<VV> 64 leaf spring ...

[jwcorvair at aol.com]

Great information Bill. Thanks.

Joe


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris & Bill Strickland <lechevrier at earthlink.net>
To: jwcorvair at aol.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Subject: Re: <VV> 64 leaf spring ...


jwcorvair at aol.com wrote:


I have a 62 sedan into which I will be installing a 64 front and rear suspension. I was planning on buying and installing a 64 PG transaxel. From your comments, it would seem that you do not agree with that idea. So, if you have time, can you tell me a bit more about your setup?


I have a 1960 4-dr, nearly stock original, except for the suspensions -- The entire front suspension, crossmember and all, is from my old (now scrapped) 65 Corsa (springs, sway bar, brakes, everything)  -- just bolts in.  There are possible issues with the length of the Pitman and idler arms, but both from the same vehicle should be fine. Supposedly, 60's are longer, other earlies are less long, and lates are shorter, and no, I am Not talking about quick steering options.  One just wants idler and Pitman the same length, so 62 & 64 are probably the same, so it shouldn't be an issue for you.  my 60 & 65 are reportedly different.

On to the rear, which is your real question, so first, let me offer you someone else's words, so you have a good feel for why you want to do this:

A pretty good lay description of the "camber compensator", which was installed on the 1964 Corvair comes from  Pat Tobin discussing the same item, which was factory equipment on some models of the 356 Porsche, on the 356 Registry's talk list:

Remember that both the early Porsche and Beetle used transverse torsion bars instead of coil springs.

"Others have correctly stated that the improvement in cornering came not so much from the [camber compensator] itself as from the softer rear torsion bars which softened the roll stiffness in the rear so that more of the cornering load was transferred to the outside front wheel. Since the car is tail heavy, that tended to even up the dynamic weight distribution between the outside tires. 
"But just softening the rear torsion bars would then mean that the tail would be too soft, hitting bottom all the time especially if there was a load in the rear seat. The spring [effect of the rear "camber compensator"] bar added spring stiffness in the vertical plane without adding to the roll stiffness." -- Pat Tobin, 356Talk 

Which brings to mind the question of whether or not the front coil springs in a '64 were notably different that the earlier cars - the rears were lighter and differed side to side.  Crawford Rose posted the 64 spring specs back in  Jan 2007 -- http://www.vv.corvair.org/pipermail/virtualvairs/2007-January/055973.html

So, back to the question -- The lighter rear springs effectively lower the rear roll center, reducing "jacking", but to go with this one needs a bit heavier front spring and a front sway bar, which you will get with the 64 front end.

The transverse rear leaf is Not a "camber compensator" (they actually work differently, but look very similar), it merely holds the load that the new weak rear springs don't without adding to the roll stiffness (read "jacking effect").  So I replaced rear springs, rear lower control arms, because I had them (any other year could be easily modified, if you knew where to drill the holes) and installed the transverse spring.  I do not necessarily recommend not using a 64 diff, but since they are harder to find (and change) (as long as your diff is good), it is not "required" to safely obtain the handling benefits of the 64 model.  I just have a piece of half inch aluminum plate over the centering pin in the spring, and let it ride against the bottom of the diff, and it has given me no problems over many thousands of miles in this and a nearly identical previous 60 model.  Since I now have a 64 diff housing, I will be using that when I put another similar setup all together in my Lakewood, which needs a new diff, as it was an auto, but won't be in the future.  I used the outer spring link's length (how long the outer bolts are) to adjust the rear camber slightly negative -- stock length left me a bit positive -- remember, it is just a load carrying spring, and changing the length of this link has no effect on performance, per say.

With this setup, my 1960 is a bit scary, because it simply just doesn't roll or jack in the rear -- it just goes around corners flat, without that impending sense of doom that going faster would not be a good idea -- let's one believe they could go around that corner and suddenly find it was too fast, and since I am trying to keep this nice old car sorta nice, as well as this old body, I don't drive on that edge much any more -- besides, the 80 hp auto sorta lulls one into the "cruisen" mode. I think the stiffer Corsa front springs and bigger roll bar help improve the effect of the lighter rear springs over stock 64 parts.  New front replacement springs would/will probably be too long at stock height with it set for negative camber in the rear.

The only "advantage" I see of not using the 64 diff is when/if one breaks an outer link bolt, one does not grind off the end of the spring like in Lonzo's pictures, rendering the spring not reusable, but one simply drags it along behind scratching it up some.  If acquiring and changing to a 64 diff is not a problem for you, I really don't see much of a reason not to do such.

If this is clear as mud, just ask more questions   ;-)          Happy to "share opinions" ("talk Corvairish")

Bill