EM Rear Suspension VV Archived [Archive]

Joe West

05-10-2005, 06:10 AM

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

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:16:44 -0500

From: "jeffrey & gayle angelli" <gangelli@worldnet.att.net>

<VV> wagon rear suspension mods

hi guys ,as i work on the fitch wagon i find the rear camber at neg 4 deg

with the fitch springs ,i know they were`nt meant for the greater weight of

the wagon but they are originals,now handling is great,rear end is awful low

though ,i have thought of ways to get up to neg 2 deg which should still

handle well but give me some space between the car and ground and save the

tires a bit . rubber spacers are easiest but kind of cheasy,bolt type

expanders won`t fit and are just as cheasy,now i discovered while doing a

heater hose and oil change mr claypool had replaced the 62 diff for the

previous owner with a 64 diff,thanks larry !! i have a spare 64 cross

spring,question ,how do i mount the spring to the a-arms easiest without

replacing them with 64 models ? i think this mod will work well the fitch

springs are pretty soft like 64 models and the wagons extra weight helps to

compress them more ,i could have the spring de-arched if necessary .what do

you think ? the front is stock cut one coil with quick arms but is still 1

inch higher than back . i also got a line on an avanti from ebay ,i bid as

a lark <gg> and tied the high bid ,a 69 with 350/300 vette power auto trans

air etc,good condition rust free frame from caifornia and green . 4,850$

!!!! what a bargain ,but i have to wait to see if bidder number one can

swing it on monday ,if not i am up to bat .any idea on shipping cost from

cali to new york for a car ? vair content added ,both avanti and vair

were ahead of their time and failed. jeff angelli 62 fitch wagon,mad

platypus race brier ,66 monza convert going into hibernation,69 avanti???

Joe West

05-10-2005, 06:15 AM

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

Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 08:51:54 -0600

From: "Mark Sutton" <suttonmk@earthlink.net>

<VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

Jeff wrote:

i could have the spring de-arched if necessary .what do

you think ?

I think it would be less expensive, easier and not at all cheasy to use

longer than stock grade 8 bolts to attach the end of the '64 leaf. If you

went this route, you could tune the height better (longer bolts = lower car)

by useing different bolt lengths. Also you could change the bolts if you

ever wanted to auto-x the car and needed the extra negative camber.

Mark Sutton

Joe West

05-10-2005, 06:18 AM

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

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:32:42 -0600

From: "Rick & Janet Norris" <ricjan@earth1.net>

Re: <VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

Mark,

The longer bolts on the ends of the leaf spring works. I had that on my dune

buggy with 63 suspension.

We could adjust it between autocrossing and street.

Rick Norris

Joe West

05-10-2005, 06:19 AM

- -----Original Message-----

From: Mark Sutton <suttonmk@earthlink.net>

To: virtualvairs@skiblack.com <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Date: Saturday, November 06, 1999 9:23 AM

<VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

>Jeff wrote:

>i could have the spring de-arched if necessary .what do

>you think ?

>

>I think it would be less expensive, easier and not at all cheasy to use

>longer than stock grade 8 bolts to attach the end of the '64 leaf. If you

>went this route, you could tune the height better (longer bolts = lower

car)

>by useing different bolt lengths. Also you could change the bolts if you

>ever wanted to auto-x the car and needed the extra negative camber.

>Mark Sutton

>******************************

>

>

>majordomo@skiblack.com with "unsubscribe virtualvairs" (no quotes) as the

>first

>

Joe West

05-10-2005, 06:19 AM

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

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:36:39 -0600

From: "Larry & Marybeth Claypool" <tatra@urbancom.net>

Re: <VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

problem with longer bolts is they will touch the inside of the rims. tried

that!

laerry claypool

Joe West

05-10-2005, 06:19 AM

- ----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Sutton <suttonmk@earthlink.net>

To: <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 8:51 AM

<VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

> Jeff wrote:

> i could have the spring de-arched if necessary .what do

> you think ?

>

> I think it would be less expensive, easier and not at all cheasy to use

> longer than stock grade 8 bolts to attach the end of the '64 leaf. If you

> went this route, you could tune the height better (longer bolts = lower

car)

> by useing different bolt lengths. Also you could change the bolts if you

> ever wanted to auto-x the car and needed the extra negative camber.

> Mark Sutton

Joe West

05-10-2005, 06:21 AM

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

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:57:26 -0600

From: "Larry & Marybeth Claypool" <tatra@urbancom.net>

Re: <VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

probably should add this happens only under auto cross conditions, but since

it sounds like that is what jeff has in mind....

larry

Joe West

05-10-2005, 06:21 AM

- ----- Original Message -----

From: Larry & Marybeth Claypool <tatra@urbancom.net>

To: Mark Sutton <suttonmk@earthlink.net>; <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 5:36 PM

Re: <VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

> problem with longer bolts is they will touch the inside of the rims. tried

> that!

> laerry claypool

>

Joe West

05-10-2005, 06:21 AM

Joe West

06-08-2005, 11:59 AM

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:01:14 -0500

From: "Robert S. Wilkinson" <wilk@cellbio.wustl.edu>

<VV> Re: 64 rear suspension on 63

There's been discussion lately regarding LM rear suspension in an EM. I've

dreamed of that, but you've convinced me to drop the idea. A lesser

ambition was upgrading my 63 to the 64 transverse spring. May I have your

learned comments on the following:

1). Is a stock 64 clearly better than a stock pre-64 in handling (I have a

64 front suspension with swaybar already, plus 64 rear drums, with 63 HDS

rear springs; quite a bit of static rear negative camber)?

2). Can I upgrade practically to 64? I have a 64 transaxle, but nothing

else--is the stuff available?

3). Is there any point of adding the transverse spring to the 63 keeping

it's existing coil springs? This sounds tempting to me--more overall

verticle stiffness, but with the same roll stiffness as before. Can the

transverse spring's effective rate be titrated to make this feasible?

4). I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has tried things along

these lines.

Thanks,

Bob Wilkinson

Saint Louis

63 conv/PG

Joe West

06-08-2005, 12:00 PM

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:47:24 -0400

From: Robert Marlow <avanti@carroll.com>

<VV> Re: 64 rear suspension on 63

At 12:01 PM 9/26/01 -0500, Robert S. Wilkinson wrote:

> 1). Is a stock 64 clearly better than a stock pre-64 in handling (I have

a 64 front suspension with swaybar already, plus 64 rear drums, with 63 HDS

rear springs; quite a bit of static rear negative camber)? <

Yes, a stock '64 is clearly better than a stock pre-64 in handling, but the

difference is not huge.

> 2). Can I upgrade practically to 64? I have a 64 transaxle, but nothing

else -- is the stuff available? <

Sure -- parts cars abound (try Jeff at the Corvair Ranch), and the big-boy

vendors can supply a great deal of what's needed, too. In a nutshell, what

you need are both of the '64 semi-trailing arms (they have the provisions

for the outboard attachment points of the leaf spring), the '64 rear coils,

and the leaf spring itself. Plus, of course, the '64 TX, which you already

have.

