63 Suspension restoration/upgrades

[tim63riv]

Hi everyone,

I'm putting together a list of to-do items before summer and especially Galena. My Black 63 could use springs, shock absorbers and track bar bushings. I have the track bar bushings located from Russ Martin, but I was wondering what vendors you have used for springs and shocks. I remember that someone on the old Riv list was shocked (no pun intended!) by how high his car sat after spring replacement. I wouldn't mind a ride height about an inch lower than stock height. I have also heard that there is a difference between top and bottom coil diameter from 63-4 to 65. Any and all replies will be appreciated!

Thanks,

Tim McCluskey

[RivNut]

Tim,

I replaced the track bar bushing on my '64; got it from Classic Buicks. Steele Rubber shows one in their online catalog for $32.60. They say it's made of BUNA rubber - whatever that means. I bought Monroe Sensa-trac shocks for my '64 and I like the ride I get. It's not a high performance tuned ride, but I don't use the car for canyon carving either. They run about $25.00 each and they are a direct application, no adapters needed. I've always wondered about ride height after replacing springs. If the old springs were sagging, the new springs would make the car sit higher. Do the owners of these cars actually remember what height they were sitting at when they were driven off the showroom floor? Search your browser for Eaton Detroit Springs. I've heard good things about them as far as creating a spring that will give you the ride height you want and still have the same spring rates as the OEM ride, or tell them what you want and they'll come up with something. It all has to do with spring rates and ride height and they have the computers to do the calculations. Good luck and we'll see you in Galena. If you're thinking about replacing any door seals or such, I'd recommend contacting Bethel's Goat Farm (GTO specialists) DBA Weatherstrip Special. I got door, roof, qtr., trunk, cowl, and lock pillar seals from them for $220.00. The parts they shipped were either Steele or Soff Seal.

Ed

[tim63riv]

Thanks, Ed,

That is a screamin' deal on the weatherstrip! One other question that I thought of, is the bottom front shock absorber bracket on the 63's longer than on the 64 & 65? I thought that I remember some chaater about that on the old Riviera list.

In some of the ad photos I have for the 63, it seems that ground clearance wasn't much of an issue if you now what I mean!

I'll know April 6th if I can make the Galena, meet, but the car needs to be ready for the summer anyway!

Tim

[RivNut]

Tim,

The shock listing for Monroe shows the same shock for both the '63 and the '64. The bottom of the shock bolts to the A-arm, and I'd bet your left hand lug nuts that they're the same for both years. I seem to remember some "shock" stories but from what I recall, those were tips on how to retrofit KYB or shocks for different applications to the Riv.

PartsAmerica's web site (Advance Auto) shows some Moog part numbers for springs for front and back of the '63 - '65 Riv. As I was looking at the site, it occured to me that you might be able to get the ride height you're looking for if you used shocks for a non A/C car on your car. They show two separate listings and I would imagine that the one listing is for a little more weight. The weight of your A/C might give you the stance you're looking for. You might also contact Eaton and see if they show a different part number for the '65 GS springs; they supposedly set the car about an inch lower than the normal production springs.

Ed

[Jolly_John]

Hi, Tim. I sent you a PM. John

[NTX5467]

I've seen some vintage cars which did sit higher than they should have after getting new springs. You might study some original sales brochures and pay attention to the level of the lower part of the rocker panel and how it relates to the center of the wheel. By observation, almost ALL cars of that timeframe had similar orienations on where the lower line of the rocker panel was in relation to the center of the wheels (on the horizontal plane of things).

If the GS springs will have a ride height which is lower than a non-GS car, I feel that'd be the better way to get the lower ride height rather than getting a custom spring done up (which might or might not end up where you want it to be (or was "guaranteed to be" by the vendor).

Also remember that radial tires, if you have them, will put the car about 1/2 inch closer to the ground. That's my observation when going from bias ply or belted-bias ply tires to radials of the same outside diameter (i.e., revs/mile at 45mph). Having the same OD on the tires is important for speedometer calibrations, but the sidewall flex of the radials is where the lower effective ride height comes in.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[Guest musclecarfan65]

BUNA rubber was the synthetic rubber created during WW2 by the german IG Farben ... just a small german sidestep.

