you shouldn't need a lot of damping force. That setup should put you in the 1.2-1.3Hz undamped ride frequency range. Rock hard shocks with a ride frequency that low will really hurt ride comfort.
      Electrical/Mechanical Engineer
      1968 Camaro RS - Flat Black

    19. #19
      Join Date
      Nov 2013
      Posts
      25
      Country Flag: Canada
      So the car rides much better with the stops not touching the frame at rest. And I did not feel the shorter 9.9103G stops hit. I also shortened the sway bar spacers to 2" (the ones between the bushings). But, when doing so, I found another issue.
      The sway bar is contacting the oil pan HARD. It hits the pan when the sway bar is 1/4"-3/16" away from where it should sit. When the bar mounts are tightened down, it's pushing the engine up. And that is at rest, therefore as the suspension compresses, and the bar rotates, it will then push on the oil pan even harder. The bar was rubbing hard enough that the textured finish on the Hellwig sway bar is rubbed smooth. I had looked at the clearance multiple times, but always when the car was on stands with the front suspension at full extension. I didn't think of the sway bar movement/rotation.

      I had a friend make some 1/2" aluminum spacers for the sway bar, and installed them last night. I now have 5/16" space between the sway bar and the oil pan when the car is sitting at rest. I hope this is enough to allow for the bar rotating upward more as the suspension compresses.

      The front suspension moves so much more freely, I can actually make it bounce pushing on the rad support once, whereas before it would not move until I pushed on it multiple times, but literally only bouncing it on the tires.

      Hopefully get a chance to drive it this week.

    20. #20
      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Location
      East Tennessee
      Posts
      163
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by hipockets View Post
      So the car rides much better with the stops not touching the frame at rest. And I did not feel the shorter 9.9103G stops hit. I also shortened the sway bar spacers to 2" (the ones between the bushings). But, when doing so, I found another issue.
      The sway bar is contacting the oil pan HARD. It hits the pan when the sway bar is 1/4"-3/16" away from where it should sit. When the bar mounts are tightened down, it's pushing the engine up. And that is at rest, therefore as the suspension compresses, and the bar rotates, it will then push on the oil pan even harder. The bar was rubbing hard enough that the textured finish on the Hellwig sway bar is rubbed smooth. I had looked at the clearance multiple times, but always when the car was on stands with the front suspension at full extension. I didn't think of the sway bar movement/rotation.

      I had a friend make some 1/2" aluminum spacers for the sway bar, and installed them last night. I now have 5/16" space between the sway bar and the oil pan when the car is sitting at rest. I hope this is enough to allow for the bar rotating upward more as the suspension compresses.

      The front suspension moves so much more freely, I can actually make it bounce pushing on the rad support once, whereas before it would not move until I pushed on it multiple times, but literally only bouncing it on the tires.

      Hopefully get a chance to drive it this week.
      Interesting. I have the same control arms ands sway bar and do not have that issue, although I do have a Camaro and not a Nova. Can you post some pictures of the sway bar / oil pan interface?

      If I were you I would take out the bump stops, springs, and shocks from the front end. Then reattach the ball joints, and articulate the suspension through its full travel with the sway bar connected. This should show you if the sway bar will hit the oil pan. Keeping the ends of the sway bar parallel to the ground at ride height is a good practice.
      Electrical/Mechanical Engineer
      1968 Camaro RS - Flat Black

    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast




    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com