>3). Is there any point of adding the transverse spring to the 63 keeping

it's existing coil springs? This sounds tempting to me--more overall

verticle stiffness, but with the same roll stiffness as before. Can the

transverse spring's effective rate be titrated to make this feasible? <

No, there is NO point to adding the transverse spring to the '63 keeping

it's existing coil springs. The transverse spring is just that -- a spring

- -- and it carries a significant percentage of the car's weight. Add it to

an otherwise stock '63 and your '63 will have aSTOUNDing positive camber!

Furthermore, why would you want to preserve the roll stiffness of the '63?

The whole point of the transverse leaf spring was to REDUCE the roll

stiffness in the rear, which, along with the standard-for-'64 sway bar up

front, is where the handling improvements come from.

Now, please note, for competition cars, especially in autocross situations,

a combination of the transverse spring with 1963 coils, CUT, is not

uncommon. This is done to reduce camber CHANGE.

> 4). I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has tried things along

these lines. <

Well, I've either tried all we've discussed or had friends who did...

- --Bob

Robert W. Marlow

avanti@carroll.com

Joe West

06-08-2005, 12:25 PM

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 19:59:58 +0800

From: "Chuck Cromwell" <corvairguy@email.com>

Re: <VV> Re: 64 rear suspension on 63

Joe West

06-08-2005, 12:26 PM

- -----Original Message-----

From: "Robert S. Wilkinson" <wilk@cellbio.wustl.edu>

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:01:14 -0500

To: virtualvairs@corvair.org

<VV> Re: 64 rear suspension on 63

> There's been discussion lately regarding LM rear suspension in an EM. I've

> dreamed of that, but you've convinced me to drop the idea. A lesser

> ambition was upgrading my 63 to the 64 transverse spring. May I have your

> learned comments on the following:

> 1). Is a stock 64 clearly better than a stock pre-64 in handling (I have a

> 64 front suspension with swaybar already, plus 64 rear drums, with 63 HDS

> rear springs; quite a bit of static rear negative camber)?

> 2). Can I upgrade practically to 64? I have a 64 transaxle, but nothing

> else--is the stuff available?

> 3). Is there any point of adding the transverse spring to the 63 keeping

> it's existing coil springs? This sounds tempting to me--more overall

> verticle stiffness, but with the same roll stiffness as before. Can the

> transverse spring's effective rate be titrated to make this feasible?

> 4). I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has tried things along

> these lines.

>

>>>... Thats the way to go. I did that to my Monza wagon. You will be amazed at the difference in handling. You can also install longer bolts in the trailing arms.This will let you adjust camber to a greater amount. Use of the heavy springs not recomented for the road. Auto x yes.

Chuck

- --

_______________________________________________

Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free!

http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143

Joe West

06-08-2005, 12:28 PM

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:56:51 -0400

From: Robert Marlow <avanti@carroll.com>

<VV> More on 64 rear suspension on 63

Chuck Cromwell wrote:

> Thats the way to go. I did that to my Monza wagon. You will be amazed

at the difference in handling. You can also install longer bolts in the

trailing arms. This will let you adjust camber to a greater amount. Use

of the heavy springs not recomented for the road. Auto x yes. <

Bob now adds:

Yes, you can install longer bolts in the trailing arms, and yes, this will

let you adjust camber to a greater amount. However, you are also

adjusting, however subtly, other characteristics of the car. When you

"relax" the transverse leaf spring by adjusting the ends down those longer

bolts, you gain negative camber, but you are also transferring a portion of

the load-carrying of the springs from the leaf to the coils. And when you

crank up the transverse leaf spring by adjusting up those longer bolts, you

lessen negative camber (or gain positive camber), and you are transferring

a portion of the load-carrying of the springs from the coils to the leaf.

And either way you are altering the roll characterictics.

- --Bob

Robert W. Marlow

avanti@carroll.com

Joe West

07-03-2005, 03:42 AM

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:12:34 -0700

From: "Collins, Richard" <RColli@Arizona.Midwestern.edu>

<VV> rear torsion bars

Can someone tell me the 'trick' to reattaching a torsion bar at the

differential? The bracket lines up for attachment of the two lower bolts

but I can't get the bolt holes to line up for the side bolts. I've tried

jacking it, trying it with wheels on the ground, using new cuss words all to

no avail. Thanks.

Joe West

07-03-2005, 03:47 AM

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:28:26 -0500

From: "Henry Kaczmarek" <kaczmarek@charter.net>

Re: <VV> rear torsion bars

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:12:34 -0700

"Collins, Richard" <RColli@Arizona.Midwestern.edu>

wrote:

>Can someone tell me the 'trick' to reattaching a torsion

>bar at the

>differential? The bracket lines up for attachment of the

>two lower bolts

RIchard

Try This

Take those two lower bolts back out

Take the tire off. use a jackstand to keep that side up in

the back.

Now, your bolt at the Torque Arm (You are trying to

connect the STRUT ROD at the Differential, not the Torque

Arm.)Should be loose enough so you can move the strut rod

up and down.

Now, swinging up the strut rod, attached to its bracket,

up to the differential. Put in the left upper bolt into

its hole, but don't tighten it all the way. Just far

enough to hold it in, about half way.

Now, put your floor jack under the other end of the strut

rod, jack the torque arm/strut rod/spring assy slowly.

Watch the bracket at the differential end. you will see

the upper hole on the other side swing into line. stop

jacking when the hole in the diff is centered in the

bracket. ALL BOLT HOLES SHOULD NOW BE IN LINE.,...

So easy it will piss you right off.

HANK

CHECK YOUR BASICS MANUAL!!!!! IT MIGHT BE IN THERE!!!!!

Oh, You don't have one!!!! GET ONE--DO IT TODAY <G>

>

>******************************

>This message was sent by the Corvair list, all copyrights

>are the property

>of the writer, please attribute properly. To

>unsubscribe,

>mailto:majordomo@corvair.org with "unsubscribe

>virtualvairs"

>(without the quotes) as the first line of the message.

> To post,

>mailto:virtualvairs@corvair.org. For help,

>mailto:vv-help@corvair.org.

>This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America,

>http://www.corvair.org/

Joe West

07-03-2005, 03:48 AM

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:35:54 -0600

From: <aircooled6@prodigy.net>

Re: <VV> rear torsion bars

Richard,

If you are talking about the lower strut rods on a late, (from transaxle to

behind the wheel, with rubber in the ends) then the easiest method (Im

assuming the car is on jackstands) I have found is to put the floor jack

under the rear of the engine, unbolt the rear motor mount and then go back

upstairs and undo the little copper ground straps from the shrouds so they

dont rip loose. Now gently lower the rear of the engine a few inches until

the bolt holes line up with the brackets and pop the bolts in. Then raise

the engine back up, tighten the motor mount as appropriate and reattach the

copper ground straps to the shrouds.

I have not found any other method that works and this one was suggested by

several people on the list.

Hope it helps.

Everett Wilson

North Richland Hills TX

67 500 4dr 110/pg/ac

64 greenbrier - on stands waiting for $$ and time.

Joe West

07-03-2005, 03:48 AM

> From: "Collins, Richard" <RColli@Arizona.Midwestern.edu>

> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:12:34 -0700

> To: "'virtualvairs@corvair.org'" <virtualvairs@corvair.org>

> <VV> rear torsion bars

>

> Can someone tell me the 'trick' to reattaching a torsion bar at the

> differential? The bracket lines up for attachment of the two lower bolts

> but I can't get the bolt holes to line up for the side bolts. I've tried

> jacking it, trying it with wheels on the ground, using new cuss words all to

> no avail. Thanks.