[tim63riv]

Guys,

Thanks for the help. Ed, I looked up some old emails and Jim Cannon said the KYB shock were the ones that didn't fit right, the Monroe's were just fine. I thought about the GS springs, and if I had a 65, that would be OK, but I remember someone saying that either the front or rear coil springs have different diameter top and bottom coil so they don't fit in the spring saddle correctly.

Dirk, I know that the US and the Allies needed synthetic rubber during WW II as well. I wonder if BUNA is superior to what we came up with and that's why it's stil around?

Take Care,

Tim

[RivNut]

Tim,

I looked at the bushing offered by Russ Martin; had I of known about his when I bought mine, I'd have gone with it. Russ's is made of a newer poly----- that will probably last longer, flex less, and be more resistant to contamination; all for less than I paid Classic Buicks for a rubber one.

Remember, the GS package was an option, not a different car. When a car came down the assembly line, the guy installing the springs would take a set from a different bin for the GS option. I don't think there is any difference in the frame or the axle mounts so installing GS springs should be doable. I think there are also rubber isolators on the top of the spring. These can compress with time and when you install new springs and new isolators, you can't help but raise the ride height back to where it was originally. I know that my '63, with 197,000 miles on it, and having towed an airstream trailer all over the country, sits lower than my '64, which has less than 100,000 miles on it. Neither has ever had the springs changed. Both are riding on the same sized tires - 225/70R15.

Anyone out there have a crash sheet on these cars that would give some kind of measurement for ride height?

Ed

[Jim Cannon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RivNut</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Anyone out there have a crash sheet on these cars that would give some kind of measurement for ride height?</div></div>

Chassis Shop Manual has a section on measuring ride height.

1963 and 1964: page 7-19, Section 7-13, Fig. 7-17

1965: page 7-22, Section 7-13, Fig. 7-22

These do not have measurement from ground to top arc of wheel openings... that would be too easy.

My Dad replaced front springs on my '63 Riv a few years before I got the car. They are too tall. I replaced the rear springs a few years ago, because with the front so high it made the rear look droopy. Although I was told by the vendor (ESPO Springs 'n Things) that the rear springs were correct for the Riviera, they are not... they must be for some other, heavier, full size Buick. At least the car LOOKS level now... but it is too high front and rear. I will be replacing them all again at some point, at the same time I rebuild the front suspension.

The only good deal in all this is that we can fill up the car with people and luggage and not scrape the exhaust system on driveways of gas stations and hotels!

[tim63riv]

Jim,

Thanks for your reply! That is a major concern for me because some Riv's with new springs do seem very high. Being a street rodder, I have cut front coils in the past to get the nose down attitude I was looking for, but rear coils usually have a conical taper at the ends that defies that type of "modification." I will have to check with Eaton Spring and see what they say.

Thanks,

Tim McCluskey

[RivNut]

Tim,

I remember when I put a rake on my '55 Chevy back in the early 60's. I took it to a welding shop and the owner put some heat to the coils until they dropped the car to the point I wanted it. He did a couple of coils in the front and one in the rear. The small coil on the top of the spring is what gives you the initial bounce to give you that really smooth ride; the larger coils in the body soak up the larger jolts. Perhaps if you'd collapse some of the center of the coil, you could still some of the ride you're after but get the car sitting at the height you want. After heating the coils, I didn't notice any real difference in the ride of my '55 (not much to begin with) except for railroad tracks and other bigger obstacles.

Chances are that some metalugist will now tell me how unsafe that was. I'd like to know, perhaps, how lucky I was.

Ed

[65Riviera]

Tim,

I would go with stock springs in the car. If you have the car sitting for the winter, put the springs in as soon as possible. Load the car up with some items to get some extra weight in the trunk and passenger compartment. Let the springs settle for a couple months. Once they have settled, take them out of the car and trim the springs a half a coil at a time using a cut off wheel (do not use a torch or plasma cutter). I haven't had the springs out of my car yet so I'm not sure what shape they are. If they are a consistent diameter or have one end that is a consistent diameter trim at that end. Do not trim at the end that has a conical shape or "pig tail". This will give you the ride height you desire, as well as increase the effective spring rate of the springs. Which will improve handling a bit. If you start with the GS springs you will end up with a slightly firmer ride, which probably won't be very pleasant with cheap stock replacement shocks.

