1963-65 body height/stance

[KongaMan]

I'm trying to sort out this whole body height/spring issue.  To that end, I wanted to get a comparison between the car as it is now and one in the "proper" configuration.  As a visual aid, I've attached 3 pictures: a 64, a 63 from the Buick brochure, and some random 63 from the interwebs.  Each picture has two horizontal lines: a white one across the centers of the wheels, and a red one across the top of the front bumper.  I figure this should provide some continuity between the three.

 

The picture from the brochure shows a car with the door/fender crease just a bit above the center of the hubs.  The 64 has the crease at approximately the same height in front, but further above the hub in the rear; it has a noticeable nose-down posture.  The 63 on the street seems to be sitting level, but considerably higher; the body crease is well above the center of the hubs.

 

There are several variables here, such as springs, shocks, tires, and body mounts.  One might suppose that springs are the biggest factor; setting the height is part of what they are designed to do.  Similarly, the shocks may lift or drop the car a small bit, but one wouldn't think that they'll provide a significant change.  Radial tires will decrease the ground clearance and lower the body, but they shouldn't affect the relationship between the frame and the body.  Finally, old and squished body mounts might drop the body a little bit closer to the frame, but they won't affect ground clearance.

 

So...

- How do your cars sit?  That 63 in the brochure looks a bit low to me -- but one might suppose that a picture from the original brochure would show the correct height.

- If you've replaced your springs, what kind of springs are you using?  Remember, it doesn't do any good to order springs to "make the car sit an inch higher than it does now"; you first need to know how the car compares to factory height.

- If you've replaced your body mounts, how much extra height did that give you?

- Any concrete measurements of ground clearance from known points on the frame?  We know the Assembly Manual specifies clearance from various places on the exhaust, but that seems a bit imprecise after 50 years and several new pipes.  Similarly, the under-car measurements from the FSM (especially for the front) seem a bit off-point.

- Any good measurements from the ground to the top of the wheel wells?  As pointed out in another thread, this seems the most obvious way to set and compare body height.

- What is the sidewall height of your tires when properly inflated, what size are they, and are they radials or bias-ply?

- And if you have side-on pictures to accompany those measurements, that would be a very good way to associate a look with the numbers.

 

I know I'm asking for a lot of info, but perhaps we can get this sussed once and for all if we get enough data.

 

Thanks.

 

64:

 

63 Buick brochure:

 

Random 63:

[EmTee]

I hate to further complicate the matter, but I believe the height of the camera lens above the ground will affect the relationship between the wheel centers and the body line.  In the case of the 'Random 63' the camera seems to have been closer to the ground, so the shot is looking up at the car.  A better reference would be the distance between the top of the tire/wheel bead and the top of the wheel opening.  FYI, the shop manual should contain the stock specifications for distance between particular frame reference points and the ground.  Those measurements show my '64 GP (which has new springs & shocks installed by the previous owner) is sitting about an inch higher than OEM.  I'm considering what I'm going to do to get it sitting closer to stock...

[60FlatTop]

Here is my car and it sits the way that appeals most to me. My key is the rocker panel parallel to the ground. The tires are 7.10 X 15 Deluxe Champions. All the body mounts are new. It has gas shocks all the way around with slight upward pressure. And I usually have a full tank of gas. I think it is right on in front and about 3/4" high in the rear. Probably due to ethanol being lighter than real gas.

 

The springs are all about 15 years old in the picture. The fronts are MOOG from NAPA, about $100 for the pair. The rears are from a specialty company, maybe Just Suspension, or a name like that. They are supposed to be OEM spec and I paid about $200 for the pair. Cheaper ones make the car way too high. I have had some.

The wheel arch body mounts carry a lot of weight and the originals were quite crushed.

 

I need to note that all the suspension bushings are new, as well. The front lower inner and the rear lower control arm rubbers were slightly ovaled. The front more than the rear.

It is possible the brochure picture is of a car that was pulled down a bit for the long, low look of the time.

 

 

Bernie

Edited September 15, 2016 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[smithbrother]

IMO there needs to be a very slight rake to the front, SLIGHT.

