leaf springs

Camaro Forums Camaro Classifieds Photo Gallery Members Search Forum FAQ Contact CF Sponsors
Camaro News Camaro Timeslips Camaro Recalls TSBs Register Login

leaf springs

Printable Version

Camaro >> Camaro Models >> 1st Generation >> V8 Tech >> leaf springs

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

leaf springs - 6/20/2008 4:34:31 AM

jenz

Posts: 7
Score: 0
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline

My 67 Camaro I''m restoring origanally came equiped with mono leaf springs. It is standard camaro, no RS or Z28. It has a 327 with 300hp. I''m a bit confused whether to stay with the mono like it was origanally, or go to multi leaf springs. I do not plan on doing any racing, just show and drive. What are you thoughts as to what I should do? A vendor I spoke with yesterday was surprised that I was wanting to stay with monos because most everybody was converting to multi. Your suggestions please.

Post #: 1

RE: leaf springs - 6/24/2008 4:26:28 PM

Spiffav8

Posts: 4
Score: 0
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

It all depends on what you want to do with the car. It doesn''t sound like performance, ride quality or ride height are a consideration for you. If that''s the case then the mono leaf springs will work just fine. I upgraded to Global Wests L2CAT5s on my 67 and it has improved in all the areas I mentioned. Prior to doing so I had a set of mono leafs with Blistien shocks and it was heads above most stock cars.

The most popular springs these days seem to be Global West and DSE. Both offer some good selections.

Good luck.

(in reply to jenz)

Post #: 2

RE: leaf springs - 9/30/2008 11:30:16 AM

69dmz

Posts: 69
Score: 0
Joined: 7/28/2006
Status: offline

I had my passenger rear shock mount give away in which I jacked up the air shocks. I replaced my mono leafs
with 5 leaf springs, ply bushings,3rd gen rear shock plates, and monroe shocks. The plates are alot thicker and stronger.
It has been a month now and alot better ride without any problems.

< Message edited by 69dmz -- 9/30/2008 11:31:33 AM >

(in reply to Spiffav8)

Post #: 3