I'd recommend finding a set of Koni red shocks that will work with the riv. This may be difficult since I believe Koni only has applications listed back to 66. If you measure your stock shocks and find out the fully extended and then compressed lengths I'm sure you can cross reference that to a Koni Shock.

The new springs and shocks will make your riv feel like a whole different animal. I'm sure ride the will be fairly pleasant as long as you go with the koni which will be able to handle the increased spring rate. The long wheel base of the car also helps smooth things out a bit.

Ed,

Heating the springs to get your ride height is not a good idea. This takes the temper or spring out of the steel. Now instead of a spring, you'll have a brittle piece of metal supporting the car. Over time this will lead to premature failure and depending on when it does fail it could lead to a pretty nasty accident. So consider yourself lucky. By the way I'm a Mechanical Engineer.

-Scott

By the way. Detroit Spring is really overpriced for what you are getting. Check with your local auto parts store, they more than likely can supply you with a part or a cross reference part number.

[Jim Cannon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 65Riviera</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By the way. Detroit Spring is really overpriced for what you are getting. Check with your local auto parts store, they more than likely can supply you with a part or a cross reference part number. </div></div>

What you say about price may be true, but I have not been able to find the correct springs locally. And it seems like everyone lumps all full-size Buick springs into a single part number, which makes them too tall for the Riviera. Now, if you are going to start cutting the ends off half coil at a time, then perhaps it does not matter.

My '63 rear springs came to a smaller diameter at both ends, which prevents you from cutting the ends and then anchoring it again.

[RivNut]

Jim,

Like I said, I was lucky; that was when I was 16. I've transposed those numbers now and every so often I look upward and say "Thank you" when I think about some of the stupid stuff I did when I was a kid in order to have a "Kool Kar" on what I made at that age.

[tim63riv]

Ed,

I think you and a couple of hundred thousand other guys did the lowering job with the "fire wrench" back in the day. Most survived!

I don't know yet what I'll do about the springs, as like Jim C. says, the rears appear too tall and they taper top and bottom, so the trimming with the cut off wheel is not an option. Has any one out there installed a GS rate and height spring into a 63? Let me know!

Thanks,

Tim

[tim63riv]

Hi Guys,

Thought I would freshen up this post with some "detective" work I have done. General conclusions have been that the replacement "off-the-shelf" Riviera springs are too tall. I searched NAPAonline.com and Rock Auto both last night and found out why. I pulled up 63 Riv on NAPA and 63 Electra 225 in a search for front springs. They list a 2771132 as the front springs for BOTH cars! NAPA doesn't show a listing for rear springs!

Rock Auto lists a Spicer 5851001, a Husky RC 5030 and a Moog 5030 as front springs for a 63 Riviera, ditto with a couple more part numbers available for a 63 Electra! They also list a "heavy duty" rear spring for the 63 Riviera as a Husky RC 5035, which, you guessed it, crosses over to a "normal" rear spring for the 63 Electra! Don't know what I am going to end up with, but Eaton Detroit spring looks better all the time!

Tim

[Jim Cannon]

Tim-

Your results are consistent with what I found and do explain a lot. I would sure like to hear how it goes for you with the Eaton Detroit springs so that when I replace all of the springs AGAIN on my '63, I will know if I should use them.

Here's an interesting factoid: the '63 Buick Master Chassis Parts Book lists 2 different front spring part numbers for the Riviera, one for A/C-equipped cars and one for non-A/C. So how about that? They even considered the added weight of the compressor, larger cooling system, and condenser on the front of the car. I wonder if Eaton has both designs in their files???

Similarly, the Book shows 3 different rear spring numbers for the Riviera: normal, 200# overload, and 500# overload.

No other '63 Buick used the same spring part number as the Riviera standard rear spring.

However, the standard 4829-4867 model rear spring is the SAME part number as the 500# overload spring on the Riviera. I can see how someone might pull a standard full-size model spring out and sell it for all full size Buicks of that era. They would be wrong.