 

That way you are always going down hill, and will get better MPG,   hehe

 

Dale in Indy

[Seafoam65]

               You can't go by any pictures unless you know how much gas was in the gas tank when the picture was taken.

My car looks completely different in the rear when the tank is full vs. empty.

[KongaMan]

3 hours ago, Seafoam65 said:

               You can't go by any pictures unless you know how much gas was in the gas tank when the picture was taken.

My car looks completely different in the rear when the tank is full vs. empty.

Sure you can.  Remember, the object here is to see what a car looks like at a specific height.  If you see a picture of a car that is 24" from the ground to the top of the rear wheel well, then you know what a car looks like at that height.  How he got to that height may be instructive, but it may also be different than what you have to do.

 

If that's what you like, that's your target.  The question then becomes how to get there.  So, you measure your car and start ciphering.  Maybe a full gas tank drops the rear end 1/4" from empty.  Maybe it's 1/2".  I dunno off the top of my head, but that should be easy enough to figure out (run it to empty, put your wife in the trunk, and measure the difference).  Or maybe you just put half a tank in it and use that as your benchmark.

 

Once you know where you are, start eliminating variables.  Are your bushings new or old?  Will you gain any height by changing them?  Body mounts?  Shocks?  Seems to me that you'd want to take care of all of that first.  For example, if your bushings are worn but you don't know what difference new ones will make, change them first, then work off of those measurements.  What you don't want to do is install springs to get to your ideal height, then change a bunch of pieces to screw it all up.

 

Where the gas tank does come into pay (and where you need to know the "correct" height) is ordering replacement springs.   Suppose you've changed bushings, shocks, and mounts.  You measure the car and decide you want it to be 2" higher in the front.  You still don't know what springs to order, because you don't know what stock springs would do.  And that is why you need to try to determine what the stock height is/was.

 

FYI, the 1963 Chassis Manual lists the roof to road height as 53.2" with a 4-passenger load (1964 manual says 53").  OTOH, spring trim dimensions are with the car at both curb weight ("gas, oil, water, and spare tire but no passengers") and normal load ("2 passengers in front seat, 1 passenger in rear seat").  There's a .7" difference between the two for the front and a 1.14-1.45" difference in the rear (depending on design vs. actual spec).  It also notes that one should add 3/8" to the height for a new car as compared to one with service miles.  If you add all of that up, you come up with something a little over 54" roof to road for a car with new springs and suspension rubber at curb weight.  Of course, that doesn't allow for radial tires.

Edited September 15, 2016 by KongaMan (see edit history)

[RivNut]

That is not a 63 commercial.  That car is riding on the rally wheels which were not available on a Riviera until 1965.

[jframe]

Not to mention the incorrect exhaust, and the "by Buick" emblem on the fender, which I THINK wasn't used until '67 or so. That's what's cool about the first gen cars; I get a LOT of people stop me because they don't know what it IS. Very few signs on the car proclaiming "Buick" anywhere other than the glovebox lid.

[RivNut]

I would use the measurement between the wheel arch and the top of the wheel, not the tire, nor the white sidewall.  Two steel items that have a mechanical relationship to each other.  A lot of factory "renditions" accentuate certain lines and do accurately represent what you'd find in a picture of a real car.

 

Tires are different sizes, and have different profiles.  Old springs sag.  Find a car that you think looks like what you'd like to have your car look at and try to replicate it.  "There ain't goin' to be no judge, with no tape measure checking the ride height of your car."

 

As I look back at the pictures, I think that if you were to draw a straight line through the bottom chrome strip and extend it through the center of the wheel cover (like Bernie's and the blue car) you'd be really close.

[KongaMan]

Bernie's car is pretty close to what I would associate with the original height.  I do think that the car from the 63 brochure is a little lower than stock, as is the not-a-63 from the alleged ad.  Similarly, the black 63 looks (to my eye and from that angle) as if it sits a little high.