>

> ******************************

> This message was sent by the Corvair list, all copyrights are the property

> of the writer, please attribute properly. To unsubscribe,

> mailto:majordomo@corvair.org with "unsubscribe virtualvairs"

> (without the quotes) as the first line of the message. To post,

> mailto:virtualvairs@corvair.org. For help, mailto:vv-help@corvair.org.

> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, http://www.corvair.org/

Joe West

07-03-2005, 03:50 AM

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:46:10 -0500

From: "Norman C. Witte" <ncwitte@wittelaw.com>

RE: <VV> rear torsion bars

With the motor in the car, support the motor with a jack. Disconnect the

motor mount at the rear of the car and lower the motor several inches. This

will rotate the drivetrain so that the holes line up.

Norm Witte

CORSA, DACC, WMCC, GROUP Red

'65 Corsa 140/4 cpe.

'65 Monza 110/Glide vert.

DeWitt, Michigan

Recent Corsa misadventures:

http://www.wittelaw.com/personal/tinkering/

Less recent Corsa misadentures:

http://www.wittelaw.com/personal/legends/

The quest for a convertible Corvair:

http://www.wittelaw.com/personal/vert/

2002 DACC Homecoming Corvair show:

http://www.wittelaw.com/personal/DACC%20Homecoming/

GROUP Red -- Where the jackstand is King:

http://www.wittelaw.com/personal/groupred/

Early convertible rear window project:

http://www.wittelaw.com/personal/windows64/

- -----Original Message-----

Joe West

07-03-2005, 03:51 AM

From: owner-virtualvairs@corvair.org

[mailto:owner-virtualvairs@corvair.org]On Behalf Of Collins, Richard

Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:13 AM

To: 'virtualvairs@corvair.org'

<VV> rear torsion bars

Can someone tell me the 'trick' to reattaching a torsion bar at the

differential? The bracket lines up for attachment of the two lower bolts

but I can't get the bolt holes to line up for the side bolts. I've tried

jacking it, trying it with wheels on the ground, using new cuss words all to

no avail. Thanks.

******************************

This message was sent by the Corvair list, all copyrights are the property

of the writer, please attribute properly. To unsubscribe,

mailto:majordomo@corvair.org with "unsubscribe virtualvairs"

(without the quotes) as the first line of the message. To post,

mailto:virtualvairs@corvair.org. For help, mailto:vv-help@corvair.org.

This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America,

http://www.corvair.org/

Joe West

07-04-2005, 12:51 AM

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:18:44 -0500

From: Thomas Robert R Civ OC-ALC/MAEAPE <Robert.Thomas@tinker.af.mil>

<VV> EM rear suspension

I haven't driven an EM since high school (when they were still pretty new)

but I don't think the Empi camber compensator nor the '64 leaf spring did

anything to improve the handling of EMs (ducking behind the desk now). The

few EMs my family owned (60 4 dr, 62 Monza 900, and a couple of others I

forget) handled just fine the way they were. The 63 Spyder which lead me to

become a Corvair fanatic scared the 16 year old bejeezus out of me on a

windy road it cornered so hard. I remember seeing EMs roadracing and doing

pretty well W/O these suspension adjuncts. I think both of those devices

were placebos for the most part.

I dream of owning a nice black '63 Spyder hardtop some day.

Bob Thomas

68 Monza

Joe West

07-04-2005, 01:17 AM

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:25:52 -0400

From: Tony Underwood <tonyu@roava.net>

Re: <VV> EM rear suspension

At 03:18 PM 4/24/2003 -0500, Thomas Robert R Civ OC-ALC/MAEAPE wrote:

>I haven't driven an EM since high school (when they were still pretty new)

>but I don't think the Empi camber compensator nor the '64 leaf spring did

>anything to improve the handling of EMs (ducking behind the desk now). The

Uh oh...

Trust me, after having driven a bunch of earlies, including '60s as well as

'64s, I can attest to the positive results of the decision by GM to spend

the extra bucks on the front bar (a redesigned bar, not the earlier regular

optional bar) and the modifications to the rear suspension via that leaf.

GM has always been tight with a buck, so logic suggests (yells) that the

'64 mods were NOT a frivolous expenditure. What's more, the EMPI camber

compensator also was not a placebo by any means, having been adapted for

the Vair from the results of race track experience by Porsche, who also

wouldn't have spent the money for no good reason.

It's no coincidence that the '64 rear leaf spring looks a lot like the

camber compensator.

>few EMs my family owned (60 4 dr, 62 Monza 900, and a couple of others I

>forget) handled just fine the way they were. The 63 Spyder which lead me to

>become a Corvair fanatic scared the 16 year old bejeezus out of me on a

>windy road it cornered so hard.

This handling thing can get out of hand should certain things happen in

those corners. An early (pre-64) stock Vair will corner pretty well, up to

a point. Rear end break-away is a bit sudden with modern radials, not so

sudden with bias ply tires, gave the driver a little warning. The camber

compensator (and '64 leaf) didn't really help smooth-road cornering or

improve tire adhesion all that much, but it sure did help keep the rear end

from "jacking up" during hard cornering if the road surface was uneven.

This is what got early 'Vairs into trouble and upside down when the rear

end was bouncing and suspension travel dropped the outside rear wheel

downward, allowing the cornering forces to start acting on the positive

camber angle which jacked the rear end up even higher, facilitating the

conditions which could lead to a roll-over. *This* is what the camber

compensator and '64 leaf was intended to reduce. It didn't make the car

corner harder, it made the rear suspension remain "flatter" during extreme

cornering conditions on uneven surfaces. In other words, the rear leaf

could be the difference between getting around a hard uneven corner with a

bit of squealing tires, and ending up "sunny side down" in the weeds.

>I remember seeing EMs roadracing and doing

>pretty well W/O these suspension adjuncts.

Many of those early roadracers were using other methods of limiting the

rear suspension drop, such as negative rate "helper leafs" and swing-arm

limiters, some of them home-brew. I saw one that was using a length of

chain to limit the swing arms downward travel. Sheesh. It must have

worked... the guy was quick, and the car ran hard ('61 coupe featured in a

performance car magazine many years ago) and was raced straight-up with

other more stylish cars including V8 powered racers.

>I think both of those devices

>were placebos for the most part.

I bet a few people in here would debate this point.

>I dream of owning a nice black '63 Spyder hardtop some day.

Been there done that, I highly recommend it.

tony..

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

End of Virtual Vairs Digest V2 #5910

************************************

This message was sent by the Corvair list, all copyrights are the property

of the writer, please attribute properly. To unsubscribe,

mailto:majordomo@corvair.org with "unsubscribe virtualvairs-digest"

(without the quotes) as the first line of the message. To post,

mailto:virtualvairs@corvair.org. For help, mailto:vv-help@corvair.org.

This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, http://www.corvair.org/::::::::::::::

Joe West

07-04-2005, 01:27 AM

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:41:26 +0100

From: "Alan WESSON" <sidevalve@sidevalve.fsnet.co.uk>

Re: <VV> EM rear suspension

Et tu, Tony?

> "jacking up" during hard cornering if the road surface was uneven.

