Chevy Impala SS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm trying to decide on what lowering springs I want to get for my `96. I like the way all the cars with the ST springs look--but I'm worried that the ride will be too stiff for my liking. Especially considering I'm going to go with the stiffer bilsteins at the same time. The H&R springs sound good, but I really don't want to end up with a raked look that I'm unsatisfied with. Any other options that might do what I'm looking for? Basically I want the car to have a nice even drop with moderate performance gains. I'm not going to be driving the car everyday (as I am right now) but I don't want the ride to be unnecessarily harsh either. I'm not going to be racing it or anything.

I don't think the Eibach and Hotchkis springs will lower the car enough for my tastes. I've been hunting for pictures of H&R lowered vehicles but haven't really seen many other than bustn's (which has too much rake for me) and another SS with much bigger wheels that made it hard to tell (although it looked decently level enough).

You guys with the ST springs, how stiff do you feel the ride is.. not just in comparison to stock, but even say a factory vette/camaro ride? I'm looking for a stiffer ride with performance benefits, but dont want to be aggrevated with it--know what I mean?

You guys with the H&R springs.. how much rake do you think it gives the car.. any pictures you can offer or point me to? I know IDimpaler has the bilsteins and H&Rs and seems to be unhappy with the rake and looking for solutions.

Stiffness-wise, what's the difference in spring rate between the front H&R and ST spring? If the H&R front is going to be just as stiff, then I might just go with the ST front and rear, since so far I'm impressed with the looks of the cars using the ST springs. I could do something like H&R front and ST rear (to eliminate rake), but then I'd be willing to bet the firmness is close to having both anyway (the H&R progressive rear probably has a lot to do with the reported good ride quality, I would think, no?).

I've read almost all the posts I can find the string "H&R" or "ST" in, but I'm still not sure what I want. But some people find the ST springs too stiff and others find the H&R to have an unacceptable rake. Two things I don't want.

Thanks for any info you guys can throw at me. I appreciate it greatly...


Dave
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
It sound likes you have a pretty firm grasp of the situation. I weighed all of the same information before I bought the H&R springs. I am not so unhappy with the H&R rake that I feel that a change is necessary, but I do plan on experimenting a bit to see whether a different rear spring looks better. The rear springs are very easy to change (the fronts are pure hell unless you have done it before). Sometimes I look at the car and the ride height looks great. Other times I think the rear should come down a bit. This is a tough call because the springs affect some cars differently. My car does not have quite as much rake as bustn's car, but it does appear to have more rake than stock. Personally, I prefer the look of the STs, but I did not want a harsh ride and I did not want to deal with springs falling out when I jacked up the car (although I now know they can be tied in). I have seen some great custom rear suspension setups with the H&R front springs, but I would imagine the cost for such a setup approaches $500, which is a bit steep for springs...
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Got any pictures of your car with the H&Rs IDimpaler? Anyone else?

What about complaints regarding ST spring stiffness--anyone think these claims are overrated? I may go this route but I just don't want to be unhappy with too stiff a ride.

Anyone else with opinions? :confused:

Dave
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I put in STs and found them too low for my taste, but the car is a daily driver. Your choice.

I do not think they are too stiff and I have the early Bilsteins. I don't know what year Camaro/vette you have experience with. They are a little stiffer than my dead stock 1970 Corvette, but I like the Caprice ride and, as far as I am concerned they could be stiffer. I have the HO rear and Camaro front bars and it does corner just like I want - it is just too low for me and the midwest winter snows.

Like ride height - stiffness is a variable that some folks like one way and others another.

There is some rake to mine, but that is the way it is, I guess.

Want some measurements? I can do that, but your question was about ride quality - not ride height.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
You problaby want get away with it. Once it is down with STs or anything 2" or lower you will feel it. All I can say is trim the bump stops and get a good shock. Other than that if you wnat low and a good ride bags are your next choice and they still give you a little bounce.
I went with DJM 2" drop up front and 3" in rear. They are pretty good spring. They are thicker that the Intrax but I dont know about the STs. People here like there STs once they are on. There was problems with Intrax. I have had no problems with mine. You might have to go with the wimpy Eibachs.
Those are the only ones you will keep your ride quality.
Performance wise I know these DJMs hung the road. I took mild curve this weekend at 130 and felt some real Gs. Made my stomach turn sideways. I loved it. :D
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
there's rake to that Impala with H&Rs!? geez if that's the rake with them then they must have hated stock springs and their rake.

I'm still between H&R and Hotchkis, I need pics but noone has much!
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Photos of my car with H&R springs, as requested...

You can see the difference in rake when the wheels are cranked. The right rear drops about 0.5" when I crank the wheel to the left and vice-versa.