 

Because I'm lazy, I don't want to tear the front end apart twice.  However, it would be nice to know what increase (if any) you get just from replacing the bushings or body mounts so I can factor that in to the spring specs without having to change the rubber, put it back together, measure it, then tear it apart again to install the springs.  Does anyone have before and measurements from changing those while keeping the same springs?

 

Or maybe I'm just overthinking this and should just replace the rubber and buy stock springs...

 

[RivNut]

27 minutes ago, KongaMan said:

Or maybe I'm just overthinking this and should just replace the rubber and buy stock springs...

 

Amen!

 

PS - My bad, I meant the gray scale photo, not the blue car.  The lower chrome strip on it aligns with the center of the wheel covers.

Edited September 16, 2016 by RivNut (see edit history)

[KongaMan]

5 hours ago, RivNut said:

Amen!

 

PS - My bad, I meant the gray scale photo, not the blue car.  The lower chrome strip on it aligns with the center of the wheel covers.

Well...   I'd like to get front springs that bring the car level using the existing rear springs, which puts that chrome strip a bit above the wheel centers.  Will stock springs do that?  I dunno; that's what this is all about.

 

However, perhaps this should be approached from a different angle.  Seems to me that maybe the stock height doesn't matter; what you need to specify isn't "stock" or "+1" or whatever, but the installed height that will get you what you want.  Whoever makes the springs should know both the load on the springs and the spring rate.  From there, it's a simple calculation.  Example: you want to raise the front of the car 2" and get a stiffer spring.  Your installed springs are compressed to a height of 12".  So, you need to order springs with an installed height of 14".  If the spring has a load of 1200 lbs. and you specify a spring rate of 500 lb/in (i.e. the H2 springs), that means you need springs with a free height of 16.4".  If you want softer springs (say 400 lb/in), you would need springs with a free height of 17".  The key here is to know the load on the springs.  Everything else falls into place after that.

 

If you know the load on the springs, you can probably predict fairly accurately how a given set of springs will work in your car.  Another example: Moog 5396 is listed for a non-AC 63-65.  It has a free height of 17.31" and a rate of 391 lb/in.  Suppose a non-AC car has a load of 1100 lb while an AC car has a load of 1200 lb.  That means that this spring will effectively provide a .25" drop in an AC car.  Or a third example:  Moog 5030 is listed for an AC car.  It has a free height of 17.05" and a spring rate of 421 lb/in.  If you installed that spring on a non-AC car (1100 lb load), it would give you about .25" of extra lift in the front.

 

BTW, Autozone sells the Duralast FCS5030S spring (same specs as the Moog 5030) for $39.99/pair.  I have no idea who makes these springs, but I bought a Duralast tie rod end the other day that was made by Federal Mogul (who owns Moog).  So, maybe they're the Moog springs.  Perhaps a helpful Autozoner could provide some clarity.

 

 

[EmTee]

My opinion: the issue isn't so much the advertised specs -- it's the manufacturer's testing and quality control that matters.  Subtle variations in the manufacturing process can yield different spring rate and/or installed ride height.  I need to replace the springs in my '67 and I'm willing to pay more to get springs from a source others have used with good results.  I may be mistaken, but I'll bet the $39 Autozone springs are 'seconds' which may deviate from the OEM specs, but people buying those springs for their $500 winter 'beater' are unlikely to complain if the stance of their 1987 Caprice is 1" too high or low...

Edited September 17, 2016 by EmTee (see edit history)

[petelempert]

My two cents:

 

First, don't use anything you see in an ad or a factory brochure as a reference point. I'm in the business and can confidently tell you that marketing people routinely retouch photography to make the car look lower, leaner, more aggressive...whatever the intended aesthetic was supposed to be. Ads and brochures for domestic cars, particularly the late sixties, rarely resemble the car as it actually sat on the pavement in real life. I do work for Chrysler and you would be amazed at the various tricks we use today to make a Challenger look less chunky, a Charger look less like a sedan and a RAM look more like a Peterbuilt.