> This is what got early 'Vairs into trouble and upside down when the rear

> end was bouncing and suspension travel dropped the outside rear wheel

> downward, allowing the cornering forces to start acting on the positive

> camber angle which jacked the rear end up even higher, facilitating the

> conditions which could lead to a roll-over.

So Tony says Nader was right! This is terrible. It has blown my faith in my

world apart.

Pass the smelling salts someone, please - I can feel an attack of giddiness

coming on...

(:-))

Cheers

Anal

Joe West

07-04-2005, 01:27 AM

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:44:27 +0100

From: "Alan WESSON" <sidevalve@sidevalve.fsnet.co.uk>

Re: <VV> EM rear suspension

P.S. Meant to say - sorry about the flippant emails!

I have been at the wine again (I have it with my dinner - it's 8.45 p.m.

here!), only this time you will be pleased to hear that it's the real

Australian stuff (if you can get it, try Banrock Station - it's nectar!)

rather than French sh*t...

Sheeerrshsh

Alan

Joe West

07-04-2005, 01:33 AM

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:39:43 -0400

From: Tony Underwood <tonyu@roava.net>

Re: <VV> EM rear suspension

At 08:41 PM 4/25/2003 +0100, Alan WESSON wrote:

>Et tu, Tony?

Nope, not me... never rolled a Vair ever. I know how to drive one...

:)

>> "jacking up" during hard cornering if the road surface was uneven.

>> This is what got early 'Vairs into trouble and upside down when the rear

>> end was bouncing and suspension travel dropped the outside rear wheel

>> downward, allowing the cornering forces to start acting on the positive

>> camber angle which jacked the rear end up even higher, facilitating the

>> conditions which could lead to a roll-over.

>

>So Tony says Nader was right!

Actually no. Nader cannot be regarded as having been "right" for

parroting a bunch of technobabble regarding positive camber reactions to a

hard-cornering swing-axle vehicle. He is neither an engineer nor is he

car savvy, so his commentary and reprinted 2nd-hand remarks in that book

have little if any meaning.

By the way, the comment "...could lead to a roll-over" requires that a

number of situations all exist simultaneously.

>This is terrible. It has blown my faith in my

>world apart.

Put the planet back together. Nader was wrong then and he's still wrong

today.

>Pass the smelling salts someone, please - I can feel an attack of giddiness

>coming on...

>

>(:-))

You know the old cliche... if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle

'em with bulls#!t.

>Cheers

>

>Anal

..ynot

Joe West

07-14-2005, 04:06 PM

From: "Tin Man" <HARRY@clc.ab.umd.edu>

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:12:53 EST

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

RE: rear torsion bar installation

A bottle jack under the bracket and a drift usually line things up

pretty good to get the bolts started.

__________________________________________________ ___________

| ____________ | |

| / ____ \ | C H E S A P E A K E C O R V A I R |

| | __| |___ |_____________________________________|

| | /__ __/ | Pontiac Fiero |

| | |____| | Harry Yarnell Perryman Garage |

| \____________/ | harry@clc.ab.umd.edu |

|_______________________|_________________________ ____________|

---------

Joe West

07-17-2005, 11:20 AM

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

Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 16:41:06 -0400

From: Mike Adams <mikea@cim.eapi.com>

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

'64 Rear Suspension, Springs, etc.

Hello fellow 'Vair Nuts..........

I've been following the thread about cutting springs, etc., on '64's. I'm

glad that Jim mentioned the fact about the rear sway bar/leaf spring

carrying part of the weight on a '64. I mentioned this to a couple of guys

in private E-mail, but I guess it's time to remind/warn everybody with a '64.

A few years ago, I had the misfortune of having a rear sway bar come apart

while I was on the on-ramp entering the highway. At first I thought that the

muffler had fallen off or something, but the terrible noise I heard was the

end of the sway bar dragging the ground. After limping over to the side of

the road and accessing the situation, I decided I'd just get out the ol'

tool box, remove the offensive item, and head on home.

Boy was I in for a surprise! After removing the bar (no big deal - bolts are

usually well LUBRICATED back there <g>) and storing it (with some

difficulty), I jumped in and headed on down the road. I noticed that the car

felt a little lower, but didn't think much about it until I hit the first

pothole and bottomed out. It didn't take me long to figure out what was

going on after that. I exited the highway, and limped home on the secondary

roads at slow speed.

So, '64 owners, be sure to check out the condition of the nuts/bolts holding

the sway bar in place (Martin, David, are you listening?) and be careful

about alterations back there. I'd be interested in hearing from one of the

"experts" out there in VV land about the differences in '64 vs. 60-63

springs and about interchangability. Regards............... :-) Mike

Mike Adams - Sales Engineer

Cincinnati Industrial Machinery A Div. of Eagle-Picher Ind.

E-Mail: mikea@cim.eapi.com

Phone: 513-769-0700 Fax: 513-769-0697

******************************

Joe West

07-17-2005, 11:20 AM

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

Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:21:17 -0600

From: Bob Gilbert <bgilbert@cyberlink.bc.ca>

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

FW: '64 Rear Suspension, Springs, etc.

Here's my funny story(well, kinda..)

I had one side of my leaf spring on my 64 Spyder let go a few years ago.

Of course, cars being cars, this happened on a long bridge at rush hour

and there was no way I could stop.

The shower of sparks that erupted as the right hand side of the spring

ground its little heart out seemed, for some reason or other(!) to cause the

traffic to give me a wide 100 foot plus separation! There was this little 64

Spyder

seemingly traveling all alone at rush hour! Quite a sight!

Bob.

Joe West

07-17-2005, 11:21 AM

----------

From: Mike Adams[SMTP:mikea@cim.eapi.com]

Sent: October 1, 1996 2:41 PM

To: Multiple recipients of

'64 Rear Suspension, Springs, etc.

Hello fellow 'Vair Nuts..........

I've been following the thread about cutting springs, etc., on '64's. I'm

glad that Jim mentioned the fact about the rear sway bar/leaf spring

carrying part of the weight on a '64. I mentioned this to a couple of guys

in private E-mail, but I guess it's time to remind/warn everybody with a '64.

A few years ago, I had the misfortune of having a rear sway bar come apart

while I was on the on-ramp entering the highway. At first I thought that the

muffler had fallen off or something, but the terrible noise I heard was the

end of the sway bar dragging the ground. After limping over to the side of

the road and accessing the situation, I decided I'd just get out the ol'

tool box, remove the offensive item, and head on home.

Boy was I in for a surprise! After removing the bar (no big deal - bolts are

usually well LUBRICATED back there <g>) and storing it (with some

difficulty), I jumped in and headed on down the road. I noticed that the car

felt a little lower, but didn't think much about it until I hit the first

pothole and bottomed out. It didn't take me long to figure out what was

going on after that. I exited the highway, and limped home on the secondary

roads at slow speed.

So, '64 owners, be sure to check out the condition of the nuts/bolts holding

the sway bar in place (Martin, David, are you listening?) and be careful

about alterations back there. I'd be interested in hearing from one of the

"experts" out there in VV land about the differences in '64 vs. 60-63

springs and about interchangability. Regards............... :-) Mike

Mike Adams - Sales Engineer

Cincinnati Industrial Machinery A Div. of Eagle-Picher Ind.

