When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Looking to open my wallet on this '69 but the back tire gap to fender looks huge. Is that correct? My 1981 is only 3". Looks like a smaller tire but seller says no. What would cause this? Seller doesn't know either when brought to his attention. Maybe altered to accommodate non OEM side pipes?
My '68 looked the same way after I rebuilt the steel rear spring pack. Fill the tank with gasoline/carry what you normally would in the cargo area/install the spare tire (unless you prefer not to have a spare).
Then adjust the gap to the level you prefer. (70 series tires would be the original diameter)
you could install larger diameter tires to "fill" the wheel wells after you have done the things mentioned above.
IMO
Looks like small tires to me also.
what size are they?
Most people around here run 255/60/15 or 225/70/15, which are both similar to stock diameter.
You could easily drop the rear end if it is jacked up.
Looks like small tires to me also.
what size are they?
Most people around here run 255/60/15 or 225/70/15, which are both similar to stock diameter.
You could easily drop the rear end if it is jacked up.
This is not right and wouldn't necessarily keep me from being a buyer as long as I knew (with some certainty) what the issue was. Significant rust would be my biggest concern.
There's something going on with the suspension, but could be something related to the frame. I'm betting that it's a service spring or new spring etc. I've yet to see a new steel spring that brings the car down to a correct ride height. In addition to the new spring, installation could be a factor as well, but would have a minimal impact (full weight of car on spring before torquing the bolts ect). So, check the geometry of the half shafts - they should be about level. If you have the AIM you can check the actual specs. I had issues on my 69 car with new springs and ultimately went to a Van Steel #330 composite spring to get my car down to the right height. I could have used 8" bolts but just decided to upgrade the suspension all together. For reference, measuring from the floor to center of wheel well it was at about 31". WAY to high. Right now I'm at 28 1/4". And, I'm using the 6" bolts - I could the 8" but I was able to get the suspension geometry correct with the stock bolts, #330lbs spring, and Bilstein SP shocks. It COULD be a frame issue too...poorly installed diff crossmember....3 inches of shims??? I suspect a crappy rear spring.
Steel spring - full weight was not on the car yet, but it did not change much... Composite spring and was prior to any adjustment and the SP shocks.
Ok look at nix 2 pics. You see the diff in driveshaft angle? The closer to straight the better. Post a pic of the car you are thinking about from the same angle.
I had a similar issue with my '74 when I got it, sat real high in the rear even with a full tank etc. the seller told me it always sat like that (he was the 3rd owner). after a lot of investigating I found out the car must have been "curbed" on the rear passenger side due to numerous parts replaced in the rear passenger side (incorrectly) one of those was the rear leaf spring. It was a 9 leaf but they used a 78 and up 2.250". from what I found out the later 9 leaf had more spring tension then the earlier 9 leaf's I forget the reason? I was able to pick up a like new/used 2" -7 leaf and put that in and the car sits perfect for me now, I also changed out the end bolts with longer ones adjusted down so I can always bring it up if I wanted. 1st pic is how I got the car with the wrong 9 leaf in the rear, second pic is with the 7 leaf.
I had a similar issue with my '74 when I got it, sat real high in the rear even with a full tank etc. the seller told me it always sat like that (he was the 3rd owner). after a lot of investigating I found out the car must have been "curbed" on the rear passenger side due to numerous parts replaced in the rear passenger side (incorrectly) one of those was the rear leaf spring. It was a 9 leaf but they used a 78 and up 2.250". from what I found out the later 9 leaf had more spring tension then the earlier 9 leaf's I forget the reason? I was able to pick up a like new/used 2" -7 leaf and put that in and the car sits perfect for me now, I also changed out the end bolts with longer ones adjusted down so I can always bring it up if I wanted. 1st pic is how I got the car with the wrong 9 leaf in the rear, second pic is with the 7 leaf.
This looks great! My 69 sits up way to high in the back. It's no even either, but I haven't figured out exactly what the issue is. At some point I'm going to mess with the spring to see if I can get it down another couple inches. I've got 8" bolts on it, but it only helped a little.
I had a similar issue with my '74 when I got it, sat real high in the rear even with a full tank etc. the seller told me it always sat like that (he was the 3rd owner). after a lot of investigating I found out the car must have been "curbed" on the rear passenger side due to numerous parts replaced in the rear passenger side (incorrectly) one of those was the rear leaf spring. It was a 9 leaf but they used a 78 and up 2.250". from what I found out the later 9 leaf had more spring tension then the earlier 9 leaf's I forget the reason? I was able to pick up a like new/used 2" -7 leaf and put that in and the car sits perfect for me now, I also changed out the end bolts with longer ones adjusted down so I can always bring it up if I wanted. 1st pic is how I got the car with the wrong 9 leaf in the rear, second pic is with the 7 leaf.
Hello Lyndwood, sent you a PM regarding your 74.....thanks Tom
'69 Back Tire Height (gap)
