All Activity

I've been running the plate style spacers for years, but I think they're 5/8, so really not enough to make much of a difference in this case. Mine were mostly to make up for the hub bore difference, bonus of the fitment being better

It shouldn't be much lower than it was, but I definitely should get it aligned again. It's hard to tell since I had them all the way apart. I should have measured the wheel gap and/or fender height from the ground before and after, but I didn't for some reason.

Except you can't get any under 1"

I'm seeing -.65 on both front wheels as the finished setting by the shop, that's a little more than negative half a degree. You're at just under 1 degree negative on the rears. I personally wouldn't adjust those at all, but those settings were done 2 years ago, you've had the front end apart & the car now sits lower, that will alter those earlier settings to some degree. Lowering the car will induce more negative camber.

I'm at just under - 1. I raised it a little more.

I would think bolt-on spacer adaptors would be simpler than replacing 20 studs.

Unsubscribe

Ive had about 10 Luminas in the family starting in '90. The '91 we bought in '95 was a base w/14s. Ive put those base wheels on 2 of our '90s & my current '93, often keeping an OE 14" steelie in place of the donut as a highway-worthy spare tire upgrade. I didnt know this was a surprise to anyone. 1st Lumina steelies are all 14". Alloy upgrades were 15" or 16". Same brakes from '90-'94.

I do, so I'll have to check later and reference my alignment printout.

I don't have a 2nd gen GM service manual so I do not know what the factory set the camber to.

I can't recall, but it's close to stock. I think I should probably be able to go more negative without issue.

You could dial in a little more negative camber on the fronts....do you know what the current setting is? One doesn't want to go *stupid* dramatic with negative.

Gotcha, yes they are only single adjustable (rebound). Stiffening them up seemed to help in the past when the rears would do that, but could have just been in my head. I would go lower if I could, but they would hit a lot because of how close the tire is to the outside of the fender. That's what I get for living the "stance" life. I'll have to make due with the shocks I have. I don't think there are any coilover options for these with double adjustable ones. I could probably make something work if I researched enough, though, but I am much happier with the ride now.

You're getting contact with the fender when the spring compresses, the shocks if they are single acting they don't dampen when compressing...only when they rebound. If what you have is an acceptable ride (not bone jarring) & the ride height is where you want it (even tho the fender is close to the tire), then what I suggest is a double acting shock that provides dampening in both directions. Seeing as you have mounted coil-overs you may be able to find double acting shocks for that setup.

I'm talking about the strut dampening adjustment.

Don't know how one changes the spring rate of a coil, it's built into the springs particular design rating.

Already did that. They need a little more suppression.

Stiffen them up? or raise the car slightly

I'm running (iirc) 450 and 350 and it's pretty dang tight, but not super stiff on normal roads (so it does suck sometimes around here haha). I'm gonna look back and see if I can find if my memory is correct edit: close, 400 and 350

So far, it rides better. I need stiffen them up a little because the tires scrub on bumps sometimes.

The Ford rotor *hat* is shorter, the overall height of the Ford rotor is only 1/4" more than that of the W rotor. The Impala rotors bolt circle is 118mm (4.6"), the W rotor is 115mm & the Ford is 114.5mm (4.5"). The Ford rotors pad surface thickness is near identical to the W rotor thickness 1.040" vs Ford 1.101".

Oh, I didn't know about the J-bodies having the same radio, but it makes sense. I think some 3rd-gen F-bodies used the same radio as the Grand Prix. I'd read the same thing about the amps on the GMT400 forum while searching for info on these, as I'd wondered if I could just replace my CDM module rather than repairing it, but ended up deciding that'd be pointless as probably all of them need those capacitors by now. Anyway, I can confirm the amplifiers are 100% the same between the non-EQ and 5-band EQ models. There is no difference whatsoever between the amplifier stages. They're both using a pair of Delco DM165 2-channel amplifier ICs. In fact, I used my 5-EQ CDM (from GP radio) as a DM165 donor for my non-EQ Cutlass radio because one of its DM165s was blown. There's only one difference between the non-EQ and 5-EQ models and that's the presence of the EQ IC. In the non-EQ model, there are shorting jumpers (yellow arrows in the image) to connect the EQ input solder pads to EQ output pads. That said, there is a newer CDM with different amplifier ICs. You can tell them apart because the amplifier heatsink has vertical fins instead of horizontal. It's very likely that one does have more powerful amps. In this pic, top is old (like I have) and bottom is the newer one. The GMT400 thread did mention the old and new style are completely interchangeable. They communicate via E&C Databus, which has been somewhat hacked. https://stuartschmitt.com/e_and_c_bus/ I think Tech 1 and Tech 2 have the ability to read it with the right cartridge and cable. If it uses a CDM similar like the top one in the previous pic, then I'd bet on it.

I have for 24 years used the nylon pad/blocks and have had no problem. I bought and installed the rubber pads with the 3-M adhesive after cleaning them while a new rack unit was being installed. They didn't stay in place so I bought the nylon pads which lifted the car back up to a nice stance. I did grease the ends of the leaf spring. I have zero complaints and have had the car for 27 years. I replaced them once and I bought an extra pair and should install them again.

The factory radio is cutting in and out on some of the speaker channels in mine as well. I’m sure it’s some caps going bad.

Apparently, they are a lot more common than we may realize. Any 2 piece HU like yours used those radio modules. The 88-94 Regals, the early GPs, Sunbirds, 88-94 GMT 400s etc…There were also a number of variations of them, based on whether there was just bass and treble controls or the 5 band eq, as well as whether they were equipped with AM stereo capabilities or not. I’d venture an educated guess that every OBD1 GM vehicle with steering wheel controls is just about guaranteed to use one. On the GMT400 front, I have heard that the modules intended for the 5 band EQ models also have a higher power amplifier in them. I tend to believe that, based on my experience with my Regals Pretty sure those also have some sort of databus that is accessible via a Tech 1. There are troubleshooting steps in my Regal FSM that allude to using bi-directional controls on a Tech 1 to monitor and control some of the radio functions for troubleshooting purposes.