E-Mail: mikea@cim.eapi.com

Phone: 513-769-0700 Fax: 513-769-0697

******************************

******************************

Joe West

07-20-2005, 12:45 PM

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

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:23:14 -0400 (EDT)

From: HEuhus@aol.com

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

63 rear suspension

Hi all!

Just got my 63 cpe out of storage a week ago and the Illinois weather has

finally

been kind enough to let me have some fun!

Bought some new Goodyear rubber, which solved the pull to the right in

the

front end. It was also my first chance to get a good look under the car, as

it was a

late fall purchase.

I have been concerned about the actual year of this car for some time. I

knew

nothing about Vairs when I bought it, and have spent considerable time

reading

everything I could get my hands over the winter.

Here's my latest for the collective wisdom of the group. I thought 64

was the only

year a leafspring was added to the rear suspension. Sure looks that's what

is under

my 63(?). Could a previous owner have made the switch, or do I not know what

the

heck I'm looking at? I need to order shocks and bushings and want to get the

right

stuff.

Here's all the # info I found so far:

VIN: 30927w292325

Style 63 0927 Body WR 89925

Trim 705 Paint 932-8 ACC F2C

Thanks again!!

Harry Euhus

******************************

Joe West

07-20-2005, 12:48 PM

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

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:27:14 -0600 (MDT)

From: dpleau@highfiber.com (Dennis & Debbie Pleau)

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

Re: 63 rear suspension

Harry,

From that VIN yours is the 192,325th 1963 Corvair built at Willow Run. It

is a Monza Coupe. If it has a '64 rear suspention, it will have a one leaf,

leaf spring connected to each rear a-arm? and clamped on the differential.

To install this in a 63 is an easy conversion that I've seen done a few

times. Check that the spring is clamped on the differental. This would

have required the diff to be changed. When I bought one of my convertables

the clamp was missing and it was a handfull to drive home. This also may

have been because the car had 35 psi in all tires.

Dennis

> Hi all!

>

> Just got my 63 cpe out of storage a week ago and the Illinois weather has

>finally

> been kind enough to let me have some fun!

> Bought some new Goodyear rubber, which solved the pull to the right in

>the

> front end. It was also my first chance to get a good look under the car, as

>it was a

> late fall purchase.

> I have been concerned about the actual year of this car for some time. I

>knew

> nothing about Vairs when I bought it, and have spent considerable time

>reading

> everything I could get my hands over the winter.

> Here's my latest for the collective wisdom of the group. I thought 64

>was the only

> year a leafspring was added to the rear suspension. Sure looks that's what

>is under

> my 63(?). Could a previous owner have made the switch, or do I not know what

>the

> heck I'm looking at? I need to order shocks and bushings and want to get the

>right

> stuff.

> Here's all the # info I found so far:

> VIN: 30927w292325

> Style 63 0927 Body WR 89925

> Trim 705 Paint 932-8 ACC F2C

> Thanks again!!

> Harry Euhus

>

>

>******************************

>This message was sent by the Corvair list, all copyrights are the property

>of the writer, please attribute properly. To unsubscribe, send mail to

>

>

>

>

>

>

******************************

Joe West

07-20-2005, 12:49 PM

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

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:11:57 -0400 (EDT)

From: NOSVAIR@aol.com

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

Re: 63 rear suspension

Hi Harry

By the info you submitted you definitely own a '63 Monza coupe. Original

color 932 Saddle Tan with matching 705 Saddle interior

Yes, the leaf spring (camber compensator) was only offered on 64's so

unless it is an aftermarket spring you should continue your search. A 64

differential, plus other suspension changes, ei coils etc.etc. would need to

be transplanted for the installation of the spring, so theres a good chance

the entire drivetrain might be from a '64. You'll need more ID numbers to

verify this.

Check the front of a shop manual for engine and trans number locations.

Try to get the head numbers too. They're cast on one end of each head

inboard of the rocker cover. These numbers, when matched to existing data in

the CORSA Tech Guide, will tell you exactly what size engine you have. The

engine block code (the last two letters) will not distinguish the engine as a

63 or 64. They only indicate what trans. was used and whether the engine was

regular, high performance or turbo. But get that code too

Don't get up yet! Check your front end too. A sway bar might indicate a

front suspension change also. Although a '63 HD suspension package was

optional, all '64's had sway bars. Just a thought.

Get back to us with those numbers and we'll be able to tell you exactly

what kind of a Heinz 57 you've got.

"Vair"ifiably Bruce Webster

******************************

Joe West

07-20-2005, 12:52 PM

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 07:38:40 -0400 (EDT)

From: JBurkhard@aol.com

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

Re: 63 rear suspension

In a message dated 97-04-28 21:06:58 EDT, HEuhus@aol.com writes:

> Here's my latest for the collective wisdom of the group. I thought 64

>was the only

> year a leafspring was added to the rear suspension. Sure looks that's what

>is under

> my 63(?). Could a previous owner have made the switch, or do I not know

what

>the

> heck I'm looking at?

Not sure if a previous owner put in a whole '64 suspension, but adding a

"camber compensator" was a pretty common aftermarket add-on for '60-'63.

This could be what you have, in which case the coils are still from a '63.

('64's have lighter coils since the transverse leaf spring carries 40% of the

load).

At this point I'll defer to someone out there who actually owns and early and

can discriminate verbally between the "camber compensator" and a real '64

leaf spring.

Jim Burkhard

65 corsa convt

******************************

Joe West

07-20-2005, 12:55 PM

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:42:49 -0400 (EDT)

From: Sethracer@aol.com

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

Re: 63 rear suspension - What the heck?

I agree, It's probably an EMPI "Camber Compensator". They were kind of a leaf

spring anti-roll bar, (If that's not an oxymoron) sold as a fix for the 60-63

cars. I think the purpose of the setup was to prevent/retard droop on the

inside wheel during cornering. It did not serve the purpose of the 64,

additional springing capability. I know I have an EMPI catalog around here

somewhere. - Seth

******************************

Joe West

07-20-2005, 12:56 PM

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:43:27 -0500 (GMT-0500)

From: Rad Davis <rad@www.horizonco.com>

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

Re: 63 rear suspension

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 HEuhus@aol.com wrote:

> Here's my latest for the collective wisdom of the group. I thought 64

> was the only

> year a leafspring was added to the rear suspension. Sure looks that's what

> is under

> my 63(?). Could a previous owner have made the switch, or do I not know

what

> the

> heck I'm looking at? I need to order shocks and bushings and want to get

the

> right

> stuff.

You may have a retrofitted '64 suspension, or you may have a real-live

EMPI bar, which was the aftermarket predecessor. In either case, it'll

make the car handle better if it's set up right, so keep it unless you

want to go concours.

> Here's all the # info I found so far:

> VIN: 30927w292325

> Style 63 0927 Body WR 89925

> Trim 705 Paint 932-8 ACC F2C

This is definitely a '63 body tag. First digit of the VIN is a 3, as is

the style. A '63 Monza coupe, if I read it right (kinda fuzzy on early

codes), built at Willow Run.

