Chevy Impala SS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey guys,

I did a search and I couldnt find exactly what I wanted to find, so here's my question: How high should my car be sitting off the ground? Here's the deal: I was looking at some old pics of the car, and the ride height seems to be a bit lower now than before. Does anyone have measurements of how high your car sits (or sat) stock. I have a 94 model SS if that makes any difference. Thanks,
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Actually i think having a 94 does make a difference. stock springs on the 94s are different than 95 and 96. not sure how different or what makes them different but when i asked the ROD guys why my front end of my car was higher up than their cars, they said because the 94 springs are different and is common in 94's to be higher.

Now maybe whats happeneing is your springs are wearing and just through time are dropping the front end a bit. i dunno just a guess but saids good doesn't it?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Not sure what to say--tired springs?

As far as 94 vs 95-96 spring differences, look for the 3-digit alpha-numberic codes for the springs (all springs are 6xx, 7xx, 8xx and 9xx) shown on the Service Parts Identification Label (SPIL) on the inside trunk lid.

According to GM parts info, the springs are coded as follows on the Impala SS, all years:

Left front code 6TY

Right front code 7TY

Left rear code 8HL

Right rear code 9HL

The current GM P/N's for the Impala SS springs are 22077450 for the front and 22132375 for the rear. From the available information, (I thought but have now learned differently!) these are the ONLY springs that should have been installed on the Impala SS. These springs are at the lowest end of the chart for load rate, for both ends of the car.

According to the factory service manual, which has ride height specs, the FE4 (Impala SS) suspension provides ride or trim heights that are as follows:

At the front wheel, measured vertically through centerline of the wheel, from ground to edge of fender opening is 27.8" or 706mm. This is dimension P on the chart in the FSM.

At the rear wheel, measured vertically through centerline of the wheel, from ground to edge of fender opening is 27.3" or 693mm. This is dimension R on the chart in the FSM.

Measuring these dimensions requires the car to be "baseline"--proper tire pressure and size, fuel load, etc. Deviations for tire size can be roughly calculated, but the measurements assume the same size tire front and rear.

The Impala SS dimensions are 0.8" lower in front, and 1.0" lower in rear than any other production sedan--the closest being the front of the suspension option conde 7B3-equipped SEO 9C1 sedan, with 235-70-15 tires, and the rear of suspension option code FE3 sedan with 235-70-15 tires for the year listed (my book is for 96 models). Based on the lack of spring variation according to the parts list, these dimensions are PROBABLY the same for all 3 years of Impala SS production.

The one thing to remember here is that part of what makes the Impala SS lower is that the production tire is a little bit shorter than the rest of the optional 15" tires that were offered, so part of the difference in P & R dimensions is the tires themselves, meaning that the lowest 7B3 suspension, on the 9C1, is only slightly different overall from the Impala SS.

(updated info--added 9-4) the FSM provides trim height and specific reference measurements, but does not give the spring codes that correlate to each defined iteration--FE1, FE2, FE3, FE4, 7B3, etc.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I was wondering about this, too. In my 94 FSM set, they only talk about FE1, FE2 and FE3 - not the FE4 that my 94 SS has.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I know that all the literature says 94's should be the same, but I have also seen some early 94's that sit quite a bit higher than 95's and 96's all on stock springs. Maybe GM didn't cut them tot he right length on the first bunch of cars to come off the line.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
When we still had the stock springs in the '94 SS, it was noticably higher than the '96 when parked side-by-side. All the other stock 94's I've seen are the same way... higher than their 95/96 counterparts.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Well, time to check the spring codes on the 94 SPIL.

I'm not trying to say the book can't be wrong--just relating the information I could find, right or wrong. And it may well be that the car, for some reason, does sit higher in 94, even with the same parts. Maybe there was an availability problem for the correct (by the book) springs in early production.

Send in your spring codes--lets figure this out!
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I went out and measured my 94 SS and found that the front was about 27.1 inches and the rear was 26.2 inches. Compared to other year SS's I never considered mine to be any higher. It's got the stock BFG ZR4's (fairly new) and a full tank of gas in it. I guess the springs have sagged a bit over the years.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I had a copy of my SPID label right here and I forgot to post them. It lists the springs as:

Left front 6TL
Right front 7TL
Left rear 8HK
Right rear 9HK
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
On the factory spring chart, those are both one "step" higher on the rate scale and I have no reason to suspect they are not correct. I don't know what the difference may be between these and the springs mentioned earlier as far as ride height.

The TL front spring is P/N 22076510, and the HK rear spring is 22132374.

Thanks for the codes!

By the way SEO/9C1 front springs have a separate code series--they are (preceded by a 6 or 7): SA, SB, SC, SD--with the SA spring at the low end of the rate scale.

Interesting that the same front TY/TL springs are listed for 94-96 wagons (B35).
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Way2SSlow

Hope you won't mind me posting into your thread for my 94 9C1 spring codes? Maybe Bill will check back and let me know where it stands in the GM load rate chart?

There are several 6 and 7 codes but only one 8 and 9:

8RJ -- 7's: B3 L9 P8 SD X8 Y6 Z5
9RJ -- 6's: A2 A4 C8 H7 N6 SC Y1 Y5

Car sits 28 1/2" to top of wheel well cut-out on all corners on 225/70R-15 tires.

Bill..?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Car sits 28 1/2" to top of wheel well cut-out on all corners on 225/70R-15 tires

I was considering getting some SS springs to lower my 9c1, but after reading this I went out and measured mine to get an idea of how high it sits. I was a little suprized to see that mine sits at 27 1/2" front and 27" rear with a 1/2 tank of gas and 255 60 15's all around. I guess these tires could make it sit lower 27" overall diameter compared to SS 27.3"?. Maybe I should consider intrax or something different.

Jim
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by XBOXROX:
There are several 6 and 7 codes but only one 8 and 9:

8RJ -- 7's: B3 L9 P8 SD X8 Y6 Z5
9RJ -- 6's: A2 A4 C8 H7 N6 SC Y1 Y5

Bill..?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that's entirely correct. I have the following RPO codes in my 95 9C1:

Front: 6SB, 7SC
Rear: 8HJ, 9HJ

My original front springs were about 0.25-0.5" LOWER than the Global West springs, which are supposed to be SS height. The rear springs were about 0.5" higher than the SS springs.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
George--

So, you have:

6SC--left front
7SD--right front

9C1LT195--

Both HJ and RJ coded springs were used on the sedan rear, both civ and SEO. so George's rear 8RJ and 9RJ is entirely possible. RJ is higher rate than HJ.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by XBOXROX:
[QB]Way2SSlow

Hope you won't mind me posting into your thread for my 94 9C1 spring codes? QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ofcourse not. That's what the forum is here for.

Bill, I really dont know what I am looking at with the SPID, so I went ahead and took a picture for ya. I blacked out the VIN, since I put it on Imagestation, and I am paranoid. Here's the link to the pic: SPID

Oh yeah, I got the trusty ole tape measure out today. 27 1/8 up front, and 25 1/2 out back. seems like my backs are way low, huh (measured with 255/50/17's)?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Way2--

Your measurements will be off from what the book says because of the different tire size. You have to remember that, and adjust the expected results.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
And another country heard from.

I've got 6TL 7TL 8RN 9RN codes
on my wagon springs, stock.
With Impala wheels and 255/50-17's
the front is 28" and the rear is
21-1/2" with skirts. Funny it's the
same fronts as MAUSS and it's so much higher
than his SS.
 
1 - 20 of 47 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