 

Second, generally speaking I only see two "stances" on vintage first generation Rivs. Slightly nose up stance on original/unrestored cars dues to wear and slightly sagging suspension. Slightly nose down stance on restored cars with new body mounts, springs, shocks, tires etc. Leads me to think that from the factory they probably had a little nose up to them. Just an opinion. What do I know, I was in a crib back then. PRL

 

[steelman]

Agree with Pete. This is my 63 the day I bought it. 100,000 miles, been in storage 15 years, no records of any changes to the suspension, and I got a ton of paperwork with this car showing anything done to it since new. Note the nose up attitude. I think 63s sit higher than 64s, at least from the pictures I have looked, just judging where the whitewall is in relation to the fender lips. Back is about right, but the front seems at least an inch too high, maybe even 2. Even if my intent was to keep this car all stock, and I have not, I would have lower the front 1-1 1/2". This may not help anything you are looking to do.

 

[KongaMan]

3 hours ago, steelman said:

Agree with Pete. This is my 63 the day I bought it. 100,000 miles, been in storage 15 years, no records of any changes to the suspension, and I got a ton of paperwork with this car showing anything done to it since new. Note the nose up attitude. I think 63s sit higher than 64s, at least from the pictures I have looked, just judging where the whitewall is in relation to the fender lips. Back is about right, but the front seems at least an inch too high, maybe even 2. Even if my intent was to keep this car all stock, and I have not, I would have lower the front 1-1 1/2". This may not help anything you are looking to do.

 

Ya see, I think that's a good look.  The body crease seems to be a bit above the wheel centers, and the nose up attitude isn't glaringly obvious.  The common thing seems to be to lower these cars, but (IMHO) the car looks "livelier" when it's up just a little a bit.

 

Have you measured from the ground to the body (bottom of the rocker panels, molding, or top of wheel wells)?  As mentioned earlier, measurements from the hub center or rim to the top of the wheel well would give better info on the springs independent of the tires.

 

BTW, if you drop the front 1.5", you might end up looking like the blue car in the OP.  ;)

[RivNut]

I think the nose up "attitude" comes from the lines of the front fenders.  The rocker panels and the long stainless piece of trim seem to be parallel to the ground.  The way the grill leans forward will also give the appearance of a higher front end. 

 

Ed

[jframe]

This is my stock 65 with original springs and shocks. May give you a bit of a reference point.

[fatbuick]

Measuring the Rockers to the ground I like the rear to be 1/2" to 3/4" higher. Since having new rear springs made locally (Australia) the rear doesn't sag when you add fuel and luggage so much. They are made with less coils from a thicker dia material. The ride is still good and not harsh. My wheels are 16" dia

 

[petelempert]

Ed makes a good point. The body lines, especially the "hooded headlights" or lean forward look as he described tend to make the front end look a little nose high regardless of the suspension. That design detail really contributes to an aggressive, shark-like, even lunging stance. Not exactly the most aerodynamic design, but pretty cool. If you see a early Riv traveling at speed, you'll really notice the nose up attitude because of all the wind being forced under the front end. You see the same design throughout 60's Mustangs and even later 80's model 6 series BMW's. I have an 07 GT Mustang and it has the same hooded look, but when viewed from the side you realize the headlights, grill etc are actually vertical, making the car more aerodynamic. Its a neat design trick. It's all part of a very gradual shift in automotive design from grill dominated cars to the droop nosed cars of today. Old cars needed a tall upright radiator to cool, the design was dominated by the air intake need and most of those cars looked very "nose up". Todays cars are mostly bottom breathers. The shift in cooling needs, lower engine height and aerodynamic advances have really affected the design language, which is  the way it should be. I love this stuff. PRL

 

[RivNut]

One thing you should probably consider is this: is the plane of the intake manifold at the carb mounting surface level, as in removing get the carb and placing get a level across the surface.  Could make a difference in the performance of the car because of the float levels in the carb.  Someshing worth considering? The carb mounting surface is not parallel to the center line of the crankshaft.?