Rad Davis: rad@drums.tico.com

Side Drummer-- NCSU P&D Gr. III

Co-keeper of Scottish Drumming Web-- http://drums.tico.com/

Corvairs-- 65, 66 Corsa coupes, '65 'brier Deluxe http://www.corvair.org/

"I was educated once. It took me years to recover." -- Samuel L. Clemens

******************************

Joe West

07-20-2005, 12:56 PM

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:41:34 -0400 (EDT)

From: Tony Underwood <tonyu@roanoke.infi.net>

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

Re: 63 rear suspension - What the heck?

At 11:42 AM 4/29/97 -0400, you wrote:

>I agree, It's probably an EMPI "Camber Compensator". They were kind of a leaf

>spring anti-roll bar, (If that's not an oxymoron) sold as a fix for the 60-63

>cars. I think the purpose of the setup was to prevent/retard droop on the

>inside wheel during cornering. It did not serve the purpose of the 64,

>additional springing capability. I know I have an EMPI catalog around here

>somewhere. - Seth

If you don't, I do.

Ironic that the camber compensator was sometimes called a swaybar when in

fact it worked in the opposite manner and *provided* some roll to the rear

to keep that outside wheel in the fenderwell instead letting it pivot down,

scrubbing it's hubcap lip on the pavement. If it was setup tight, it also

stiffened the ride a bit on rough roads, but I doubt that anyone who thought

enough of his Corvair to install the compensator ever minded the slightly

firmer ride. I had no problems with it at all, and it did help handling

(IMHO).

It was those rebound straps that I cringed over... ugh! Somebody should

have come up with something/anything that worked better. Run over a pot

hole and Bang! goes the rear suspension. Ever ride in a car with rebound

straps?

Maybe the car I rode in had the straps too short or something... but it was

nasty. It might work on a track with a course as flat as Kansas, but not on

a street car.

In the meantime... my buddy Bill W still keeps talking about adapting an

entire late front-rear suspension to an early model.

Bill B asks "Why not just get a late and be done with it?"

I think it's because Bill W has some sort of fetish for 5 lug wheels and big

brakes on an early... but he'd better finish up his current '66 Monza (among

other things) before he starts in on an early, I think.

tony..

******************************

Joe West

07-20-2005, 01:21 PM

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 15:37:00 -0400 (EDT)

From: TATRA1@aol.com

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

Re: 63 rear suspension

In a message dated 97-04-29 09:44:22 EDT, JBurkhard@aol.com writes:

<< At this point I'll defer to someone out there who actually owns and early

and

can discriminate verbally between the "camber compensator" and a real '64

leaf spring.

>>

A true 64 leaf spring is retained by a clamp at the center bottom of the

differential case, and at the outboard ends by a triangular bracket bolted to

the bottom of the lower control arm. The EMPI camber compensator is retained

at the center by the 2 bottom bellhousing bolts, and at the outboard ends by

brackets that attach under the lower shock bolts. Their function is really

quite different from each other.

Larry Claypool

******************************

Joe West

07-24-2005, 05:11 PM

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

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 20:44:31 -0400

From: Greg Hanlin <iap6@glasscity.net>

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

<VV>: Rear Leaf Springs & Unusual Cars

Hi all,

I had an unusual failure last week in one of my '64 convertibles & =

thought some might be interested. One of the bolts holding the end of =

the spring up to the control arm broke after hitting a bump in town. =

Sheared the bolt right off at the end of the threads. I suppose I =

shouldn't be suprised as they were the original bolts and rubber =

cushions. And the cushions needed to be replaced anyway! My first =

reaction to the huge scaping noise was that the rear engine mount had =

let go and the engine was dragging on the ground. However it was only a =

leaf spring. The car hangs pretty low in back without the leafspring =

carrying its share! Anyway, I let the spring scrape the two blocks to =

my buddy's house and we went to the hardware store and got a long bolt =

and some big washers to hold it up while getting it home. Got the new =

bolts, washerss & cushions from Clark's & installed them. So, all of =

you '64 owners, better check those leaf spring bolts!

On the subject of unusal cars, it looks like I'll be adding one to my =

fleet. A '61 8 door Greenbrier Deluxe with factory 4 speed has wandered =

into my realm. It's been sitting under cover since '71. Body is =

excellent (original paint, but will need repainted), as are floors, =

wheel wells, etc. Interior & all glass are good, will need complete =

mechanical restoration. When was the last time you saw one of those?

Also for all of the Corvair/Fiero types out there, at the Hoosier Auto =

Show and Swap meet this weekend, there was an '84 Fiero Pace car for =

sale that someone had cut the top off of and convertiblized. Decent =

looking conversion but the car in general was fairly worn. Asking price =

was $2495 OBO.

Greg

******************************

Joe West

07-31-2005, 05:29 AM

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 16:33:51 -0500

From: vair69@juno.com (Rick Fulkerson)

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

<VV>: Rear Susp. Question

Hello All,

I've seen threads on lowering the front susp. My question is, do you

lower the rear the same way. (cut one coil, with or without HD springs).

Also, I'm looking for someone to do a complete reseal on my drivetrain. I

need valve seals and all major gaskets in the engine. Also, need the

throwout bearing "snout" replaced in the transaxle with a full set of

gaskets. I live in central Indiana. Anybody know someone who is good with

this stuff. Please E-mail me privately with suggestions and/or estimates.

If it makes any difference, it's a 110 3-spd non-posi in a 69. Thanks

Rick

__________________________________________________ ___________________

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com

Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

******************************

Joe West

08-01-2005, 11:53 AM

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

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:40:23 -0500

From: Frank_Polgar/OPDALLAS/Coro@coro.com

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

<VV>: 1964 Rear Suspension

I was comparing the angle of the rear tires on my 1964 and 1965 Monza

coupes and found them to be different. The tires on the 1964 were angled

inwards while the tires on the 1965 were angles outwards. My concern is

the 1964. Is it normal for the rear tires to angle inwards? If not, what

do I need to do to correct this? Thanks for the help!

Frank Polgar

******************************

Joe West

08-01-2005, 11:54 AM

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

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:58:55 EDT

From: Sethracer@aol.com

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

<VV>: Re: 1964 Rear Suspension

Which angle Frank? The fore-aft angle is toe-in/toe-out . The Vertical angle

is positive/negative camber. What direction did you notice the difference? If

from the rear of the car, you are seeing camber differences. With early

models, like your 64, camber is tied to ride height. as the car is lowered,

camber becomes more negative. On late models Camber is adjustable (within

ranges) independent of ride height. If an early model suddenly exhibits

negative camber (inward leaning at the top) you have a springing problem,

which, on your 1964 model, could indicate transverse leaf issues. - I'm sure

Larry Claypool - Opps, I mean "larry claypool" will have special checks for

ride height on early models. Good Luck, Seth Emerson

******************************

Joe West

08-01-2005, 12:06 PM

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

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 16:54:45 EDT

From: EUGENE1938@aol.com

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

<VV>: Re: 1964 Rear Suspension

In a message dated 8/31/98 5:41:51 PM, Frank_Polgar/OPDALLAS/Coro@coro.com

writes:

<<

I was comparing the angle of the rear tires on my 1964 and 1965 Monza

coupes and found them to be different. The tires on the 1964 were angled

inwards while the tires on the 1965 were angles outwards. My concern is

the 1964. Is it normal for the rear tires to angle inwards? If not, what

do I need to do to correct this? Thanks for the help!

