Chevy Impala SS Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi guys, the Moog 6101's in the back of my wagon are compressed to a length of 11.0" installed.
They've got an advertised free height & rate of 13.12" & 389 lbs/in, respectively.
That would indicate a sprung weight of 2 x (13.12-11.0) x 389 = 1650 lbs.
Seems a bit low, considering wagon is about 4550 lbs with 50/50 F/R weight distribution.
I can remember how much fuel was in the tank when I measured, but wouldn't that mean rear axle assembly in in the neighborhood of 625 lbs? Kinda high, no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,406 Posts
So your calculated weight is off by 33%. If the tank was empty the error is 25%(+100-130Lbs) at 2200lbs rear.

About 200Lbs for a axle and 120Lbs for two stock tires and rims =350Lbs. + arms and other suspension parts.parts Maybe 400Lbs?

1650+400=2050Lbs add some gas and you are just about dead on.

Exactly 11inches? 2 x (13.12-10.9) x 389 = 1727 lbs. Does not take much to change things by 100Lbs.

My wagon on Longacre scales weighs in at 4541 with some? gas.
LF 1158 RF 1161 LR 1135 RR 1088
Is the height you want low or high to what you have?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,563 Posts
I will scale my diff later today for you.

I'm going to guess 180
My impala wheels and tires 54 each if I recall correctly

Back of my car weighs 2252 last check

Your spring numbers , if believed, 2.4" ish compression would have got you pretty close.

Production springs, they seem to be all over,the ones I have physically checked
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,696 Posts
I've been using 330 lbs as the total unsprung weights in my spreadsheet that seems to have tracked well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,406 Posts
I've been using 330 lbs as the total unsprung weights in my spreadsheet that seems to have tracked well.
Impala SS axle, disks, and SS rims/tires or a wagon axle, drums, and stock metal rims/tires?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,096 Posts
Is it 50/50 weight distribution?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,563 Posts
Mine cant be really used as a reference anymore.
Aluminum engine ,set back a bit , manual trans , on and on.

46-54 full tank and spare


That said, while the tail gate and glass hanging a mile off the the back makes for neat bias numbers,
Not quite the same as good bias with the weight inside the wheel base. 🙂🙂
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
609 Posts
From my 96 RMW - stock...

Stock (with me (180lb), 100lb of stuff in the car and 1/2 tank of gas)
  • Front: 2360 = 47.7%
  • Total: 4940
  • Rear: 2560 = 51.8%
I weighed my 94 RMW (stock) recently, but can't seem to find the numbers handy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,096 Posts
That leaves .5% undecided (LOL) ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
609 Posts
I stumbled across the 1994 RMW numbers looking for something else today so figured I'd update this thread...

1994 RMW - No 3rd Row Seat (was ordered without, just storage there), lots of rust, etc but otherwise stock
Full tank of fuel
225 lb of passengers and stuff

Front: 2420
Total: 5000
Rear: 2580
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
609 Posts
Yep, but pretty consistent all things considered. I've driven through multiple times in a row and get the same numbers each time.

Not for corner balancing or anything like that, but generally good enough for this kind of thing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,563 Posts
Yes, mine are a little closer at
0.1 percent but are not rated higher than 1500 per pad . They actually freakout at 1600.

Think they must use the same load cell in my valve spring tester .
Basicaly same specs
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top