 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
The pictures appear to be working now. I installed ST rears on the car over the weekend and it is perfectly level now (it actually looks like the cars with front and rear STs). As expected, the rear end bounces around a little more but the difference is tolerable. I will post new images with H&R fronts and ST rears in the next couple of days.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
What about INTRAX springs? Thats what I am running on my 95 9c1 caprice and I like them pretty good. I didn't measure before and after but the springs had to of lowered my car a good 1.5 to 2 inches. The ride is fair too. I need new shocks but my car bounces very little over bumps. They were only $200 delivered to my door from summit too. Over all I like them. My problem now is shocks. When my car is lifted the back springs are too long and let the springs come off from their seats. I need to know what # of bilsteins I need for my car. Any help would be good.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
IDImpaler, thanks for the pics and all the info. You're helping myself (and from what I can see, a few others) greatly. Please get the pics up of your front HR/rear ST combo up--I'm eager to see what kind of difference it makes.

I have a question though. If the front H&R's are linear, and the rear ST's you're using are linear, do you think the ride is any different than if you just had ST's all around? What's the rate difference between the front H&R and front ST? Anyone know? If they're very similar, then it might just be better to go with the ST's period for me.

I'm beginning to think that with ST's and Bilsteins, even though the ride might be a little harsh at times, I'll still be happy since I don't drive the car daily. I do like the look of almost every car I've seen the the ST's anyway...


Anyone have input about the ST springs and the harshness of the ride?

Dave
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
If you want it LOW, use the ST's. I just installed a set on our 93 wagon 2 days ago and it looks KILLER! I was pleasantly surprised on the ride factor too. This car rolls alot and these springs stiffened her right up. I'd say it dropped it a good 3 inches. I love them on the wagon, but personally I would not use them on my SS. I started to put them on it instead, and now I think I'll go with a spring that isn't quite so low. That just my personal observation owning both a wagon and an SS. I think the ride in an SS would not be severely comprimised, and it might be "slightly" harsher, but I think I could live with it if I used ST's on the SS. Just a tad bit too low for me. On a wagon however, it looks SUPER. As a matter of fact it wouldn't bother me in the least if it settles another half to an inch. I'll try to get some pics up. Never posted any before so it might be a little bit. The info on this forum persuaded me to try these springs and I'm not a bit sorry I got them. Thanks for all the help... ;)
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #15 ·


There is a pic of my car with the SS Eibachs installed. I sit about 1.5" lower than a factory Impala SS. The rear is a little lower on mine though, due to my 100lb speaker box.

-Tom
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
It seems like everyone that accepts the fact that the ST springs are going to have a stiffer ride don't seem to mind it. I certainly will not mind a stiffer ride, I just don't want it to be TOO[/t] stiff. I think general feedback has been that the ST springs aren't obnoxiously harsh and that as long as I can accept the fact that they ride will be stiffer I'll be happy with them.

So far I like the look the ST springs have given the vehicles I've seen--I like that look above all the others. My car isn't a daily driver so I think this will also help (i.e. I won't be hitting the local grocery store speed bumps with it too often).

Gary and Lisa Grant's 94 SS #1
Gary and Lisa Grant's 94 SS #2

These two pictures are exactly what I'd like my SS to look like, and I believe ST springs on on the vehicle. IDImpaler--does your car with the front H&R's and rear ST's look similar to this?

I'm still looking for input on the difference in rate between the front H&R and the front ST. I'm thinking it can't be all that much different and I'm probably just going to go with the ST springs. If the ride is too harsh for me, I might consider alternatives, but I don't think it will be.

Dave
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
OK, here are the pics showing my car with H&R front springs and ST rears. The car looks like most cars with the STs. For $79 and and an hour of work, I think this was a successful experiment. I definitely like the new look, although the ride suffers a bit. TenaciousDB, the H&R springs are progressive while the STs are linear.



 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IDImpaler:
OK, here are the pics showing my car with H&R front springs and ST rears. The car looks like most cars with the STs. For $79 and and an hour of work, I think this was a successful experiment. I definitely like the new look, although the ride suffers a bit. TenaciousDB, the H&R springs are progressive while the STs are linear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I definitely like the look of the car in these pictures better than the first ones. I agree--it looks like most cars with ST springs. You say the H&R springs are progressive, but from what I've read previously the H&R rear springs only are progressive, while the fronts are linear. Anyone know for sure what the deal with this is?

As I've mentioned before, if the H&R fronts are linear and of similar rate as the ST springs, and the ST rears are in use anyway, it's probably almost exactly the same as having ST springs front and rear.

Car looks great though, definitely the look I'm going for as well. What kind of shocks are you running? Stiffer shocks might keep the rear from having that bouncy feeling so much...?

Thanks again for the pics!

Dave
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top