Frank Polgar >>

If you are referring to the angle from top to bottom angling in on the 64,

that

is correct. If you put a heavy load in the car the springs will be compressed

and the wheels will angle out at the bottom. The wheels on the 65 should be

vertical or angle out at the bottom just slightly. That's the way they were

designed.

Ed Corson

IECC

******************************

Joe West

08-01-2005, 12:19 PM

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

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 22:33:53 -0700

From: tatra@urbancom.net (Claypool, Marybeth)

To: Multiple recipients of <corvair@jlab.mitre.org>

<VV>: Re: 1964 Rear Suspension

when viewed from behind, a stock corvair should have no noticeable angle

(camber) of the rear wheels; if they are closer together at the bottom

this is positive camber. you want a small (measurable but not

noticeable) amount of positive camber for the best of tire wear; when

the wheels are closer together at the top this is negative camber- a

visual amount of negative is best for handling if you corner hard, but

wears out the inside edge of the rear tires pretty quick. On an early it

is a function of the springs to set the camber angle, so if yours is

visibly one way or the other it's time for new correct coil springs. on

a 64, the leaf spring bushings also contribute to correct ride hieght

and camber. lates are adjustable, but not so adjustable you can

compensate for worn out strut rod bushings which causes much negative

camber

larry claypool

Frank_Polgar/OPDALLAS/Coro@coro.com wrote:

>

> I was comparing the angle of the rear tires on my 1964 and 1965 Monza

> coupes and found them to be different. The tires on the 1964 were angled

> inwards while the tires on the 1965 were angles outwards. My concern is

> the 1964. Is it normal for the rear tires to angle inwards? If not, what

> do I need to do to correct this? Thanks for the help!

>

> Frank Polgar

>

> ******************************

> This message was sent by the Corvair list, all copyrights are the property

> of the writer, please attribute properly. To unsubscribe, send mail to

>

>

>

>

******************************

Joe West

08-21-2005, 10:39 PM

To: "Larry & Marybeth Claypool" <tatra@urbancom.net>,

"Mark Sutton" <suttonmk@earthlink.net>, <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

References: <199911061456.GAA04350@vulture.prod.itd.earthlink.n et> <000201bf28b0$05da2200$70d2d6d8@tatra>

Re: <VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:57:26 -0600

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

Sender: owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com

Precedence: bulk

probably should add this happens only under auto cross conditions, but since

it sounds like that is what jeff has in mind....

larry

Joe West

08-21-2005, 10:40 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: Larry & Marybeth Claypool <tatra@urbancom.net>

To: Mark Sutton <suttonmk@earthlink.net>; <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 5:36 PM

Re: <VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

> problem with longer bolts is they will touch the inside of the rims. tried

> that!

> laerry claypool

>

Joe West

08-21-2005, 10:40 PM

----- Original Message -----

> From: Mark Sutton <suttonmk@earthlink.net>

> To: <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 8:51 AM

> <VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

>

>

> > Jeff wrote:

> > i could have the spring de-arched if necessary .what do

> > you think ?

> >

> > I think it would be less expensive, easier and not at all cheasy to use

> > longer than stock grade 8 bolts to attach the end of the '64 leaf. If

you

> > went this route, you could tune the height better (longer bolts = lower

> car)

> > by useing different bolt lengths. Also you could change the bolts if

you

> > ever wanted to auto-x the car and needed the extra negative camber.

> > Mark Sutton

>

>

******************************

majordomo@skiblack.com with "unsubscribe virtualvairs" (no quotes) as the

first line of the message. Post mail to: virtualvairs@skiblack.com .

For help, send mail to: vv-help@skiblack.com .

-- End --

From ???@??? Thu Dec 02 22:54:16 1999

Return-Path: <owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Received: from tiger.skiblack.com ([216.181.62.106])

by buckpalace.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(99/07/15 5.25))

id SAA20715; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 18:59:56 -0500 (EST)

[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]

Errors-To: <owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Received: (from majordomo@localhost)

by tiger.skiblack.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA07626

for virtualvairs-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 18:53:37 -0500

X-Authentication-Warning: tiger.skiblack.com: majordomo set sender to owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com using -f

Received: from urbancom.net (s1.urbancom.net [209.81.198.32])

by tiger.skiblack.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA07622

for <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 18:53:34 -0500

Received: (qmail 7797 invoked from network); 6 Nov 1999 23:53:28 -0000

Received: from tnt15b-112.focal-chi.corecomm.net (HELO tatra) (216.214.210.112)

by s1.urbancom.net with SMTP; 6 Nov 1999 23:53:28 -0000

Message-ID: <005c01bf28b2$560c4e40$70d2d6d8@tatra>

Reply-To: "Larry & Marybeth Claypool" <tatra@urbancom.net>

Joe West

08-21-2005, 10:43 PM

Reply-To: "Larry & Marybeth Claypool" <tatra@urbancom.net>

From: "Larry & Marybeth Claypool" <tatra@urbancom.net>

To: "Mark Sutton" <suttonmk@earthlink.net>, <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

References: <199911061456.GAA04350@vulture.prod.itd.earthlink.n et>

Re: <VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:36:39 -0600

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

Sender: owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com

Precedence: bulk

problem with longer bolts is they will touch the inside of the rims. tried

that!

laerry claypool

Joe West

08-21-2005, 10:43 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Sutton <suttonmk@earthlink.net>

To: <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 8:51 AM

<VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

> Jeff wrote:

> i could have the spring de-arched if necessary .what do

> you think ?

>

> I think it would be less expensive, easier and not at all cheasy to use

> longer than stock grade 8 bolts to attach the end of the '64 leaf. If you

> went this route, you could tune the height better (longer bolts = lower

car)

> by useing different bolt lengths. Also you could change the bolts if you

> ever wanted to auto-x the car and needed the extra negative camber.

> Mark Sutton

******************************

majordomo@skiblack.com with "unsubscribe virtualvairs" (no quotes) as the

first line of the message. Post mail to: virtualvairs@skiblack.com .

For help, send mail to: vv-help@skiblack.com .

-- End --

From ???@??? Thu Dec 02 22:49:21 1999

Return-Path: <owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Received: from tiger.skiblack.com ([216.181.62.106])

by buckpalace.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(99/07/15 5.25))

id SAA02171; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 18:04:31 -0500 (EST)

[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]

Errors-To: <owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Received: (from majordomo@localhost)

by tiger.skiblack.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA07355

for virtualvairs-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:53:26 -0500

X-Authentication-Warning: tiger.skiblack.com: majordomo set sender to owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com using -f

Received: from mail.earth1.net (mail.earth1.net [208.157.7.9])

by tiger.skiblack.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07352

for <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:53:24 -0500

Received: from [208.157.7.207] by mail.earth1.net (NTMail 5.00.0010/NU4397.00.a7d8879a) with ESMTP id shcpcaaa for

Joe West

08-21-2005, 10:44 PM

<virtualvairs@skiblack.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:53:05 -0500

Message-ID: <003c01bf28b1$eb5371a0$cf079dd0@ricjan.earth1.net>

From: "Rick & Janet Norris" <ricjan@earth1.net>

To: "Mark Sutton" <suttonmk@earthlink.net>, <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Re: <VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:32:42 -0600

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3

Sender: owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com

Precedence: bulk

Mark,

The longer bolts on the ends of the leaf spring works. I had that on my dune

buggy with 63 suspension.

