| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blue89 Member

Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 3482 Location: Bellingham/Eugene
1986 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:47 am Post subject: stock spring question |
|
|
Mainly interested in rear springs, as they are standard from 82-02.
I have what I thought were the standard rear springs for my car (they came stock with the RS badge). I recently found some springs in my garage that have the same size coil, but they look progressive! The coils on the bottom are more spaced out than the top are. Are these convertible springs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Quasi-Traction "I have petals"

Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 3873 Location: stumptown
1986 Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta
|
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
IIRC the rear springs on all third/fourth Gen's are narrower on the top than the bottom so they fit the perches. _________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blue89 Member

Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 3482 Location: Bellingham/Eugene
1986 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't say narrower. I said
| Quote: | | The coils on the bottom are more spaced out than the top are |
I know they all get smaller in diameter to fit the bottom perches, but these have spaced out coils on the bottom, and tighter on the top. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Quasi-Traction "I have petals"

Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 3873 Location: stumptown
1986 Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta
|
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sorry.......I misunderstood. I don't have an answer. _________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
iansane Member

Joined: 16 Jan 2004 Posts: 5742 Location: Bothell
1991 Pontiac Trans Am
|
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can show you a picture of springs from my 87 formula hardtop, my old 85 TA t-top and my 91 TA vert and they're all progressive.  _________________
| Quote: | | Sometimes I actually think I'm slightly retarded in the mouth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blue89 Member

Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 3482 Location: Bellingham/Eugene
1986 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
90droptoproc Member
Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 490
1989 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
from what I see that middle spring doesnt look like the rears in either of my verts, definatly looks progresive though _________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blue89 Member

Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 3482 Location: Bellingham/Eugene
1986 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
ya, don't remember where I got it from, it was just sitting on the shelf with the rest of my springs! I probably got it from Irocnparts a while ago. I hope its better than the other ones. Its the same diameter wire, and spaced out so it should be. I'll let you know how it goes Its in the car right now, but dewd, stock ride height is WAY high. Its about 12" higher than i was sitting before! (j/k, but it sure seems that way!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blue89 Member

Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 3482 Location: Bellingham/Eugene
1986 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| well, i got the progressives in! I had to cut 2 coils out to make the panhard level again. Ride quality is normal, but the suspension is way tighter. So if you get the chance to get these springs, I'd recommend it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
QwkTrip 11sec Club

Joined: 17 Feb 2004 Posts: 3942 Location: Peoria, IL
1989 Pontiac Firebird
|
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blue89 wrote: | | Its in the car right now, but dewd, stock ride height is WAY high. |
You sure they aren't for a Mustang?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|