[petelempert]

So Ed. Are you saying the "carb mounting surface" affects stance? Whatcu talkin bout Willis? PRL
 

[RivNut]

No, I'm saying that performance may be affected by stance. The carb needs to set level so the floats in the carb are positioned properly.  The engine is mounted in the car slanted down at the back so the driveshaft sits low under the floor.  The carb mounting surface is cast to offset this slant and sit the carb level, as in bubble level.

 

[60FlatTop]

Being older I got it. The angle of the driveshaft, transmission, and crankshaft are all pretty much in line. If the angle is 8 to 10 degrees above the horizontal the manifold should be machined to keep the carburetor level. So slap a level on the bare manifold and expect it level. If it is not level refer to post #3 and do all the things with all the proper parts that I did to mine. I didn't include that I have new motor and transmission mounts.

 

I was digging around in the garage for the old body mounts to get a few pictures. All that squishy stuff gets shorter after 50 years.

 

Bernie

[KongaMan]

2 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

Being older I got it. The angle of the driveshaft, transmission, and crankshaft are all pretty much in line. If the angle is 8 to 10 degrees above the horizontal the manifold should be machined to keep the carburetor level. So slap a level on the bare manifold and expect it level. If it is not level refer to post #3 and do all the things with all the proper parts that I did to mine. I didn't include that I have new motor and transmission mounts.

 

I was digging around in the garage for the old body mounts to get a few pictures. All that squishy stuff gets shorter after 50 years.

 

Bernie

By intent or accident, you've got to the heart of the matter here.

 

This whole thing started because I wanted to address a general looseness in the steering.  I figured that as long as the front end was apart, that would be the time to fix the sagging springs as well.

 

As it turns out, fixing it "right" involves quite a bit more.  Essentially, you should replace all of the structural rubber to establish a solid foundation upon which to work.  For the height, that means body mounts, rear control arm bushings, lower control arm bushings, and spring insulators.  Fixing the steering and handling argues for replacing the track arm bushings, upper control arm bushings, sway bar bushings, and stabilizer links.  It's got nothing to do with steering or stance, but you might also find that replacing the motor and transmission mounts would help to smooth out vibrations as well.  After you've done all that, you still haven't addressed critical steering components (e.g. ball joints, tie rod ends, etc.) or suspension (e.g. springs and shocks) that are what you were looking at to begin with.

 

None of this work is to be unexpected (as they're all generally considered to be replaceable wear items), and none of the work is particularly difficult (profanity notwithstanding).  However, it does point out the nature of the beast: a certain amount of mission creep is inevitable.  And there's a certain amount that's optional.  Do you clean and paint all the parts you pull off (control arms, knuckles, etc.)?  Since the rear axle is all but disconnected do you pull it and paint it too?  Do you drain and/or rebuild the differential while it's easily accessible?  Seems to me that's what adds the time.  The mechanical work is straightforward enough; it's often the cosmetic work that turns a 3-day job into a 3-week job.

 

On the bright side, you'll never have to touch this stuff again, and you'll have a much better driving car as a result.  Isn't driving it the reason you bought it to begin with?

 

[60FlatTop]

The bright side is that I bought the car when I was 30, did all that work when I was 45, and my wife is going back to work for a library program tonight. I'm going out to test drive a BMW 650i coupe that may need some squishy parts replaced around 2030. My birthday is 5 days away.

Bernie

[KongaMan]

Well...  I bought this car at 19, and I'm way over 45 now.

 

I don't like to rush into things.

[rodneybeauchamp]

You might wish to find a copy of the Buick Dealer Service Information letter 62-71 December 20 1962.

 

Title is New Trim Dimensions.

 

To summarise, a change was made to springs to help with heavy loads and reduce bottoming, and the appearance has the rear end higher than the front. They are suggesting that a full tank of gas, the level appearance is restored.

 

For 4747 front coil spring 

curb weight 4.85" normal load 4.14"

 

rear spring 4747

curb weight 6.42" normal load 4.97

 

normal load is 3 passengers, 2 in front, 1 in back

 

Bulletin has several diagrams with dimensions, etc.

 

Jim Cannon has the full set of bulletins available, they are his copyright so I won't reproduce any. Worth a look!

 

Hope this helps some!