Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How high should it sit?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How high should it sit?

    How high should the rear of a 62 GT sit when measured from the ground to the top of the rear wheel arch opening?
    I'd rather be driving my Studebaker!

    sigpic

  • #2
    I don't know ... but from the factory, the rockers should be horizontal and level with no rake.....

    Comment


    • #3
      The short answer is, what looks right to you.
      IMO, nothing ruins the elegance of a C-K more than jacking the rear end up like a high-schooler's Chevy Nova.

      IIRC, the rear wheel arch clears a standard white wall stripe by about an inch, give or take a half.
      I thought my rears were sagging, so I installed a new pair from Eaton Detroit Spring.
      The ride height stayed EXACTLY the same, but the car handled and rode so much better.

      I imagine a line that bisects the flanks and more or less level it. The top of the rear fender will be lower than the door.

      Here's a factory photo:
      Andy
      62 GT

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah, it looks like mine is sitting an inch or two low.
        I'd rather be driving my Studebaker!

        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          All of the above is fine for Pre-1963 GT Hawks, but does not apply to correct as New, Factory ride height on '63 and '64 GT's.

          I would not be at all surprised if we had evidence that they actually removed leaves, used Lowering blocks or Loads in the rear of Camera Cars for Brochures to make them Level, like they did on Golden Hawks to Lower the Rear.

          There was a serious driveshaft rubbing issue with '62's that all had a Large one Piece Driveline due to the Standard 289 Engine, so the 4 Speeds especially with the most available and more often Used Torque had a problem.

          To correct this, all later Hawks had extra Body Shims on the Frame in the Rear to give them a serious Rake which was way more noticeable when the springs were fresh, but never went away.
          StudeRich
          Second Generation Stude Driver,
          Proud '54 Starliner Owner

          Comment


          • #6
            Measured mine at two feet plus a half inch & it looks good on my '64 GT Hawk.

            \"QUIGLEY DOWN UNDER\"
            MELBOURNE.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jackb View Post
              I don't know ... but from the factory, the rockers should be horizontal and level with no rake.....
              I disagree. When the FRAME is level, the rockers will rake upward to the rear, just as the belt line rakes downward. That is THE feature that gives the C-K the sense of lightness and motion.

              That is, if you take rockers to mean the span between the front and rear wheel openings and not just the short piece below the doors.
              Note the factory photo - the lowest point of the rockers, by a good 2", is behind the front wheel arch. The highest point of the belt line is at the cowl. If you draw a straight line across the rear wheel arch (bottom the molding) it just about bisects the form for natural symmetry.

              Rich, thanks for the explanation on why so many '63-'64s have a higher ride height. I thought it was shackles or something, but shims make more sense for driveline clearance.
              Andy
              62 GT

              Comment


              • #8
                There is a AMA (Automobile Manufacturers Asso.) Spec sheet for the Avanti that lists EVERY measurement you might want (I have one). I would 'assume' there is also one for the Hawks. If someone has one, let's here from you. stupak

                Comment


                • #9
                  I have the same concerns with my 62 GT. The thing is it has newer rear (and front) springs installed by the previous owner but it still seems too low at the rear and I get tire rubbing with a load in the car. I am planning on having one long spring installed per side but I just hope it doesn't raise it too much or cause a harsh ride.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	20150729_135828.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	141.4 KB
ID:	1703060Click image for larger version

Name:	P1080424.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	188.2 KB
ID:	1703061

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X