Rear end configurations

[Tic's60]

Probably get flamed or start a war but here goes............

Why did Chevy use Coil springs in the 58-63/64 cars?

Why not leaf springs?

I have see some 63's with leafs under them and they seem to do very well so why was this not more popular? Or was it?

JMHO - But a properly setup leaf system with ladder bars would seem to be a good fit for a car of these years. I know the enemy of both coil and leaf is rear end deflection but that can be over come in either case fairly well.


Just some arm chair engineering

 

[1958 delivery]

GM was attempting to build bigger, smoother riding cars. Coils are a better design to achieve a softer, smoother ride. Additionally, coils are much lighter than leafs.

 

[oldimpala]

Tic-

He isn't kidding; one of my best friends has a '63 Galaxie XL Convertible; and though I like the look of the car, Ford was ususally a few years behind GM in development.

The car rides far worse; the back feels like a modern day 1/2 ton pickup. Plus, believe me, they're harder to service, I can say they're heavier, and believe this or not.... The car corners worse than a '58-'64 X-Frame.

My Chevy feels worlds better going down the road; though his car is actually a fresh resto, and mine is just about to head into one.

Look at the Car, R&T, Motor Trend, etc ads. They all rave about the cornering, ride quality, etc.... As well as the outstanding brakes (?), and crisp power steering (??).


-Andy

 

[NASCAR FAN]

Strangly Oldsmobile didn't change to rear coil springs until 1961. 1965 was the first year Fords had rear coils.

Rick

 

[ROYALOAK62]

Rear end con fiqurations

Harley Earl the head designer was big on RIDE HEIGHT and SIZE and GROUND CLEARANCE

Compared to the 1957 Chevy to the 1958 it is, 9 1/2 inches longer (2 1/2 in wheelbase), 4 inches wider, 2 inches was shaved from the roofline, but Impala was even lower by another inch.

couldn't do that with leaf springs in a production car.

Dave

 

[NASCAR FAN]

With the 58's lower center of gravity, one would think it would have handled well on the NASCAR race tracks. For some reason it didn't. The worst, by far, of all the Chevrolets.

Rick

 

[gearhead409]

the 58 chevy must have been a new learning curve for gm. new frame, new engine??? the 59 was much better, wider tread width, longer wheel base, rear panhard bar, larger ex. manifolds and the car cut the air better.

 

[1958 delivery]

the 58 chevy must have been a new learning curve for gm. new frame, new engine??? the 59 was much better, wider tread width, longer wheel base, rear panhard bar, larger ex. manifolds and the car cut the air better.

Aren't all the 58-64 frames essentially the same? At least in regards to wheelbase and width.

If the tread width was wider it could have only been due to wider wheels and isn't the wheel base identical?

I read somewhere that the 58 was actually supposed to be the new 1957 but they didn't have it ready so it got moved back a year. In light of the beautiful 1957 Bel Air I am glad this happened.
And yes, the 57 Bel Air Sport Coupe is on my all time favorite list, and no, I would never put a 348/409 in one!

 

[Tic's60]

Ok so it was the ride that made the rear configuration what it is. So with that why not go for a triangulated 4 bar setup now? From my readings it's smooth, solid and handles the horsepower fine with or without the sway bar.

Now it's totaly adjustable in ride, height, pinion angles etc.