We could adjust it between autocrossing and street.

Rick Norris

Joe West

08-21-2005, 10:44 PM

-----Original Message-----

From: Mark Sutton <suttonmk@earthlink.net>

To: virtualvairs@skiblack.com <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Date: Saturday, November 06, 1999 9:23 AM

<VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

>Jeff wrote:

>i could have the spring de-arched if necessary .what do

>you think ?

>

>I think it would be less expensive, easier and not at all cheasy to use

>longer than stock grade 8 bolts to attach the end of the '64 leaf. If you

>went this route, you could tune the height better (longer bolts = lower

car)

>by useing different bolt lengths. Also you could change the bolts if you

>ever wanted to auto-x the car and needed the extra negative camber.

>Mark Sutton

>******************************

>This message was sent by the Corvair list, all copyrights are the property

>of the writer, please attribute properly. To unsubscribe, send mail to

>majordomo@skiblack.com with "unsubscribe virtualvairs" (no quotes) as the

>first line of the message. Post mail to: virtualvairs@skiblack.com .

>For help, send mail to: vv-help@skiblack.com .

******************************

majordomo@skiblack.com with "unsubscribe virtualvairs" (no quotes) as the

first line of the message. Post mail to: virtualvairs@skiblack.com .

For help, send mail to: vv-help@skiblack.com .

-- End --

From ???@??? Thu Dec 02 22:49:54 1999

Return-Path: <owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Received: from tiger.skiblack.com ([216.181.62.106])

by buckpalace.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(99/07/15 5.25))

id XAA19040; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:30:59 -0500 (EST)

[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]

Errors-To: <owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Received: (from majordomo@localhost)

by tiger.skiblack.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA08253

for virtualvairs-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:24:11 -0500

X-Authentication-Warning: tiger.skiblack.com: majordomo set sender to owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com using -f

Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40])

by tiger.skiblack.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA08250

for <VIRTUALVAIRS@skiblack.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:24:10 -0500

From: BDavis9085@aol.com

Received: from BDavis9085@aol.com

Joe West

08-21-2005, 10:49 PM

for <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:56:09 -0800 (PST)

Message-Id: <199911061456.GAA04350@vulture.prod.itd.earthlink.n et>

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295)

Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 08:51:54 -0600

<VV> Re: wagon rear suspension mods

From: "Mark Sutton" <suttonmk@earthlink.net>

To: virtualvairs@skiblack.com

Mime-version: 1.0

X-Priority: 3

Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Sender: owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com

Precedence: bulk

Jeff wrote:

i could have the spring de-arched if necessary .what do

you think ?

I think it would be less expensive, easier and not at all cheasy to use

longer than stock grade 8 bolts to attach the end of the '64 leaf. If you

went this route, you could tune the height better (longer bolts = lower car)

by useing different bolt lengths. Also you could change the bolts if you

ever wanted to auto-x the car and needed the extra negative camber.

Mark Sutton

******************************

majordomo@skiblack.com with "unsubscribe virtualvairs" (no quotes) as the

first line of the message. Post mail to: virtualvairs@skiblack.com .

For help, send mail to: vv-help@skiblack.com .

-- End --

From ???@??? Thu Dec 02 22:35:45 1999

Return-Path: <owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Received: from tiger.skiblack.com ([216.181.62.106])

by beasley.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(99/07/15 5.25))

id JAA01593; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:31:27 -0500 (EST)

[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]

Errors-To: <owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Received: (from majordomo@localhost)

by tiger.skiblack.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA05535

for virtualvairs-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:20:25 -0500

X-Authentication-Warning: tiger.skiblack.com: majordomo set sender to owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com using -f

Received: from members.unlimited.net (root@members.unlimited.net [209.186.200.8])

by tiger.skiblack.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA05532

for <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:20:23 -0500

Received: from pavailian (ts4-147.unlimited.net [209.186.200.147])

by members.unlimited.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA28634;

Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:13:10 -0800

Message-Id: <199911061413.GAA28634@members.unlimited.net>

X-Sender: vairlovr@mail.unlimited.net

Joe West

08-21-2005, 10:58 PM

Message-ID: <000b01bf27a9$27dcc7c0$7b604f0c@default>

Reply-To: "jeffrey & gayle angelli" <gangelli@worldnet.att.net>

From: "jeffrey & gayle angelli" <gangelli@worldnet.att.net>

To: <virtual.vairs@skiblack.com>

<VV> wagon rear suspension mods

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:16:44 -0500

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211

Sender: owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com

Precedence: bulk

hi guys ,as i work on the fitch wagon i find the rear camber at neg 4 deg

with the fitch springs ,i know they were`nt meant for the greater weight of

the wagon but they are originals,now handling is great,rear end is awful low

though ,i have thought of ways to get up to neg 2 deg which should still

handle well but give me some space between the car and ground and save the

tires a bit . rubber spacers are easiest but kind of cheasy,bolt type

expanders won`t fit and are just as cheasy,now i discovered while doing a

heater hose and oil change mr claypool had replaced the 62 diff for the

previous owner with a 64 diff,thanks larry !! i have a spare 64 cross

spring,question ,how do i mount the spring to the a-arms easiest without

replacing them with 64 models ? i think this mod will work well the fitch

springs are pretty soft like 64 models and the wagons extra weight helps to

compress them more ,i could have the spring de-arched if necessary .what do

you think ? the front is stock cut one coil with quick arms but is still 1

inch higher than back . i also got a line on an avanti from ebay ,i bid as

a lark <gg> and tied the high bid ,a 69 with 350/300 vette power auto trans

air etc,good condition rust free frame from caifornia and green . 4,850$

!!!! what a bargain ,but i have to wait to see if bidder number one can

swing it on monday ,if not i am up to bat .any idea on shipping cost from

cali to new york for a car ? vair content added ,both avanti and vair

were ahead of their time and failed. jeff angelli 62 fitch wagon,mad

platypus race brier ,66 monza convert going into hibernation,69 avanti???

******************************

majordomo@skiblack.com with "unsubscribe virtualvairs" (no quotes) as the

first line of the message. Post mail to: virtualvairs@skiblack.com .

For help, send mail to: vv-help@skiblack.com .

-- End --

From ???@??? Thu Dec 02 22:54:15 1999

Return-Path: <owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Received: from tiger.skiblack.com ([216.181.62.106])

by morse.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(99/07/15 5.25))

id KAA22796; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:37:46 -0500 (EST)

[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]

Errors-To: <owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com>

Received: (from majordomo@localhost)

by tiger.skiblack.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01912

for virtualvairs-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:16:23 -0500

X-Authentication-Warning: tiger.skiblack.com: majordomo set sender to owner-virtualvairs@skiblack.com using -f

Received: from urbancom.net (s1.urbancom.net [209.81.198.32])

by tiger.skiblack.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA01909

for <virtualvairs@skiblack.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:16:21 -0500

Received: (qmail 4852 invoked from network); 5 Nov 1999 15:16:16 -0000

Received: from tnt15b-15.focal-chi.corecomm.net (HELO tatra) (216.214.210.15)

by s1.urbancom.net with SMTP; 5 Nov 1999 15:16:16 -0000