Formulabruce

I have a 91 and 92 verts. they both are low , especially in front. Cannot see top of tires and constantly hitting the air dam. I know I have stock 235's on the z . Is there a spring that might get me an inch or 2? I dont need stiffer, and its just a cruiser. I would settle for the front being up. Think struts would help any? Loooking for part numbers and ideas please< car is stock and staying that way, Thanks!!

Dale

iTrader: (12)

First I would check to make sure the strut mount is not ripped.

Then possibly stiffer shocks/struts.

If your tucking tire, thats about a 2.0-2.5 drop. If it is stock and that low, the springs are SHOT!!

I would suggest one of the two eibach springs. You can search in the suspension forum and find pics of cars with either set.

Speedgraphic

I've got a complete set of WS6 Springs that I have decided not to use. I would sell them for what I paid for them $45 + Shipping... PM me if you are interested.

Speedy

Formulabruce

I know the verts were made from T top cars, but did they change the front springs, or rear for the added weight a vert has? I saw that moog 5664 number for a vert only?? If they didnt, Ill take those ws6 sprongs for sure !

Speedgraphic

-----------------------

I am pretty sure that there was no change to springs in the Vert Conversion.
We've debated before if there was much difference in weight/distribution between the T-top and Vert cars. Somebody in the past even weighed two similarly equiped cars and found that there was very little difference in weight between the vert and the T-top cars. It might be worth investing a little time in the search to find the thread.

In an attempt to verify that there was no change in springs I went to one of the sticky threads at the top of the vert threads listing page called "Convertible Schematic Sheets" and saw no mention of any change.

I've got a couple other places to look just to be sure but those documents are at home and I'm at the salt mine right now...

Does anybody reading here know for sure if there was or wasn't a change to springs under the verts?

Speedy

Formulabruce

the Z has the factory stickers and ill get it back up on lift and se if I can read it , and search more threads, Thanks for the input!

jer4251

iTrader: (6)

I didnt think there was a " too low " for camaros, Ive never been able to get my 3rd gen's low enough.

a stock height camaro will scrape the air dam if you dont know how to take angles. Thats the key.

Do you have pics you could show us as to how low your car really is?

I'd love to the the 2 verts you've got.

rwdtech

it is true that the vert isnt much heavier than the hard top/t-top cars because of the lack of giant rear hatch glass. back in 1982 it was the largest piece of automotive glass at the time

Dale

iTrader: (12)

The springs that came out of my vert still had the tags on it.

One of my springs is a 14029393 BXW

Formulabruce

mine is a Z loaded and factory spring is different code BXU and # 14029392

Formulabruce

the "replacement" spicer spring set #585-1154 is much thicker and 3 WHOLE inches shorter!! ( free standing) No way am I putting that in, I need a little lift as it is, not shorter and stiffer. back to the drawing board, wish I had the 92 spring chart

John in RI

iTrader: (167)

I Just pulled this tag from the front springs in my 86 Coupe. It's a LG4 with Stick, T-Tops, and AC.

The car should have the "F41" suspension as standard equipment.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

I'd love to see a close pic, of your front tire & fender.

Here's my 89 parts GTA....And you can see one of its front springs...If your tire is tucking, do you even HAVE springs in?

Formulabruce

I put in the spicer set and somewhere on here someone had mentioned that he did same thing and even though springs were lower in the box the car went up. Mine did as well and has a inch and a half above the front tire now, which is great and it doesnt bottom out nearly as much ( stiffer) Was quite a "bomb" with the compressed spring before I put it in. I was thinking if I dropped it some serious energy would be released. try to get pics in a day or 2,

gcgarner

From everything I know (and, honestly, that's not much) the verts were only about 160 lbs. heavier than the hatch-backs. That's about the equivalent of an average passenger, and a passenger doesn't make your car squat 2 inches (unless you're talking about my sister, then it might throw sparks from the rocker panels when you take left turns! LOL!!!)

MrDude_1

the convertible conversion itself does not add any weight to the car.

now if we had a pump, hydraulic rams, fluid, lines, and the coupe didnt have a 80+ pound piece of glass in it.. THEN there would be a weight diff...

but because of thoes things.. the verts weight is LESS then the coupes.



the main reason our vert cars tend to be heavy, is that we tend to have every option possible... take that out,and you'll find the weight diff is small... but in our favor... trust me, ive weighed alot of our cars... theres a reason why my sisters min option hardtop weighs more then my vert does now... LOL.


anyway, to answer your questions...
1. no, the convertibles did not get diffrent springs. they did not need them.
2. if you have your OEM springs in there, they are SHOT. or you have aftermarket drop springs that are shot..... or cut or something of that nature.
3. yes the MOOG WS6/Z28 replacement springs seem shorter.. but they're stiffer... so the car sits higher, and it doesnt "dive" as much under braking, or dip as much when you hit rought pavement.... so you bottom out less...
4.... the stock replacements will probably seem too high.. LOL.