[tim63riv]

HI Guys,

Got in touch with the Eaton Spring "guru" and he confirmed some things for me. No, the Electra and Riviera sprimgs are not the same. The Riviera front springs are available in stock height and 1 inch lower, $149 and $169 respectively. Rears are available in stock height only and are specific to the Riviera, they cost $229. That's what I know for now!

Tim

[Jolly_John]

Hi, Tim. Are the Eaton prices you listed above per pair, or per spring? Thanks for the help you're giving all of us! Best, John in Wisconsin

[Jim Cannon]

Great info, Tim! Thanks!

Let me know how your car sits if you decide to get the Eaton springs, particularly with the stock height springs. A measure from the ground to the upper edge of the front and rear wheel openings would sure help.

John, springs are routinely priced per pair, so I'm pretty sure that these are.

[tim63riv]

Hi John & Jim,

Those prices are per pair of springs. Shipping is extra, and I would imagine shipping heavy springs would be a sizeable charge, too. I'm more than happy to share what I find out and if I come up with any other options out there, I'll let you know!

Thanks,

Tim

[tim63riv]

Hi Guys,

The rear springs from Eaton showed up today and I hope to have them in the car in the very near future! Have to get it ready for MSRA's Back to the 50's weekend, followed closely by a trip south to Galena!

Take Care,

Tim

[Jim Cannon]

Tim-

I am very interested in the ride height of your car after you get these springs in. My '63 sits too high all around and I was planning to use Eaton springs to replace them all. Yours will be the first test for me if they "get it right".

[Guest Tom_Jakups]

Hi Jim,

I was interested in your comments about your Riv sitting too high. I looked at your photos and the car seemed to sit fine. Then I saw the last one where your car is facing your friend Geno's. It definitely looks to me that Geno's car sits lower. It seems to sit the same height as mine. I replaced my springs in 1999 and used CARS. I also put in gas shocks at the same time. I always thought my Riv sat low; it was much lower than my '63 Chevy, but I always thought it was a design feature of the Riviera. Always had to be careful on speed bumps and dips in the road-scraped the resonators a few times.

Tom

[Jim Cannon]

Tom-

I have no doubt my car sits about 1 inch high all around. In the photo you refer to, Geno's car is on stock springs all around.

There is an illustration in the shop manual that shows where to measure rise height front and rear.

An inch too much in the rear, at the place they tell you to measure, equals an inch too tall in the body.

It's not so straightforward in the front. It appears that, because of the geometry, that a small difference in the measurement there equals a larger difference in body height.

The original Riv rides pretty close to the ground. The '63 factory assembly manual quotes a ground clearance of 5.71 inches under the exhaust pipe under the drivers seat, 6.54 inches at the bottom of the muffler, and 5.84 inches at the bottom of the resonators. It is easy to drag the lowest bits of the exhaust on the ground or speed bumps. That is the only good thing about my "high rider"... I don't drag on anything now.

[tim63riv]

The spring results are in! My original measurement with old springs was 22 3/4 inches to the bottom of the rear wheel opening. With the new springs the measurement is 24 5/8 inch, so I gained 1 7/8 inch. Best of all, the car looks right! The tires are 215/75 15's, so your measurements may be different.

Take Care,

Tim

[Jim Cannon]

My rear wheel opening is 25 7/8 inch above the ground. My tires are are 215/75 15 also. I happen to know I only have about 1/4 tank of gas right now. Car might ride a touch lower with a full tank, but not much.

So it sounds like Eaton knows how to make the rear springs right.

Did you put new springs in the front? If so, what is the height to the wheel opening up there?

[tim63riv]

Jim,

Overall I was very impressed with Eaton's product and their customer service. Because of the cost and the "unknowns", I chose to just do the rear springs for the time being, but when I do replace them, I'll go with Eaton again.

Tim

[Jim Cannon]

Tim-

Measuring in the same manner you did in the back, how high above the floor is the top of your wheel opening in the front right now, with your existing springs?

[tim63riv]

Jim,

Sorry for the delay, been getting the car ready for Back to the 50's weekend this weekend and of course Galena next week. My current measurement at the front is 25 1/8. I'm sure the front springs are not what they were originally!

Tim